Microsoft says Windows on ARM will not support Apple M1 Macs

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    XedXed Posts: 2,519member
    rob53 said:
    Xed said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    Don't care about hackintoshes but I've read that Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall about ARM being faster and less power hungry than intel and AMD, which appears to be why Microsoft is actively updating its Windows 11 ARM insider OS. They would be stupid not to continue to look at ARM compatibility but they've been stupid before. As for Apple going backwards and releasing x86-based Macs, that's not in the cards after another year. Apple was being nice when it introduced bootcamp but that was a stop-gap compatibility. They don't need Windows on any Mac especially since many applications are cloud based so all they need are cloud clients. I don't know the numbers but I bet there aren't that many full-time users of Windows on Macs through either Fusion or Parallels. I have it but I don't have to service a family member that much anymore and have given up on Windows-only marine CAD software. 
    I don't see this as stupid, even if myopic. From MS's POV they have been doing fairly well with their own PCs, especially ARM-based PCs. Even though a license would be nearly all profit for them they feel they could lose sales. But I wouldn't worry since MS has a long history of going in the wrong direction (or no direction at all) for awhile before deciding a more reasonable course of action that ends up yielding better profits. It sucks for those that want to dual boot with official support, but these decisions don't move the needle for MS. It's possible they just tabled any real discussion on support for the time being because it will never be a large profit center for them.
    What ARM-based PCs? In fact what PCs does Microsoft actually sell? I'm not talking about PCs running Microsoft software, I'm talking about PCs Microsoft manufacturers and sells.They have the Surface and Xbox (not a PC), that's it. Microsoft says the Surface is a PC while they also say it's a tablet. Apple owns the tablet market and PC manufacturers not named Microsoft own the PC market (with Apple producing a good amount).
    All the Surfaces they sell that use an ARM-based SoC. Wait, are you suggesting that because it has a touchscreen and can remove a fully functioning keyboard that it's not a personal computer? By that measure then neither are laptops since the term was coined when desktops were king. Man, it's been a long time since I've heard someone argue that laptops or tablets aren't personal computers, and that's even before we get into them running a desktop version of Windows.

    You seem confused by MS calling something a PC and a tablet. Why can't something be more than one thing, especially when one of those things is an umbrella term for many types of computing categories? iPhones and iPads are certainly personal computers—perhaps even the most personal since you can't even have multiple logins—but they are also smartphones and tablets, respectively.

    Additionally, do you really think MS doesn't see where the future of personal computing is going? They know that it's not x86.
    edited September 2021
  • Reply 22 of 51
    The first position starts to look more dubious if they're specifically going out of their way to break Windows' ability to function on the M(x) chips. That starts to look like Microsoft forcing you to buy a preferred partner vendor's (Intel's) hardware to run their software product, when it would otherwise work on a non-preferred vendor's hardware (Apple).
    That’s what Apple does.
  • Reply 23 of 51
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    canukstormwilliamlondontht
  • Reply 24 of 51
    XedXed Posts: 2,519member
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    You're looking it from the wrong way. Apple takes a massive chunk of revenue and an even greater chunk of profit out of the laptop market that isn't going to vendors who can only reasonably offer Windows. Apple's existence is a massive hit to their bottom line, a black eye for MS, and the M-series Macs will make this even more pronounced.
    d_2docno42
  • Reply 25 of 51
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 216member
    I remember the days when Macs were not Intel based, but we could run Intel software using an emulator (SoftWindows).

