It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
I can build qemu but it doesn’t run. It fails with a memory allocation error. One of the main developers posted a page of patches that should fix things but I don’t know how to apply them. I’m going to have to do some research. But everything looks promising even though it is early in the transition.
One of the docker developers also tweeted that he has an early version of docker working as well. It seems the homebrew is a real laggard so far. They are predicting months before they have a M1 release. MacPorts has been the better solution.
Nah. I think Mac Minis will fly off the shelves *anyway*, and Microsoft will still cave in and offer a full, non-OEM, expensive, VM-compatible ARM64 Windows license, to stem the tide and maintain relevance. If they can get away with a higher profit margin on one of those selling it to many developers who would still have to buy a Mac anyway, they will, OEMs be damned.
Even though the iPhone wasn’t even out and the mobile and desktop market share figures weren’t, just like you pointed out, the comparable in 2006-2007 to what they are today, the same argument you made could’ve been construed back then (as a matter of fact, it was). That didn’t stop Microsoft back then, and it won’t stop them now, either. Especially *this* Microsoft, which, even with their decent devices division, is pivoting more and more towards services.
Take off your Apple blinders for a second. See the points below.
1. Even if Apple's market share triples, the Windows market share will still be 70%. So "maintain relevance" ... get real!!!
2. Large companies - think Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm etc. don't "cave" to Apple the way that suppliers who need Apple's business to survive do. If they did, Apple's thermonuclear war against Android would have worked. Even if Google hadn't dropped it in response to Apple kicking their CEOs off their board, Samsung/LG/Qualcomm would have refused to participate in manufacturing Android devices in order to remain preferred Apple suppliers. What actually happened: Google, Samsung, Qualcomm and the rest continued with Android and Apple is still forced to pay billions for components (from Qualcomm, Samsung and LG) and services (cloud products from Google) anyway!
3. That didn't stop Microsoft from what back then? Microsoft never provided Windows to be used on Macs in the first place. Instead, people would obtain "upgrade" copies of Windows and using those for bootcamp, VMWare etc. Microsoft wasn't happy about this but had no way to stop it. Anyone who purchases Windows - either via buying a Windows device or copy of the OS - is guaranteed the ability to upgrade to the next version. To fulfill this, Microsoft has to make Windows generally available and there is no way to determine whether any particular copy was used to upgrade a previous Windows install or not.
4. What about now? Well with Linux, you don't "need" to do a old style upgrade ... you can configure it to perform rolling upgrades using sudo apt dist-upgrade (for Debian distros, other distros have similar). Google exploited this: as ChromeOS is a Debian-based, Google only distributes the OS to OEMs and then provides rolling updates. (As ChromeOS is not a free OS like Android it was done to prevent piracy which would have been a real problem otherwise.)
5. When Nadella took over Microsoft, he emulated what Google did with ChromeOS. As such, Windows 10 is the last version of Windows. No more upgrades, only rolling updates. The only reason why you can still download a Windows ISO and license is because Microsoft is still obligated to facilitate upgrades from Windows 7 and 8. After those versions reach final EOL in January 2023, that obligation will cease. At that point, Windows will no longer be available to end users. It will only be available to OEMs.
6. What about ARM Windows 10? Well the upgrade guarantee only covers the same architecture. So you aren't guaranteed the ability to upgrade from x86 Windows 7 to ARM Windows 10: only from x86 Windows 7 to x86 Windows 10. What about previous ARM Windows versions? The only ones were Windows Mobile and Windows RT. There was never a guarantee to upgrade from Windows Mobile to Windows PC, just as there isn't from Windows PC to Windows Server. And Windows RT was EOLed before Windows 10 on ARM came out, precisely to prevent attempts to upgrade to it. (The five Windows RT users weren't happy.)
7. Bottom line: ARM Windows will never be made available to anyone but OEMs. And after 2020, x86 Windows won't be available to anyone but OEMs either.
Some of what you wrote is objectively untrue. Microsoft doesn’t just offer upgrade licenses. You can get a full, non-OEM license for a whole new computer to run Windows. You want to run Windows on an Intel NUC? That’s the license you’re supposed to buy.
With that, your points 3, 5, and 6 crumble. Microsoft has not previously sold armv7 or aarch64 Windows at retail simply because nobody was building ARM desktops/laptops more powerful than a Raspberry Pi, so there wasn’t demand for retail licenses. The market effectively didn’t exist. Now it might.
