Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
I would say: Grow up Craig!
Some guys already have ARM Windows running on M1 Macs. It is not a technical issue.
If Microsoft wants Windows to run on M1 Macs, they have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
As yet, it is not, as it comes ONLY with Microsoft's own ARM-based computers.
Apple can't well offer support for something that isn't actually available legally, can they.
You don't get it.
Apple never ever did "offer" Windows. If you want Windows to run under Apple's BootCamp you, the user, have to buy a retail copy. Unfortunately, the ARM version of Windows has never been upgraded to run on the M1 and no user can buy a copy that does.
That's why Apple needs to work with Microsoft for them to upgrade ARM based Windows to run on the M1. But they won't. And, Microsoft can't do it on their own.
I didn’t write that Apple offered Windows. They offered SUPPORT for Windows. And they took TWENTY MONTHS after initial release of MacBook Pro to officially support Windows.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
I would say: Grow up Craig!
Some guys already have ARM Windows running on M1 Macs. It is not a technical issue.
If Microsoft wants Windows to run on M1 Macs, they have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
As yet, it is not, as it comes ONLY with Microsoft's own ARM-based computers.
Apple can't well offer support for something that isn't actually available legally, can they.
You don't get it.
Apple never ever did "offer" Windows. If you want Windows to run under Apple's BootCamp you, the user, have to buy a retail copy. Unfortunately, the ARM version of Windows has never been upgraded to run on the M1 and no user can buy a copy that does.
That's why Apple needs to work with Microsoft for them to upgrade ARM based Windows to run on the M1. But they won't. And, Microsoft can't do it on their own.
Why can't Microsoft do it on their own? They're the biggest damn software company on the planet, and Apple Silicon uses the ARM instruction set which Microsoft have been building desktop class operating systems on for over a decade (Windows RT released 2011, mobile even before then). This is quite literally what Microsoft do, and yet you're blaming Apple. It's utterly nonsensical.
Linux is working on M1, and yet Windows isn't. And it's apparently Apple's fault. Funny how in your world Correlium doesn't need Apple's aid to make Ubuntu work on the M1 and yet Microsoft are helpless without it. Give over George, this is complete nonsense and surely you know it.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
I would say: Grow up Craig!
Some guys already have ARM Windows running on M1 Macs. It is not a technical issue.
If Microsoft wants Windows to run on M1 Macs, they have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
As yet, it is not, as it comes ONLY with Microsoft's own ARM-based computers.
Apple can't well offer support for something that isn't actually available legally, can they.
You don't get it.
Apple never ever did "offer" Windows. If you want Windows to run under Apple's BootCamp you, the user, have to buy a retail copy. Unfortunately, the ARM version of Windows has never been upgraded to run on the M1 and no user can buy a copy that does.
That's why Apple needs to work with Microsoft for them to upgrade ARM based Windows to run on the M1. But they won't. And, Microsoft can't do it on their own.
Why can't Microsoft do it on their own?
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Steve's real gift was knowing it was more important to give users what they actually needed rather than what they thought they wanted.
He was wrong occasionally, but it was always more important to build something useful, than to add options that didn't add value.
He's great at speaking nonsense.
Just ask yourself would anyone want a size of a gaming laptop just to cool well? Apparently, many were happy about that, so they'd take whatever the crap Intel would throw.
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Even his premise is ridiculous. Every one else has their SW running on M1 Macs but someone MS needs to have their hands held by Apple and he completely ignores that there is no license purchase option for the ARM version of Windows or we could install it right now with Parallels. I think at this point he knows he's wrong but he's just unwilling to concede that he's wrong and that he's lost… he's pulling a Trump because of his hubris and insecurity.
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Sorry - but Apple pretty much said that their on their own: that was silly and childish of them -- certainly not professional.
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Even his premise is ridiculous. Every one else has their SW running on M1 Macs but someone MS needs to have their hands held by Apple and he completely ignores that there is no license purchase option for the ARM version of Windows or we could install it right now with Parallels. I think at this point he knows he's wrong but he's just unwilling to concede that he's wrong and that he's lost… he's pulling a Trump because of his hubris and insecurity.
Even your statement is ridiculous
... Since those "every one else" you cite is running under Apple's OS -- not interfacing directly with the hardware. Big difference.
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Even his premise is ridiculous. Every one else has their SW running on M1 Macs but someone MS needs to have their hands held by Apple and he completely ignores that there is no license purchase option for the ARM version of Windows or we could install it right now with Parallels. I think at this point he knows he's wrong but he's just unwilling to concede that he's wrong and that he's lost… he's pulling a Trump because of his hubris and insecurity.
Even your statement is ridiculous
... Since those "every one else" you cite is running under Apple's OS -- not interfacing directly with the hardware. Big difference.
Microsoft only licenses Windows 10 on ARM to PC makers to preinstall on new hardware, and the company hasn't made copies of the operating system available for anyone to license or freely install, and yet you still contend that the reason you can't get Windows 10 for ARM to run on Parallels on an M1 Mac is because it's Apple's fault. Seriously, man, so see a fucking neurologist.