    I see no reason why that concept couldn't be resurrected.  The Mac Silicon chips are quite fast.   While an emulated Intel processor may not be great for gaming, it should be very good for running a lot of existing Windows based business software.
    Ofer
  • Reply 26 of 51
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    Why Microsoft don't want ARM version of Windows supported on Apple's M1 ?  Because Microsoft internally developing it's own ARM processor like M1. At some point, Windows 11 will run on Microsoft's own ARM processor.
  • Reply 27 of 51
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    That ship has sailed.
  • Reply 28 of 51
    rob53 said:
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    Don't care about hackintoshes but I've read that Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall about ARM being faster and less power hungry than intel and AMD, which appears to be why Microsoft is actively updating its Windows 11 ARM insider OS. They would be stupid not to continue to look at ARM compatibility but they've been stupid before. As for Apple going backwards and releasing x86-based Macs, that's not in the cards after another year. Apple was being nice when it introduced bootcamp but that was a stop-gap compatibility. They don't need Windows on any Mac especially since many applications are cloud based so all they need are cloud clients. I don't know the numbers but I bet there aren't that many full-time users of Windows on Macs through either Fusion or Parallels. I have it but I don't have to service a family member that much anymore and have given up on Windows-only marine CAD software. 
    That is not entirely correct.  It's true that Apple's custom ARM SoC's are faster and less power hunger than ARM but that doesn't automatically that every other implementation of ARM SoC's are on the level of what Apple has come out with.
    shamino
  • Reply 29 of 51
    shamino said:
    MacPro said:
    'Not supporting' isn't as bad as declaring it illegal I'd have thought.
    But since Windows has its product activation system, they could just as easily refuse to activate an installation and justify it by saying that they won't activate an unsupported platform.  We'll have to wait and see where this really goes.  If Parallels can provide enough support for it to operate and Microsoft permits activation, then that will be good enough for most users (although corporate IT departments may balk at it).
    Isn't Microsoft's main reason for existence the creation of operating systems for other people's hardware?
    Yes, which is why this is a surprising statement.  I suspect that the big reason is fear that the next generation chip (M2? M1X?) will be incompatible in various ways.  Microsoft doesn't want to be stuck forever playing catch-up, since we know Apple won't be giving them engineering samples of new chips as they're developed.

    We may see them change this stance in the future, if/when the platform stabilizes and Microsoft finds that they can start supporting new platforms in the future.

    The other issue may simply be that Microsoft isn't in the business of reverse-engineering Apple's architectures.  It's worth noting that they only supported Intel Macs via BootCamp - where Apple provided the device drivers necessary to make everything work.  Microsoft may be unwilling to support the platform unless/until Apple provides something comparable for the platform.  If so, we may be waiting a very very long time, since Apple doesn't seem to have any interest in supporting any other operating system on this hardware platform.
    MS' long term goal is for users to access Windows via their Windows 365 Azure cloud service.  This can be accessed via any browser on a Mac, iPad, Chromebook Windows machine and if I'm not mistaken even Linux using the Chrome browser.  So they have little incentive to support Windows 11 on macOS via a virtual machine.  But then again who knows, maybe they might change their mind.
  • Reply 30 of 51
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    Agree.  MS has won that market.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 51
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    Agree.  MS has won that market.
    That’s a Pyrrhic victory. The desktop market is rapidly dwindling. 
    docno42
  • Reply 32 of 51
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    rob53 said:
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    Don't care about hackintoshes but I've read that Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall about ARM being faster and less power hungry than intel and AMD, which appears to be why Microsoft is actively updating its Windows 11 ARM insider OS. They would be stupid not to continue to look at ARM compatibility but they've been stupid before. As for Apple going backwards and releasing x86-based Macs, that's not in the cards after another year. Apple was being nice when it introduced bootcamp but that was a stop-gap compatibility. They don't need Windows on any Mac especially since many applications are cloud based so all they need are cloud clients. I don't know the numbers but I bet there aren't that many full-time users of Windows on Macs through either Fusion or Parallels. I have it but I don't have to service a family member that much anymore and have given up on Windows-only marine CAD software. 
    That is not entirely correct.  It's true that Apple's custom ARM SoC's are faster and less power hunger than ARM but that doesn't automatically that every other implementation of ARM SoC's are on the level of what Apple has come out with.
    Would you like to edit your post changing some ARM entries to AMD? Otherwise your comment doesn't make any sense.