If Microsoft thinks the market is there, I expect they will just make retail Windows 10 licenses valid for x86, amd64, and aarch64. There’s no technical reason they couldn’t, and it would reduce confusion and returns. The real question is whether it would be able to run natively on the hardware or whether it would have to run in a VM under macOS.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Sure, but I was explaining why the question is worth asking. After OS support, the next concern for the usable lifespan of these machines is SSD wear, which gives them a practical limit of probably 30 years for the models with soldered flash (iMac Pro and Mac Pro have replaceable flash carts, so there is no longer a practical limit). Any limit beyond that is a choice, not something intrinsic to the system, and it's worth asking for the specifics of the choices Apple has made.
It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
I can build qemu but it doesn’t run. It fails with a memory allocation error. One of the main developers posted a page of patches that should fix things but I don’t know how to apply them. I’m going to have to do some research. But everything looks promising even though it is early in the transition.
With the patches on the following page, you can try using git apply:
I wonder whether Windows on ARM is crucial to the Microsoft business model.
Forgetting the Azure business for a moment and focusing on the core enterprise portal, if the business users are paying the Office 365 subscription charges and using MS Office, Outlook, Teams etc then is it really important that they use these applications on a Windows desktop?
Developers is another interesting consideration. The big players will continue developing for windows. The real growth is in developers writing web services and server less applications. As long as they’re deploying these to an Azure solution, is it actually important that they develop these using a Windows desktop?
It probably wasn’t. At least, not until the M1 came out. That changed things. Microsoft has had a lazy attitude towards Windows on ARM. It began in 2011. It’s been changed in major ways several times now, with not much success. But Windows is a Desktop OS. And apparently, trying to shoehorn than into a modestly performing ARM based chip is too much to ask. But now that Apple has shown how it can be done, I have no doubt Microsoft is more interested.
A long time ago, Bill Gates was asked about Microsoft’s bloated software. His response was that it was Microsoft’s job to add features, and it was the OEM’s job to make sure it ran well. That was a different approach to Apple’s. But when you aren’t integrated, I suppose that the only approach you can take. It’s why new versions of Windows, and new computer systems used to arrive together.
Would there be any benefits for Microsoft to have Windows running on M1 Macs? It's not as though Apple's Mac market share percentage is very high. Wouldn't Microsoft be undermining its own OEM partners if they did have an official build of Windows for Apple Silicon?
Microsoft looks out for Microsoft. They're not worried about OEM partners or anyone else as long as they can make a buck.
Partnering with OEMs is how they gained a near monopoly in the PC market.
They also partnered with Apple on multiple occasions. Unlike Apple, Microsoft is not horizontally integrated.
For the last few years, and much more so now, Apple is also vertically integrated.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
As for Apples backlog, I don't think it is going away anytime soon. These laptops are so good I can see them pulling significant sales from the PC space. It is actually too bad that Apple didn't debut them at the beginning of the year, with covid they would have been sold out all year. The machines are that good.
For the vast majority of users, CPU's performance passed by their needs years ago. A little bit faster won't buy them anything.
And, hardware itself does nothing -- it's simply a means to an end. All functionality -- getting work done -- comes from the software.
They will. It's not a matter of "blinking". It's a matter of it being worth their while.
In the early days they formed a cartel of Microsoft, HP and Intel. But those days are long gone. Today, Microsoft has no reason to boycott any single type of hardware and every reason to be hardware agnostic.
First off, this "cartel" of yours only existed in your head. It excludes major Windows OEMs like Dell, Compaq, IBM, Lenovo and Toshiba as well as lots of smaller ones.
Second, Microsoft has every reason not to be hardware agnostic. In the past, Windows had a 97% share of end user computing. Now there is Android, iOS, ChromeOS and macOS. Keep in mind: until around maybe 2007 or 2008, most people actually did like Windows. But since then, due to the growth of the Google (3 billion Android users, ChromeOS had 11% PC market share 3Q 2020) and Apple (2 billion iOS users, macOS 8% 3Q 2020 PC market share) platforms as well as several bad decisions by Microsoft, this is no longer the case by a long shot. The last thing that Microsoft needs to do is make it easier for people to use Windows part time on other platforms, because that inevitably leads to their leaving full time. For example: employers now put "we let our workers use MacBooks!" on recruiting pitches now.