Again, and hopefully for the last fucking time, this is where MS will need to change their licensing so that users can install Windows (either as a separate boot partition or a VM), but this completely up to MS and has nothing to do with Apple, nothin to do with Parallels, nothing to do with VMWare, nothing to do with VirtualBox, etc. It's strictly a licensing issue that is keeping this from going forward.
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.
And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Even his premise is ridiculous. Every one else has their SW running on M1 Macs but someone MS needs to have their hands held by Apple and he completely ignores that there is no license purchase option for the ARM version of Windows or we could install it right now with Parallels. I think at this point he knows he's wrong but he's just unwilling to concede that he's wrong and that he's lost… he's pulling a Trump because of his hubris and insecurity.
Even your statement is ridiculous
... Since those "every one else" you cite is running under Apple's OS -- not interfacing directly with the hardware. Big difference.
Microsoft only licenses Windows 10 on ARM to PC makers to preinstall on new hardware, and the company hasn't made copies of the operating system available for anyone to license or freely install, and yet you still contend that the reason you can't get Windows 10 for ARM to run on Parallels on an M1 Mac is because it's Apple's fault. Seriously, man, so see a fucking neurologist.
Again, and hopefully for the last fucking time, this is where MS will need to change their licensing so that users can install Windows (either as a separate boot partition or a VM), but this completely up to MS and has nothing to do with Apple, nothin to do with Parallels, nothing to do with VMWare, nothing to do with VirtualBox, etc. It's strictly a licensing issue that is keeping this from going forward.
LOL... You are calling the fact that Microsoft does not have a viable copy of their OS able to run on any and all ARM chips -- much less the M1 -- a "licensing issue"? OK....
LOL... You are calling the fact that Microsoft does not have a viable copy of their OS able to run on any and all ARM chips -- much less the M1 -- a "licensing issue"? OK....
Not true. Microsoft has a version of Windows for ARM, they ship it with the Surface Go, which is an ARM machine. But they don't sell it standalone. So the product exists, but customers can't legitimately buy it to install on M1 Macs. Some people have used an image of that OS and installed Windows within a Parallels VM, and it works. Therefore for customers it's predominantly a license issue and Microsoft's decision to make whether they want to sell it. There is additional work to make Windows install natively on M1 Macs that Microsoft could also choose to do.
Sorry - but Apple pretty much said that their on their own: that was silly and childish of them -- certainly not professional.
Don't say sorry when you're not sorry.
And you are imagining things. Apple never said anything of the sort. I posted the quote in an earlier comment, Craig Federighi simply said that whether Windows for ARM is made available is up to Microsoft. Which is absolutely true irrespective of whether Apple assist with modifying Boot Camp, or additional developer support, neither of which he directly commented on. You are claiming to know things that you do not know.
The only thing childish here is your stubborn clinging to a falsehood in the face of no one agreeing with you, and apparent belief that you can make it true by repeating it over and over. What a lot of tedious noise over something that hardly anyone even wants.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
They aren't? Source for your claim please.
Apple
Where? Source please?
Because all I've found is the interview with Federighi on Ars Technica, where he's quoted thus: "As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."
That does not translate to "They'll have to do it on their own; we're not going to help". Quite the opposite, in fact.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
They aren't? Source for your claim please.
Apple
Where? Source please?
Because all I've found is the interview with Federighi on Ars Technica, where he's quoted thus: "As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."
That does not translate to "They'll have to do it on their own; we're not going to help". Quite the opposite, in fact.
LOL... You are calling the fact that Microsoft does not have a viable copy of their OS able to run on any and all ARM chips -- much less the M1 -- a "licensing issue"? OK....
Not true. Microsoft has a version of Windows for ARM, they ship it with the Surface Go, which is an ARM machine. But they don't sell it standalone. So the product exists, but customers can't legitimately buy it to install on M1 Macs. Some people have used an image of that OS and installed Windows within a Parallels VM, and it works. Therefore for customers it's predominantly a license issue and Microsoft's decision to make whether they want to sell it. There is additional work to make Windows install natively on M1 Macs that Microsoft could also choose to do.
Sorry - but Apple pretty much said that their on their own: that was silly and childish of them -- certainly not professional.
Don't say sorry when you're not sorry.
And you are imagining things. Apple never said anything of the sort. I posted the quote in an earlier comment, Craig Federighi simply said that whether Windows for ARM is made available is up to Microsoft. Which is absolutely true irrespective of whether Apple assist with modifying Boot Camp, or additional developer support, neither of which he directly commented on. You are claiming to know things that you do not know.
The only thing childish here is your stubborn clinging to a falsehood in the face of no one agreeing with you, and apparent belief that you can make it true by repeating it over and over. What a lot of tedious noise over something that hardly anyone even wants.
You sound all upset that Apple won't lift a finger to help Microsoft port Windows to run natively on the M1.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
They aren't? Source for your claim please.
Apple
Where? Source please?