    I keep re-reading it trying to figure out what you mean. All ARM configurations are less power hungry than either Intel or AMD. That's a fact. You can compare Apple's ARM implementation to other ARM implementations and all of these are less power hungry than Intel or AMD. They might not all be faster but pretty close.
    edited September 2021
  • Reply 33 of 51
    AppleZulu said:
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    Agree.  MS has won that market.
    That’s a Pyrrhic victory. The desktop market is rapidly dwindling. 
    Depends on how you look at it.  If you look at it from a market share perspective of all computing devices sold (PC's, tablets, smartphones) then sure. But from a user base perspective, not really. The Windows 10 user base is 1.3 billion strong vs the Mac's 130 million.  And the Windows 10 user base hasn't shrunk.  At best, it's grown a little over the last 2 to 3 years.  At worst it's held steady.
  • Reply 34 of 51
    rob53 said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    Don't care about hackintoshes but I've read that Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall about ARM being faster and less power hungry than intel and AMD, which appears to be why Microsoft is actively updating its Windows 11 ARM insider OS. They would be stupid not to continue to look at ARM compatibility but they've been stupid before. As for Apple going backwards and releasing x86-based Macs, that's not in the cards after another year. Apple was being nice when it introduced bootcamp but that was a stop-gap compatibility. They don't need Windows on any Mac especially since many applications are cloud based so all they need are cloud clients. I don't know the numbers but I bet there aren't that many full-time users of Windows on Macs through either Fusion or Parallels. I have it but I don't have to service a family member that much anymore and have given up on Windows-only marine CAD software. 
    That is not entirely correct.  It's true that Apple's custom ARM SoC's are faster and less power hunger than ARM but that doesn't automatically that every other implementation of ARM SoC's are on the level of what Apple has come out with.
    Would you like to edit your post changing some ARM entries to AMD? Otherwise your comment doesn't make any sense.

    I keep re-reading it trying to figure out what you mean. All ARM configurations are less power hungry than either Intel or AMD. That's a fact. You can compare Apple's ARM implementation to other ARM implementations and all of these are less power hungry than Intel or AMD. They might not all be faster but pretty close.
    Have you looked at the ARM processors that are in the current crop of Windows laptops.  They're predominantly using Qualcomm's SQ series of SoC's and the performance on those are horrible.  Sure,  they consume less power and have great battery but they're much slower than their equivalent x86 counterparts let alone Apple's M1.  That said, around this time next, we should be witnessing the first fruits of the Qualcomm / Nuvia merger so who knows, maybe by then things will be looking much better for the Windows on Arm ecosystem.
    edited September 2021
  • Reply 35 of 51
    rob53 said:
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Windows users don't understand that Apple designed it's M-series SoC to run Apple software, and to run it very fast. Microsoft doesn't do that, at least not yet, because they need to make sure Windows runs on every tom, dick, and harry PC. Mac users already know the fastest intel PC that ran Windows was a Mac using Bootcamp. Since virtualization has come a long ways and is being widely used, it might be the best way to run various OSes on various hardware.

    As for Microsoft having anything homogenous, I see that as a big joke. The only way to run Windows fast is to add your own specialized drivers for everything. Thats the fallacy of Windows, it's really not that good. People have to run it because they're locked into it not because they really want to. 

    As for Microsoft actually trying to build their own ARM chip, the Surface isn't a great example. They keep pushing it including paying the NFL to use them. This isn't their chip design but do they actually have chip design people at Microsoft? Or do they rely on chip manufacturers to design everything for them?
    I think Microsoft saying they're making their own chips is like Google saying the same thing for the Pixel phone - Microsoft uses Qualcomm and Google uses Samsung.

    Neither one has the chops to design their own silicon, so both use silicon proxies - they may design the specs for what they want, but in the end Microsoft is just telling Qualcomm "faster" and Google is just supplying an NPU for an Exynos SoC and slapping on a Tensor label.