Let me give you an example: gaming. Were Microsoft to make Windows on ARM licenses available to Macs, were I were Apple (or simply a major reseller) this is what I would do: offer gaming MacBook Minis. Base: $699 Mac Mini. I would deploy Windows Home ($30 to OEMs) in Parallels Standard ($20 to OEMs) and use them to preinstall the Steam and Epic app stores (both free) on optimized settings with Destiny 2 and Fortnite (both free to play) preloaded and ready to go for $750. You would be a total maroon (the old Looney Tunes insult) to even consider buying an Acer Nitro 5, Dell G5, Asus TUF or any of the other "entry level 1080p gaming PCs" with 8 GB RAM, Intel Core i5/AMD Ryzen 5 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650/AMD Radeon RX 5600M/Intel Iris XE system because this would outperform it in every way.
Were Apple to do this, 1. Mac Minis would fly off the shelves. 2. Developers would notice and start making apps for macOS too instead of just for Windows. (And iPadOS too ... why not?) 3. Pretty soon you wouldn't need Windows or Parallels anymore. Mac Minis would become the default machines for entry level gaming. (And entry level everything else).
Tell me how it is in Microsoft's interests to facilitate this? Exactly.
That’s a messed up post. Nothing you said there is actually relevant to your point. The fact that Microsoft, since 2011, has been trying, without much success, to get Windows work8ng, and selling, on ARM, shows that they do indeed want Tom be hardware agnostic. That at they haven’t been successful yet is besides the point.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
I wonder how long it would take to get hypervisor working on Darwin? Seems like this might be another way to keep things running without direct Apple intervention, since they have to keep Darwin up to date regardless.
Nah. I think Mac Minis will fly off the shelves *anyway*, and Microsoft will still cave in and offer a full, non-OEM, expensive, VM-compatible ARM64 Windows license, to stem the tide and maintain relevance. If they can get away with a higher profit margin on one of those selling it to many developers who would still have to buy a Mac anyway, they will, OEMs be damned.
Even though the iPhone wasn’t even out and the mobile and desktop market share figures weren’t, just like you pointed out, the comparable in 2006-2007 to what they are today, the same argument you made could’ve been construed back then (as a matter of fact, it was). That didn’t stop Microsoft back then, and it won’t stop them now, either. Especially *this* Microsoft, which, even with their decent devices division, is pivoting more and more towards services.
Take off your Apple blinders for a second. See the points below.
1. Even if Apple's market share triples, the Windows market share will still be 70%. So "maintain relevance" ... get real!!!
2. Large companies - think Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm etc. don't "cave" to Apple the way that suppliers who need Apple's business to survive do. If they did, Apple's thermonuclear war against Android would have worked. Even if Google hadn't dropped it in response to Apple kicking their CEOs off their board, Samsung/LG/Qualcomm would have refused to participate in manufacturing Android devices in order to remain preferred Apple suppliers. What actually happened: Google, Samsung, Qualcomm and the rest continued with Android and Apple is still forced to pay billions for components (from Qualcomm, Samsung and LG) and services (cloud products from Google) anyway!
3. That didn't stop Microsoft from what back then? Microsoft never provided Windows to be used on Macs in the first place. Instead, people would obtain "upgrade" copies of Windows and using those for bootcamp, VMWare etc. Microsoft wasn't happy about this but had no way to stop it. Anyone who purchases Windows - either via buying a Windows device or copy of the OS - is guaranteed the ability to upgrade to the next version. To fulfill this, Microsoft has to make Windows generally available and there is no way to determine whether any particular copy was used to upgrade a previous Windows install or not.
4. What about now? Well with Linux, you don't "need" to do a old style upgrade ... you can configure it to perform rolling upgrades using sudo apt dist-upgrade (for Debian distros, other distros have similar). Google exploited this: as ChromeOS is a Debian-based, Google only distributes the OS to OEMs and then provides rolling updates. (As ChromeOS is not a free OS like Android it was done to prevent piracy which would have been a real problem otherwise.)
5. When Nadella took over Microsoft, he emulated what Google did with ChromeOS. As such, Windows 10 is the last version of Windows. No more upgrades, only rolling updates. The only reason why you can still download a Windows ISO and license is because Microsoft is still obligated to facilitate upgrades from Windows 7 and 8. After those versions reach final EOL in January 2023, that obligation will cease. At that point, Windows will no longer be available to end users. It will only be available to OEMs.
6. What about ARM Windows 10? Well the upgrade guarantee only covers the same architecture. So you aren't guaranteed the ability to upgrade from x86 Windows 7 to ARM Windows 10: only from x86 Windows 7 to x86 Windows 10. What about previous ARM Windows versions? The only ones were Windows Mobile and Windows RT. There was never a guarantee to upgrade from Windows Mobile to Windows PC, just as there isn't from Windows PC to Windows Server. And Windows RT was EOLed before Windows 10 on ARM came out, precisely to prevent attempts to upgrade to it. (The five Windows RT users weren't happy.)
