Some distinct overreaction going on in this thread. Any requirement for Windows 11 is a looooong ways away. I have a few customers still using Windows Server 2012. Software that only recently started dropping off update support for that 2012. I had customers just 2 years ago still using Windows XP and they were holding on to it for dear life. Most everything still worked or only in the past year or so dropped off These examples are both business customers.
For those with Macs that must run Windows, the period of time until you’re SOL is a loooong time. That’s is if you ever become SOL. A lot can happen between now and then. If there’s a market need then the market usually finds a way to accommodate that need. So for the time being just relax.
One thing that is on your side for those needing windows 11 on a Mac? There’s a vocal contingent on forums saying Apple must accommodate those who need non App Store apps(and devices) in an iOS device. That Apple must change iOS to accommodate. Well given their underlying logic you can be sure they’ll be fighting this next fight to make Microsoft change 11 to accommodate the needs of all users /s
Yeh, the move from XP to Windows 7 was long and painful because so much business software was written for XP. The same happened with the migration from Windows 7 to Windows 10 -- very long, very painful because of all the business software that had to be updated in order to run.
The transition to Windows 11 will be the same.
I doubt that Microsoft will be dropping support for Windows 10 anytime soon (despite current predictions).
For some reason when people talk computers they always focus on the hardware.
Yet, it is the software that does the work and is generally the controlling factor: First it's the operating system but then its all the applications (some retail, some custom developed) that does the actual work.
Microsoft, more than most, understand that. At least they always have in the past.
I'm sure you meant that as a rhetorical question -- but your point is valid: few know what it is or what it does.
From a simple Google query: "TPM chips use a
mix of software and hardware to protect any important passwords or
encryption keys when they are sent in this unencrypted form. ... Some
Google Chromebooks include TPMs, and during startup, the chip scans the BIOS (a motherboard firmware that initiates the startup process) for unauthorized changes."
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
I did some research into the TPM issue. None of my Windows PCs have TPM enabled. The reason is that I like to boot Windows on an external SSD to test beta versions of the OS but in order to do that you have to change the firmware to boot using legacy mode rather than UFEI. You have to enable UFEI to enable TPM. If you do enable UFEI the firmware warns that you will probably have to reinstall Windows. My conclusion is that a large number of users may have TPM disabled in their firmware for various reasons and enabling it may require them to reinstall Windows. That's a significant hurdle for most people. If they can do it themselves, they should expect to spend a weekend to get their system up and running again. If they can't they should expect to pay a lot of money to someone to do it for them and lose access to their system and quite possibly risk their personal data getting lost or stolen. The work around presented here may not last forever. Microsoft seems to be motivated to close security holes like this one. There is a very real possibility that users may avoid upgrading to Windows 11. This in turn may cause developers to not support the new version if there are not enough users who have upgraded to it. If users that have migrated find that their software won't run on the new version they could downgrade back to Windows 10. Microsoft could be forced to continue to support for Windows 10 in parallel with Windows 11. Imagine how big of a mess that would be.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
I did some research into the TPM issue. None of my Windows PCs have TPM enabled. The reason is that I like to boot Windows on an external SSD to test beta versions of the OS but in order to do that you have to change the firmware to boot using legacy mode rather than UFEI. You have to enable UFEI to enable TPM. If you do enable UFEI the firmware warns that you will probably have to reinstall Windows. My conclusion is that a large number of users may have TPM disabled in their firmware for various reasons and enabling it may require them to reinstall Windows. That's a significant hurdle for most people. If they can do it themselves, they should expect to spend a weekend to get their system up and running again. If they can't they should expect to pay a lot of money to someone to do it for them and lose access to their system and quite possibly risk their personal data getting lost or stolen. The work around presented here may not last forever. Microsoft seems to be motivated to close security holes like this one. There is a very real possibility that users may avoid upgrading to Windows 11. This in turn may cause developers to not support the new version if there are not enough users who have upgraded to it. If users that have migrated find that their software won't run on the new version they could downgrade back to Windows 10. Microsoft could be forced to continue to support for Windows 10 in parallel with Windows 11. Imagine how big of a mess that would be.