Because all I've found is the interview with Federighi on Ars Technica, where he's quoted thus: "As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."
That does not translate to "They'll have to do it on their own; we're not going to help". Quite the opposite, in fact.
There's you source.
Thanks for retracting your point.
I'm not sure why you made me do the legwork for you, though.
LOL... You are calling the fact that Microsoft does not have a viable copy of their OS able to run on any and all ARM chips -- much less the M1 -- a "licensing issue"? OK....
Not true. Microsoft has a version of Windows for ARM, they ship it with the Surface Go, which is an ARM machine. But they don't sell it standalone. So the product exists, but customers can't legitimately buy it to install on M1 Macs. Some people have used an image of that OS and installed Windows within a Parallels VM, and it works. Therefore for customers it's predominantly a license issue and Microsoft's decision to make whether they want to sell it. There is additional work to make Windows install natively on M1 Macs that Microsoft could also choose to do.
Sorry - but Apple pretty much said that their on their own: that was silly and childish of them -- certainly not professional.
Don't say sorry when you're not sorry.
And you are imagining things. Apple never said anything of the sort. I posted the quote in an earlier comment, Craig Federighi simply said that whether Windows for ARM is made available is up to Microsoft. Which is absolutely true irrespective of whether Apple assist with modifying Boot Camp, or additional developer support, neither of which he directly commented on. You are claiming to know things that you do not know.
The only thing childish here is your stubborn clinging to a falsehood in the face of no one agreeing with you, and apparent belief that you can make it true by repeating it over and over. What a lot of tedious noise over something that hardly anyone even wants.
You sound all upset that Apple won't lift a finger to help Microsoft port Windows to run natively on the M1.
The losers are Apple's customers.
I'm not upset at all, I use an Intel MacBook Air right now so this doesn't affect me one iota. I think Apple have done all they need to, and would probably assist more if asked, but they can't do anything unless Microsoft want to make Windows available at retail for ARM machines, which as of yet they have not shown any inclination towards doing. If there's anything else going on behind the scenes I don't know about it, but neither do you, despite your repeated absurd claims.
If Microsoft release a version of Windows that works on M1 Macs then great, and if they don't I won't lose sleep over it, Windows for ARM has pretty bad reviews. Either way Apple have no power to compel Microsoft to release Windows for ARM, or to make it good. It is up to Microsoft.
A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
They aren't? Source for your claim please.
Apple
Where? Source please?
Because all I've found is the interview with Federighi on Ars Technica, where he's quoted thus: "As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."
That does not translate to "They'll have to do it on their own; we're not going to help". Quite the opposite, in fact.
There's you source.
Thanks for retracting your point.
I'm not sure why you made me do the legwork for you, though.
Comments
Linux is working on M1, and yet Windows isn't. And it's apparently Apple's fault. Funny how in your world Correlium doesn't need Apple's aid to make Ubuntu work on the M1 and yet Microsoft are helpless without it. Give over George, this is complete nonsense and surely you know it.
Just ask yourself would anyone want a size of a gaming laptop just to cool well? Apparently, many were happy about that, so they'd take whatever the crap Intel would throw.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
Sorry - but Apple pretty much said that their on their own: that was silly and childish of them -- certainly not professional.
Again, and hopefully for the last fucking time, this is where MS will need to change their licensing so that users can install Windows (either as a separate boot partition or a VM), but this completely up to MS and has nothing to do with Apple, nothin to do with Parallels, nothing to do with VMWare, nothing to do with VirtualBox, etc. It's strictly a licensing issue that is keeping this from going forward.
Apple
LOL... You are calling the fact that Microsoft does not have a viable copy of their OS able to run on any and all ARM chips -- much less the M1 -- a "licensing issue"? OK....
Correlium have M1 Macs booting to Ubuntu. "Interfacing directly with the hardware", as you put it. You keep ignoring that I'm telling you this.
Don't say sorry when you're not sorry.
And you are imagining things. Apple never said anything of the sort. I posted the quote in an earlier comment, Craig Federighi simply said that whether Windows for ARM is made available is up to Microsoft. Which is absolutely true irrespective of whether Apple assist with modifying Boot Camp, or additional developer support, neither of which he directly commented on. You are claiming to know things that you do not know.
The only thing childish here is your stubborn clinging to a falsehood in the face of no one agreeing with you, and apparent belief that you can make it true by repeating it over and over. What a lot of tedious noise over something that hardly anyone even wants.
Because all I've found is the interview with Federighi on Ars Technica, where he's quoted thus:
"As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."
That does not translate to "They'll have to do it on their own; we're not going to help". Quite the opposite, in fact.
There's you source.
I'm not sure why you made me do the legwork for you, though.
If Microsoft release a version of Windows that works on M1 Macs then great, and if they don't I won't lose sleep over it, Windows for ARM has pretty bad reviews. Either way Apple have no power to compel Microsoft to release Windows for ARM, or to make it good. It is up to Microsoft.
Thanks for demonstrating that you're delusional.