7. Bottom line: ARM Windows will never be made available to anyone but OEMs. And after 2020, x86 Windows won't be available to anyone but OEMs either.
That was a lot of writing about very little. You’re wrong on a number of major points too. One is that Microsoft wrote special licenses to allow Windows to be sold to virtualized and emulated systems such as VirtualPC, which Microsoft later bought, and continued to sell to Mac users as the expanded the system for their own virtualization efforts. Ma considered VirtualPC and others to be the equivalent to a hardware PC. A similar situation existed for Parallels VMWare, and others. Otherwise those buying Windows wouldn’t be able to sign to Microsoft’s systems.
so yes indeed, Microsoft did support Windows on the Mac. They even cooperated with Apple in Bootcamp. Mac users didn’t have to obtain “upgrade” copies unless they were trying to get around payment. I used virtualPC, and the software before that, though it’s so long ago I forgot the name, though=gh it started with an S.
neither Win Mobile it RT were actually Windows. If you don’t know that, then please stop this nonsense.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
When the Mac’s marketshare had fallen to 2.2% domestically, and to 1.1% worldwide, Jobs said that Microsoft had won the detsktop war, and that Mac users should get over it. But then Mac sales exploded. They keep going up. It’s very possible that with substantial advantages over Windows hardware, that explosion will stop smoldering as it has been over the past few years, and begin again.
peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.
so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
When the Mac’s marketshare had fallen to 2.2% domestically, and to 1.1% worldwide, Jobs said that Microsoft had won the detsktop war, and that Mac users should get over it. But then Mac sales exploded. They keep going up. It’s very possible that with substantial advantages over Windows hardware, that explosion will stop smoldering as it has been over the past few years, and begin again.
peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.
so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.
At least in the laptop market I do not see the growth of market share that you seem to be seeing.
Instead I see Apple as a rather stagnant, minor player hanging around at about 7 - 9%
Further, I don't see what they offere over above what you could get from most other vendors. Actually, less since Apple never offered a gaming system or a 2 in 1 much less a moderately priced machine.
But, I agree that we may see future growth coming from younger people. But, I suspect it will be from those familiar with Apple's iOS products and wanting to keep everything within the family. Otherwise, what does a MacBook offer that a Lenovo can't match?
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
When the Mac’s marketshare had fallen to 2.2% domestically, and to 1.1% worldwide, Jobs said that Microsoft had won the detsktop war, and that Mac users should get over it. But then Mac sales exploded. They keep going up. It’s very possible that with substantial advantages over Windows hardware, that explosion will stop smoldering as it has been over the past few years, and begin again.
peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.
so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.
At least in the laptop market I do not see the growth of market share that you seem to be seeing.
Instead I see Apple as a rather stagnant, minor player hanging around at about 7 - 9%
Further, I don't see what they offere over above what you could get from most other vendors. Actually, less since Apple never offered a gaming system or a 2 in 1 much less a moderately priced machine.
But, I agree that we may see future growth coming from younger people. But, I suspect it will be from those familiar with Apple's iOS products and wanting to keep everything within the family. Otherwise, what does a MacBook offer that a Lenovo can't match?
Have you been hiding under a rock with all the recent reports of the M1s superior performance and power consumption?
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
I think Apple may have surrendered trying to compete Macs against Windows and may have simply ceded the market to them. Not only has WIndows become increasingly stable and user friendly but Apple simply can't compete price wise with mainstream Windows machines.
Instead, they are perhaps shifting the Mac over to be yet another variation of iOS. Or, more specifically, an extension of the iOS family -- more functional and powerful, but still an iOS variation.
When the Mac’s marketshare had fallen to 2.2% domestically, and to 1.1% worldwide, Jobs said that Microsoft had won the detsktop war, and that Mac users should get over it. But then Mac sales exploded. They keep going up. It’s very possible that with substantial advantages over Windows hardware, that explosion will stop smoldering as it has been over the past few years, and begin again.
peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.
so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.
At least in the laptop market I do not see the growth of market share that you seem to be seeing.
Instead I see Apple as a rather stagnant, minor player hanging around at about 7 - 9%
Further, I don't see what they offere over above what you could get from most other vendors. Actually, less since Apple never offered a gaming system or a 2 in 1 much less a moderately priced machine.
But, I agree that we may see future growth coming from younger people. But, I suspect it will be from those familiar with Apple's iOS products and wanting to keep everything within the family. Otherwise, what does a MacBook offer that a Lenovo can't match?