Excellent analysis....
I found it interesting that on Microsoft's Windows 11 page they suggested buying a new PC! I though that was odd for a software company.
There will, of course, be people out there who will justify getting a new PC in order to run WIndows 11. I say "Go for it!". That'll just leave more used PCs out there for me. Will they be as secure as a new PC running Windows 11? Probably not. But I use other methods to gain security: mostly I use different PCs for general use versus secure stuff like financials. My financial PC is locked down and only visits a limited number of secure sites. It's not bullet proof - but then nothing is.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
all of my Intel Macs could run Windows 11 -- an iMac, and three MBPs -- not that we have any interest in doing so. Of course, time will tell if a need ever arises.
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
“Many A small number of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows.” There, I fixed it for you.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
“Many A small number of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows.” There, I fixed it for you.
No, he had it right the first time.
Windows was, is, and will be the dominant OS -- it's not that some want it. It's more like some need it.
My grandson's school told them going into cyberschool: "Don't try this on a Mac"
Fortunately, I had already installed it under Bootcamp for him because he preferred Windows to MacOS.
So, in his case it was BOTH "want" and "Need". And, along with his iPad and Apple Pencil, it served him well.
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Great. We bought our 2009 iMac with the idea it could run Windows too. I ran Windows within Parallels. I grew tired of the yearly fee to keep Parallels updated for a minor part of our workflow and now we have not ran Windows at home for years. There is no argument about that people want to run Windows on their Mac or even that Windows is the dominant desktop OS. My humor is all the people complain that Apple went a direction that makes it harder to run Windows and now MS has now made it harder to run Windows on the Macs, even though they are Intel. It still doesn’t matter if people want to run Windows on the Mac, as it was always a side benefit to run Windows on the Mac.
Microsoft's adding TPM 2.0 to Windows 11 requirements was about security -- not Apple products.
I wonder if Parallels will solve this, usually they are pretty quick.
However, given that I only run a couple of engineering apps on my Mac Windows VM, I will stick with Windows 10 until death, probably.
The Pro edition of Parallels 15 can already emulate a TPM 2 chip, so you can install Windows 11 just fine. This of course requires the Pro version, which is $99/year; whereas the Home version is only $80 AND is a one-time purchase (i.e. NOT a subscription).
With that being said, VMware Fusion can also emulate a TPM 2 chip, and the pro version has much, much, much better licensing terms than Parallels Pro.
This is all a long winded way of saying, you should be able to run Windows 11 in a VM without issue.
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
“Many A small number of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows.” There, I fixed it for you.
Nothing I wrote needed fixing. Park your ego elsewhere. As much as I prefer MacOS, Windows has been, and always will be (for a very long time) the primary desktop OS for the enterprise. Get over it. I did. There's room for both, and I found my Macs to be the best Windows machines ever, and I went though a lot of PC's before I bought my first Mac.
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
“Many A small number of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows.” There, I fixed it for you.
Nothing I wrote needed fixing. Park your ego elsewhere. As much as I prefer MacOS, Windows has been, and always will be (for a very long time) the primary desktop OS for the enterprise. Get over it. I did. There's room for both, and I found my Macs to be the best Windows machines ever, and I went though a lot of PC's before I bought my first Mac.
I think apple should up the ante. After reading most of the posts here I think apple should come out with Mac OS Enterprise with a AppStore. (. With enterprise softwares ) Analyze what services the market is lacking and build services around that. Apple can stay focus on the consumer markets.
I think apple should up the ante. After reading most of the posts here I think apple should come out with Mac OS Enterprise with a AppStore. (. With enterprise softwares ) Analyze what services the market is lacking and build services around that. Apple can stay focus on the consumer markets.
I don't agree. Last thing we need is to start down a path like Microsoft and beginning to offer multiple different flavors of the same product, making it a mess for everyone.
