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?
Well, does any one here have access to an OEM pc running windows on arm? If so, Please make a recovery media and try to install it on the M1 macs. My guess it, MS will, or start working on a UNIVERSAL installer.
One reason why Microsoft didn’t put much effort into its WindowsARM because all the hardware out there for it was crap.
Now, Apple is in the unique position of having ARM machines that are truly best-in-class. This alone should be enough for Microsoft to consider putting more resources to polishing WindowsARM at least until there is an ARM SoC for everyone else.
I’m hopeful. I have to use Windows, and Apple always made the best Windows machines imho.
I agree about the hardware. And the fact that another developer was able to get a bootleg version of windows running within just a few weeks. Is a good start.
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?
For all but the most demanding power users, CPU performance has been adequate across the board for years. The same with battery. Yeh, it's a selling point but, most people can find what they need in a Windows computer.
But meanwhile they'll be giving up Windows that they are not only familiar with but that may be required by their school or workplace.
That's not to trash the new Macs -- because I am sure that Apple already knows all that.
That is why they will instead be counting on pulling new customers from their IOS base who know Apple and want to keep everything in the family -- which has become the selling point of even the iPhone: the Apple ecosystem rather than the hardware.
I'm not sure why analysts and customers continually focus on Apple hardware when it is actually their ecosystem that sets their products apart.
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?
MacOS
MacOS as a reason to buy a Mac?
Windows 10 is just as powerful and easy to use as MacOS. Plus most people are more familiar with it and it is much more compatible with school and business applications they may need to use.
MacOS is not a selling point except to the choir.
But, once it is fully integrated into Apple's iOS family, then it will gain advantages that Windows won't be able to match: where all of a customer's products -- from their watch, phone, tablet (even their home!) all integrate and work together. Now THAT is the kind of thing that made Steve Jobs mouth water. It's the kind of thing that make people's lives better.
Even as it stands, it's really nice getting messages, emails, News, TV and music on your Mac just as you do on your phone. But that integration will be growing much tighter in the years to come.
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 $699, which is good. But performance of these new machines is well out of their price classes. Unless somehow parity is restored, we may easily see a lot more people interested in these machines. This is particularly true if game developers, who say they don’t bother because of performance, begin to trickle over. Apple has pushed above the 20 million a year sales barrier. If they can increase sales somewhat close to where it’s been going, and yes, I know some of that is due to the pandemic, though Windows sales haven’t increased by anywhere near the same percentage, then those rising sales, particularly among younger, more financially stable populations, might gain their attention.
At least in the laptop market I do not see the growth of market share that you seem to be seeing.
Instead I see Apple as a rather stagnant, minor player hanging around at about 7 - 9%
Further, I don't see what they offere over above what you could get from most other vendors. Actually, less since Apple never offered a gaming system or a 2 in 1 much less a moderately priced machine.
But, I agree that we may see future growth coming from younger people. But, I suspect it will be from those familiar with Apple's iOS products and wanting to keep everything within the family. Otherwise, what does a MacBook offer that a Lenovo can't match?
MacOS
MacOS as a reason to buy a Mac?
Windows 10 is just as powerful and easy to use as MacOS. Plus most people are more familiar with it and it is much more compatible with school and business applications they may need to use.
MacOS is not a selling point except to the choir.
And yet, for the past few weeks, you've been banging on about the lack of Windows support on the new ASi machines. If you believed Windows was a replacement for MacOS, then you wouldn't be making such a fuss about lack of Windows support – you'd just move to Windows.
The real issue isn’t if M$ 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.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
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?
MacOS
MacOS as a reason to buy a Mac?
Windows 10 is just as powerful and easy to use as MacOS. Plus most people are more familiar with it and it is much more compatible with school and business applications they may need to use.
MacOS is not a selling point except to the choir.
And yet, for the past few weeks, you've been banging on about the lack of Windows support on the new ASi machines. If you believed Windows was a replacement for MacOS, then you wouldn't be making such a fuss about lack of Windows support – you'd just move to Windows.
Make up your mind.
LOL.... Make sense! That made zero sense. Just your typical anger spouting nonsense.
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.
I'm not sure I'd call MacPorts better, just that they have something that works fairly well right now. I probably should qualify that, it works well for the software I'm interested in at the moment. I do believe that some of the port maintainers though are really behind with requirements for libraries that have been long replaced by newer versions.