It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
I can build qemu but it doesn’t run. It fails with a memory allocation error. One of the main developers posted a page of patches that should fix things but I don’t know how to apply them. I’m going to have to do some research. But everything looks promising even though it is early in the transition.
With the patches on the following page, you can try using git apply:
It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
I can build qemu but it doesn’t run. It fails with a memory allocation error. One of the main developers posted a page of patches that should fix things but I don’t know how to apply them. I’m going to have to do some research. But everything looks promising even though it is early in the transition.
With the patches on the following page, you can try using git apply:
It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
I can build qemu but it doesn’t run. It fails with a memory allocation error. One of the main developers posted a page of patches that should fix things but I don’t know how to apply them. I’m going to have to do some research. But everything looks promising even though it is early in the transition.
With the patches on the following page, you can try using git apply:
That has info about launch commands, some apparently affect the speed.
Thanks. I know this stuff will make it out into the open eventually but I'm having fun building and testing stuff for my M1 MacBook Air. They probably deleted it because it really isn't ready for normal users consumption.
I think more of those macs will have to be on the market to make it worth while for MS to start development or at least make a alpha/beta. for all we know, they probably started working on it.
More of "those" Macs? You realize that the MacBook Air is the best-selling Mac on the market, and now every Air going forward is M-based, right? Microsoft has learned (...the hard way with the Zune and Nokia phones...) that they can't "wait and see" when it comes to Apple.
Well, yes I do realize that. Sorry for not clarifying. When I meant was, I was referring to ALL the macs with M1 chips and beyond. Lets see what happens within the next 12 months, maybe we see a beta from MS. Questions is, would they only offer it as an ISO, as you can do now with the current download installer? Or via a purchase option?
Comments
With that, your points 3, 5, and 6 crumble. Microsoft has not previously sold armv7 or aarch64 Windows at retail simply because nobody was building ARM desktops/laptops more powerful than a Raspberry Pi, so there wasn’t demand for retail licenses. The market effectively didn’t exist. Now it might.
If Microsoft thinks the market is there, I expect they will just make retail Windows 10 licenses valid for x86, amd64, and aarch64. There’s no technical reason they couldn’t, and it would reduce confusion and returns. The real question is whether it would be able to run natively on the hardware or whether it would have to run in a VM under macOS.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/list/?series=391797
Download the diff file for each of the 8 patches, cd into the repo root directory and run the following on each of the 8 patches:
git apply drop_patch_file_here
Then build the project after applying the 8 patches.
correction for typo.
For the last few years, and much more so now, Apple is also vertically integrated.
Apple needed Windows to run well on their machines back then. It’s questionable as to how important that is to Apple’s future today. With Bootcamp, I recall Apple working with Microsoft. But Federighi stating that it was up to Microsoft, reads as though Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn’t care either way. While there are still those for whom Windows is important on. Macs, that percentage has dropped substantially.
Your silly last line isn’t meaningful.
I wonder how long it would take to get hypervisor working on Darwin? Seems like this might be another way to keep things running without direct Apple intervention, since they have to keep Darwin up to date regardless.
That was a lot of writing about very little. You’re wrong on a number of major points too. One is that Microsoft wrote special licenses to allow Windows to be sold to virtualized and emulated systems such as VirtualPC, which Microsoft later bought, and continued to sell to Mac users as the expanded the system for their own virtualization efforts. Ma considered VirtualPC and others to be the equivalent to a hardware PC. A similar situation existed for Parallels VMWare, and others. Otherwise those buying Windows wouldn’t be able to sign to Microsoft’s systems.
so yes indeed, Microsoft did support Windows on the Mac. They even cooperated with Apple in Bootcamp. Mac users didn’t have to obtain “upgrade” copies unless they were trying to get around payment. I used virtualPC, and the software before that, though it’s so long ago I forgot the name, though=gh it started with an S.
neither Win Mobile it RT were actually Windows. If you don’t know that, then please stop this nonsense.
peak personal computer sales, which include Linux, Mac and Windows, was between 365 and 370 million. Today, it’s about 265 million. Apple is a much bigger percentage than it ever was, while Linux continues to track overall sales with a varying 1.3 to 1.7% a year.
so while it’s likely true that we will never see a $499 Mac notebook, we might see an $899 one. The Mini is down to $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/success-virtualize-windows-10-for-arm-on-m1-with-alexander-grafs-qemu-hypervisor-patch.2272354/latest
That has info about launch commands, some apparently affect the speed.