One MacOS. Done. I think Apple has done fine here.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
“Many A small number of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows.” There, I fixed it for you.
Nothing I wrote needed fixing. Park your ego elsewhere. As much as I prefer MacOS, Windows has been, and always will be (for a very long time) the primary desktop OS for the enterprise. Get over it. I did. There's room for both, and I found my Macs to be the best Windows machines ever, and I went though a lot of PC's before I bought my first Mac.
Nobody said there is not room for both. Despite there being many Macs being bought to run Windows, the fact remains that Windows on Macs remains a small percentage of a small percentage of computers. There was massive buying of M1 Macs, which could not run Windows in any form. Most of those buying, Windows is a complete afterthought if any thoughts were about running Windows. If you want to run Windows on Macs, great, have fun and most likely you will have to use other vendors to do so. Apple’s business model is running Mac OS on Macs, not Windows on Macs.
I did some research into the TPM issue. None of my Windows PCs have TPM enabled. The reason is that I like to boot Windows on an external SSD to test beta versions of the OS but in order to do that you have to change the firmware to boot using legacy mode rather than UFEI. You have to enable UFEI to enable TPM. If you do enable UFEI the firmware warns that you will probably have to reinstall Windows. My conclusion is that a large number of users may have TPM disabled in their firmware for various reasons and enabling it may require them to reinstall Windows. That's a significant hurdle for most people. If they can do it themselves, they should expect to spend a weekend to get their system up and running again. If they can't they should expect to pay a lot of money to someone to do it for them and lose access to their system and quite possibly risk their personal data getting lost or stolen. The work around presented here may not last forever. Microsoft seems to be motivated to close security holes like this one. There is a very real possibility that users may avoid upgrading to Windows 11. This in turn may cause developers to not support the new version if there are not enough users who have upgraded to it. If users that have migrated find that their software won't run on the new version they could downgrade back to Windows 10. Microsoft could be forced to continue to support for Windows 10 in parallel with Windows 11. Imagine how big of a mess that would be.
Excellent analysis....
I found it interesting that on Microsoft's Windows 11 page they suggested buying a new PC! I though that was odd for a software company.
There will, of course, be people out there who will justify getting a new PC in order to run WIndows 11. I say "Go for it!". That'll just leave more used PCs out there for me. Will they be as secure as a new PC running Windows 11? Probably not. But I use other methods to gain security: mostly I use different PCs for general use versus secure stuff like financials. My financial PC is locked down and only visits a limited number of secure sites. It's not bullet proof - but then nothing is.
Microsoft recommended people buy a new PC to run Windows 95. It's not unprecedented.
Comments
"TPM chips use a mix of software and hardware to protect any important passwords or encryption keys when they are sent in this unencrypted form. ... Some Google Chromebooks include TPMs, and during startup, the chip scans the BIOS (a motherboard firmware that initiates the startup process) for unauthorized changes."
My conclusion is that a large number of users may have TPM disabled in their firmware for various reasons and enabling it may require them to reinstall Windows. That's a significant hurdle for most people. If they can do it themselves, they should expect to spend a weekend to get their system up and running again. If they can't they should expect to pay a lot of money to someone to do it for them and lose access to their system and quite possibly risk their personal data getting lost or stolen.
The work around presented here may not last forever. Microsoft seems to be motivated to close security holes like this one.
There is a very real possibility that users may avoid upgrading to Windows 11. This in turn may cause developers to not support the new version if there are not enough users who have upgraded to it. If users that have migrated find that their software won't run on the new version they could downgrade back to Windows 10. Microsoft could be forced to continue to support for Windows 10 in parallel with Windows 11. Imagine how big of a mess that would be.
No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
With that being said, VMware Fusion can also emulate a TPM 2 chip, and the pro version has much, much, much better licensing terms than Parallels Pro.
This is all a long winded way of saying, you should be able to run Windows 11 in a VM without issue.