    Both Microsoft and Google want what Apple has - and both seem to be satisfied with projecting the public illusion that they're doing the same thing that Apple has done.
  • Reply 36 of 51
    XedXed Posts: 2,519member
    AppleZulu said:
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    Agree.  MS has won that market.
    That’s a Pyrrhic victory. The desktop market is rapidly dwindling. 
    Depends on how you look at it.  If you look at it from a market share perspective of all computing devices sold (PC's, tablets, smartphones) then sure. But from a user base perspective, not really. The Windows 10 user base is 1.3 billion strong vs the Mac's 130 million.  And the Windows 10 user base hasn't shrunk.  At best, it's grown a little over the last 2 to 3 years.  At worst it's held steady.
    Have you looked at Windows desktop OS as a percentage or modern OSes in devices?

    rob53 said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    Don't care about hackintoshes but I've read that Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall about ARM being faster and less power hungry than intel and AMD, which appears to be why Microsoft is actively updating its Windows 11 ARM insider OS. They would be stupid not to continue to look at ARM compatibility but they've been stupid before. As for Apple going backwards and releasing x86-based Macs, that's not in the cards after another year. Apple was being nice when it introduced bootcamp but that was a stop-gap compatibility. They don't need Windows on any Mac especially since many applications are cloud based so all they need are cloud clients. I don't know the numbers but I bet there aren't that many full-time users of Windows on Macs through either Fusion or Parallels. I have it but I don't have to service a family member that much anymore and have given up on Windows-only marine CAD software. 
    That is not entirely correct.  It's true that Apple's custom ARM SoC's are faster and less power hunger than ARM but that doesn't automatically that every other implementation of ARM SoC's are on the level of what Apple has come out with.
    Would you like to edit your post changing some ARM entries to AMD? Otherwise your comment doesn't make any sense.

    I keep re-reading it trying to figure out what you mean. All ARM configurations are less power hungry than either Intel or AMD. That's a fact. You can compare Apple's ARM implementation to other ARM implementations and all of these are less power hungry than Intel or AMD. They might not all be faster but pretty close.
    Have you looked at the ARM processors that are in the current crop of Windows laptops.  They're predominantly using Qualcomm's SQ series of SoC's and the performance on those are horrible.  Sure,  they consume less power and have great battery but they're much slower than their equivalent x86 counterparts let alone Apple's M1.  That said, around this time next, we should be witnessing the first fruits of the Qualcomm / Nuvia merger so who knows, maybe by then things will be looking much better for the Windows on Arm ecosystem.
    Performance per watt is what's important here, not looking at a chip designed for a smaller, finless device and wondering why it can't process as fast as an Intel chip in a high-end laptop. Qualcomm will be able to make laptop-grade SoCs if there's a market for it—and there will be.
  • Reply 37 of 51
    Xed said:
    AppleZulu said:
    The real question is if Microsoft will continue to try and break Apple Silicon compatibility, or will allow its use unofficially.

    On one hand, it threatens Microsoft's bread-and-butter Wintel homogeny - on the other hand, there will soon be a fairly vast pool of Apple Silicon devices which will be entirely outside the Windows market if they do.

    And let's face it: this may be the fastest ARM Windows will run for some time, despite Microsoft's claim that they're making their own chips (née Qualcomm).
    Apple doesn’t now or will ever sell enough Macs to threaten Windows grip on the desktop market.
    Agree.  MS has won that market.
    That’s a Pyrrhic victory. The desktop market is rapidly dwindling. 
    Depends on how you look at it.  If you look at it from a market share perspective of all computing devices sold (PC's, tablets, smartphones) then sure. But from a user base perspective, not really. The Windows 10 user base is 1.3 billion strong vs the Mac's 130 million.  And the Windows 10 user base hasn't shrunk.  At best, it's grown a little over the last 2 to 3 years.  At worst it's held steady.
    Have you looked at Windows desktop OS as a percentage or modern OSes in devices?