That being said I've long preferred the way that Homebrew went about things. MacPorts seems to be stuck to far into the dying X11 world. Maybe the perception is wrong but it is what I see.
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.
This idea that performance is good enough for most users is totally bogus in my mind. Sure it is good enough for legacy software like a spread sheet or text editor, but not for software that is just coming online. I'm talking AI powered stuff like word processors that actually do what they are suppose to do instead of creating garbage documents through stuff like auto correction that sucks. So no performance isn't good enough to enable the user software that is possible with high performance chips.
Actually the hardware does everything. Software is just text on paper without hardware and frankly pretty useless.
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?
Power consumption is a huge win for M1. I don't think people really grasp just how good it is in a laptop, especially a fanless model. I'm sitting at a MBA M1 right now and still can't get over how it is in many ways better than any laptop I've owned (many of them PC's), yet has no fan and runs forever on battery. Well OK not forever but it outlasts me any day I might use it.
It is performance like this that has me hoping that Apple will start slapping solar cells onto it's MBA's. Sure there is not enough space to run the machine off solar when it is going full tilt but it idles way lower than 10 watts (most of that is likely LED lighting). The idea isn't to run on the solar so much as it is to extend the run time a bit by offsetting battery power usage.
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.
This idea that performance is good enough for most users is totally bogus in my mind. Sure it is good enough for legacy software like a spread sheet or text editor, but not for software that is just coming online. I'm talking AI powered stuff like word processors that actually do what they are suppose to do instead of creating garbage documents through stuff like auto correction that sucks. So no performance isn't good enough to enable the user software that is possible with high performance chips.
Actually the hardware does everything. Software is just text on paper without hardware and frankly pretty useless.
Right now gaming and video editing seem to be the most needy for power. And yes, new applications will require more power.
But the PC market has matured and largely stabilized and the pace of that progress has slowed considerably. I'm not sure I know what you mean by ai powered Word Processing (but if it will write my grandson's paper for him he would be all for it) but it sounds like that might be down the road a ways.
Meanwhile, even computers several years old seem to be doing a pretty decent job for most people.
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?
MacOS
MacOS as a reason to buy a Mac?
Windows 10 is just as powerful and easy to use as MacOS. Plus most people are more familiar with it and it is much more compatible with school and business applications they may need to use.
MacOS is not a selling point except to the choir.
But, once it is fully integrated into Apple's iOS family, then it will gain advantages that Windows won't be able to match: where all of a customer's products -- from their watch, phone, tablet (even their home!) all integrate and work together. Now THAT is the kind of thing that made Steve Jobs mouth water. It's the kind of thing that make people's lives better.
Even as it stands, it's really nice getting messages, emails, News, TV and music on your Mac just as you do on your phone. But that integration will be growing much tighter in the years to come.
Windows 10 is no where near as easy to use as Mac OS. As for school and business applications it is like a lot of other technologies, you continue to work with the antiques or you move forward with modern solutions. The classic steam engine of the railroads is a good example, as a railroad you either switched over to diesel locomotives or you died off. I can already see this in the MS world where running old apps on Windows 10 is a nightmare. So if you are forced to address legacy software the future allows for any platform.
Mac OS is a selling point just like Linux is a huge selling point for the server work space. Its selling point is that it is a stable solution that solves problems and has less functionality issues than Windows. I work with all three operating systems so I have a good idea what their characteristics are. For the mainstream user Mac OS is the winner.
As for M1 and across the board integration I don't see that as a big deal compared to what M1 has to offer up for new software technologies. M1 is the very first processor with AI support outside of the GPU and it still ships a high performance GPU. Neural Engine and the other acceleration components will mean that we now have a baseline for all future Macs which means all software including Mac OS can now be written to leverage AI techniques. Integration may spread this tech across all devices but it is what this new baseline in supported techniques that would really get Jobs to water, maybe even foam at the mouth.
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?
MacOS
MacOS as a reason to buy a Mac?
Windows 10 is just as powerful and easy to use as MacOS. Plus most people are more familiar with it and it is much more compatible with school and business applications they may need to use.
MacOS is not a selling point except to the choir.