    rob53 said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple could fix this by releasing new x86-based macs. But that’s an unlikely scenario. that being said, it’s not in Microsoft’s best interests (i.e., growing the PC ecosystem) to support M1 macs. 
    Don't care about hackintoshes but I've read that Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall about ARM being faster and less power hungry than intel and AMD, which appears to be why Microsoft is actively updating its Windows 11 ARM insider OS. They would be stupid not to continue to look at ARM compatibility but they've been stupid before. As for Apple going backwards and releasing x86-based Macs, that's not in the cards after another year. Apple was being nice when it introduced bootcamp but that was a stop-gap compatibility. They don't need Windows on any Mac especially since many applications are cloud based so all they need are cloud clients. I don't know the numbers but I bet there aren't that many full-time users of Windows on Macs through either Fusion or Parallels. I have it but I don't have to service a family member that much anymore and have given up on Windows-only marine CAD software. 
    That is not entirely correct.  It's true that Apple's custom ARM SoC's are faster and less power hunger than ARM but that doesn't automatically that every other implementation of ARM SoC's are on the level of what Apple has come out with.
    Would you like to edit your post changing some ARM entries to AMD? Otherwise your comment doesn't make any sense.

    I keep re-reading it trying to figure out what you mean. All ARM configurations are less power hungry than either Intel or AMD. That's a fact. You can compare Apple's ARM implementation to other ARM implementations and all of these are less power hungry than Intel or AMD. They might not all be faster but pretty close.
    Have you looked at the ARM processors that are in the current crop of Windows laptops.  They're predominantly using Qualcomm's SQ series of SoC's and the performance on those are horrible.  Sure,  they consume less power and have great battery but they're much slower than their equivalent x86 counterparts let alone Apple's M1.  That said, around this time next, we should be witnessing the first fruits of the Qualcomm / Nuvia merger so who knows, maybe by then things will be looking much better for the Windows on Arm ecosystem.
    Performance per watt is what's important here, not looking at a chip designed for a smaller, finless device and wondering why it can't process as fast as an Intel chip in a high-end laptop. Qualcomm will be able to make laptop-grade SoCs if there's a market for it—and there will be.
    "Have you looked at Windows desktop OS as a percentage or modern OSes in devices?" 

    If by modern OS's you mean taking into account iOS, iPadOS, & Android then you're right, Windows doesn't hold a dominant market share and I mentioned that but neither does iOS (which is only around 17% of the global mobile OS market let alone all modern operating systems).  But that's okay.  What's more important, at least to me, is the active user base (Windows 10 => 1.3 billion & iOS => 1 billion).  To make a long story short, Windows is still a strong and vibrant ecosystem that dominates the traditional PC market and I don't see macOS making huge headway into that.  If it happens then great.

    "
    Performance per watt is what's important here, not looking at a chip designed for a smaller, finless device and wondering why it can't process as fast as an Intel chip in a high-end laptop."

    I agree performance / watt matters.
      Look at Apple's M1.  It has been designed to fit in a fanless device like the MBA and even then it has much better performance than the vast majority of Intel-based laptops all while delivering much better battery and consuming one-third of the power.  In many cases, it even keeps up with the Intel i7 processors in the current 16" MBP.  Qualcomm is not even there yet.  Not even remotely close.
    edited September 2021
  • Reply 38 of 51
    Isn't Microsoft's main reason for existence the creation of operating systems for other people's hardware?
    I assume Office 365 is the main Microsoft software now, given that you can now install Windows for free.
  • Reply 39 of 51
    I guess it makes financial sense. Office 365 is where the money is and that is (or will be?) available for ASi Macs. Windows is free and it probably doesn't make sense to spend resources to make it compatible with ASi. 

    MS could go the route of actually charging for Windows on ASi, but I guess the numbers don't add up so it's not viable right now.
    edited September 2021
  • Reply 40 of 51
    If you didn't know better, you would think that Microsoft is actively trying to kill off Windows. As of October with the release of Windows 11, the number of computers that can run their latest version will shrink to a tiny percentage of what it is today with Windows 10. If I was an investor in the company, I would be a little bit peeved right now. This supposedly all about security. You know what the most secure operating system would be? One that ran on no computers. 100% security.
Sign In or Register to comment.