But, once it is fully integrated into Apple's iOS family, then it will gain advantages that Windows won't be able to match: where all of a customer's products -- from their watch, phone, tablet (even their home!) all integrate and work together. Now THAT is the kind of thing that made Steve Jobs mouth water. It's the kind of thing that make people's lives better.
Even as it stands, it's really nice getting messages, emails, News, TV and music on your Mac just as you do on your phone. But that integration will be growing much tighter in the years to come.
Windows 10 is no where near as easy to use as Mac OS. As for school and business applications it is like a lot of other technologies, you continue to work with the antiques or you move forward with modern solutions. The classic steam engine of the railroads is a good example, as a railroad you either switched over to diesel locomotives or you died off. I can already see this in the MS world where running old apps on Windows 10 is a nightmare. So if you are forced to address legacy software the future allows for any platform.
Mac OS is a selling point just like Linux is a huge selling point for the server work space. Its selling point is that it is a stable solution that solves problems and has less functionality issues than Windows. I work with all three operating systems so I have a good idea what their characteristics are. For the mainstream user Mac OS is the winner.
As for M1 and across the board integration I don't see that as a big deal compared to what M1 has to offer up for new software technologies. M1 is the very first processor with AI support outside of the GPU and it still ships a high performance GPU. Neural Engine and the other acceleration components will mean that we now have a baseline for all future Macs which means all software including Mac OS can now be written to leverage AI techniques. Integration may spread this tech across all devices but it is what this new baseline in supported techniques that would really get Jobs to water, maybe even foam at the mouth.
I disagree that either Windows or MacOS is easier to use than the other -- I've used both and, although they do things differently, in the end they are (to quote Paul Simon) "More or less the same".
As for school and business applications, it's not a matter of old or new: Those organizations use custom applications that are tuned to one platform and sometimes ported to others. But, if you're not running on its primary platform you run the risk of being unable to do your job.
As for the M1 being a good foundation for future of ai applications: that's nice.
In the end, what sets Apple apart -- whether it be its iPhone or its MacBook -- is its ecosystem -- a cohesive system of parts where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Other vendors can match or even exceed the abilities of any single one of those parts: Windows can out do MacOS, Samsung can produce better hardware than the iPhone and Lenovo can produce a better laptop. But, none of them can touch the whole ball of wax that Apple puts together. And that is what, I think, Apple is doing here: incorporating the Mac line into its ecosystem. It is done as a step child on the outside looking in.
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.
I'm not sure I'd call MacPorts better, just that they have something that works fairly well right now. I probably should qualify that, it works well for the software I'm interested in at the moment. I do believe that some of the port maintainers though are really behind with requirements for libraries that have been long replaced by newer versions.
That being said I've long preferred the way that Homebrew went about things. MacPorts seems to be stuck to far into the dying X11 world. Maybe the perception is wrong but it is what I see.
MacPorts can’t be all that far behind in libraries since most of the prerequisites built Arm64 versions without any trouble. HomeBrew doesn’t seem anywhere close and you have to jump through hoops with multiple copies of Terminal to get anything done.
In the past I’ve used brew as cargo cult technology. It mostly worked without me knowing anything—magic. Now that I’m digging deeper into how the Unix command line build technology works, I’m not convinced that brew is the correct approach. I’ve been pretty happy how MacPorts does it’s job. And it is easy to intervene when a port doesn’t work automatically.
I wonder if brew will ever catch up. They are saying they are months away from a real release on the M1. It should be interesting to see.
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.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
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.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
To an extent, yes. I would like to see more models with replaceable flash. Keep the controller in the SoC, but stick the flash chips themselves on little cards that can be replaced as they fail. Barring that, I would like the ability to shrink the SSD's claimed capacity as its spare blocks are used (Intel's SSD controllers let you adjust a maximumLBA setting which lets a 400 GB drive claim to be, say, 300 GB and the rest of the space becomes backup wear leveling space). All Intel Macs can have external storage added, which is less convenient, but which allows them to remain functional long past even the internal SSD's failure.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
I think there's another reason for that other than failure of the SSD: Failure of the unit. If the unit fails the SSD can be removed and either moved to a different machine or the data recovered. With soldered in chips, if the unit fails, you better pray you have a backup.
Ever since, when working as an accountant in the 70's and my IT department lost a year's worth of precious data, I've realized that there is only one part of system that cannot be replaced: It's most valuable asset -- data.
But, that may be one of the advantages to going to Apple Silicon: they may decide to backup Macs the same as they backup iPhones. That would be nice.
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’m not so sure about that. Things have changed, particularly shortly after Apple came out with the iPad. Computer sales began to drop, and have dropped considerably since then. Coincidence? Maybe partly. But Apple wouldn’t have spent so much money on developing this chip family, and so much on Xcode to work with it, as well as converting all of their software over, to just somehow extend iOS. It would have been a lot easier to just continue making the iPad more Mac-like, and slowly phase the Mac out.
that’s was the philosophy Jobs stated before he came back, and was asked what he would do if he were running Apple again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth and them move on to the next big thing. That’s close to a quote.
the iPhone and iPad are the next big things, but Apple hasn’t given up on the Mac. It’s too central to who they are.
I have been saying, for years now, that we would see tiers at Apple. Small lower end machines like the iPhone, then the iPad, and then the Mac, each higher tier running a larger, more sophisticated version of the same software. By going back to the older concept of universal binaries, Apple is sort of doing that. But you. Go to the store and it knows which device you have, and can download and install the version you need.
but the Mac will still have more professional software from Apple that allows it to be used as a server, for example. It’s unlikely iPads will be able to get versions of that. So while on the Desktop, they seem to be getting closer, internally, despite the new chips, which do have functionality that iOS versions don’t, and aren’t likely to get, the purpose is still bifurcated.
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?
Actual gaming machines are a very small market, as are the 2in 1 systems, which haven’t been the big sellers they were hoped to be. In recent quarters Apple has drastically outpaced Windows computer sales. If we look to the recent sales in Japan, Apple went, in just a few weeks, from about a number 3-4 place share to the number 1 place. How long that will last we don’t know, but the new Macs are having a major effect.
Comments
And yet, for the past few weeks, you've been banging on about the lack of Windows support on the new ASi machines. If you believed Windows was a replacement for MacOS, then you wouldn't be making such a fuss about lack of Windows support – you'd just move to Windows.
Make up your mind.
And so are you saying that an SSD with a 30 year lifespan is a problem?
LOL.... Make sense! That made zero sense. Just your typical anger spouting nonsense.
We know about the choices involved in the ~30 year SSD lifespan. The internal, integrated SSD gets better performance, has better security, and has a pretty long likely lifespan. People can make an informed decision about that.
Sonos' "recycle mode" was rightly panned. It bricked otherwise-functional devices. What Apple seems to be doing here is less bad, but is still placing an artificial limit on the lifespan of a device which is not intrinsic to any decision made as part of building the device itself. It is instead based on the whims of the vendor. They might decide that four OS versions is enough, so all the M1 Macs are no longer supported in macOS 15. When the system no longer gets OS updates, it isn't bricked, but it becomes less safe to use online over time.
We do not yet know about the choices made in the software lifespan. We don't have any idea how many OS versions Apple will support, nor do we know whether we will be allowed to maintain the boxes on our own after Apple cuts off their support. These are questions worth asking, and it isn't possible to make an informed decision without the answers. It's only possible to trust a vendor who has in the past been extremely aggressive about cutting off support for older hardware.
that’s was the philosophy Jobs stated before he came back, and was asked what he would do if he were running Apple again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth and them move on to the next big thing. That’s close to a quote.
the iPhone and iPad are the next big things, but Apple hasn’t given up on the Mac. It’s too central to who they are.
I have been saying, for years now, that we would see tiers at Apple. Small lower end machines like the iPhone, then the iPad, and then the Mac, each higher tier running a larger, more sophisticated version of the same software. By going back to the older concept of universal binaries, Apple is sort of doing that. But you. Go to the store and it knows which device you have, and can download and install the version you need.
but the Mac will still have more professional software from Apple that allows it to be used as a server, for example. It’s unlikely iPads will be able to get versions of that. So while on the Desktop, they seem to be getting closer, internally, despite the new chips, which do have functionality that iOS versions don’t, and aren’t likely to get, the purpose is still bifurcated.
Actual gaming machines are a very small market, as are the 2in 1 systems, which haven’t been the big sellers they were hoped to be. In recent quarters Apple has drastically outpaced Windows computer sales. If we look to the recent sales in Japan, Apple went, in just a few weeks, from about a number 3-4 place share to the number 1 place. How long that will last we don’t know, but the new Macs are having a major effect.