Rayz2016

dewme said:

Interesting to see this here today because I got an email from Amazon about this earlier. 

Before everyone gets their skivvies is a twist, this is very likely an Amazon precursor to what Apple will do with AirTags. Amazon Sidewalk is all about providing a very low cost, low bandwidth, highly distributed, mesh network (using BTLE and 900 MHz) for locating and discovering identification tags and exchanging a few bits of data with simple sensors . It uses a small slice of each participants' WiFi bandwidth (1/40th with a hard monthly cap) as a backhaul to bridge sensor/tag data up to the cloud through your WAN connection. By meshing together all of the participants' data feeds they can achieve area wide coverage, i.e., several square miles.

There's nothing inherently nefarious about what Amazon is doing, and if you don't like it, don't use it. When Apple rolls out their wide area coverage for AirTags you'll be able to decide whether you trust Apple more than you trust Amazon, and sign up with Apple to help facilitate the same sort of service. Or not. Nobody has to do anything they are not comfortable doing. Until we have some sort of third-party or governmental infrastructure in place to support these kinds of services, companies like Amazon, Apple, and Amazon (and others) will try to utilize whatever connectivity opportunities are available to them. Amazon Sidewalk is just the first of the opportunists to hot the street, or should I say, the sidewalk.

Except that people have to opt out rather than opt in. 

pizzaboxmac said:

This is serious. An OS installation is killing the system down to the firmware!? Why wasn’t this accounted for?

Well, firmware is a bit squishy, that's how it can be updated.

A power cut during an upgrade doesn't occur that often, and in a home setup would be pretty difficult to guard against. I had something similar years ago while we were upgrading a Windows server. One of the developers managed to pull the power lead (several actually, since he tripped and managed to break a finger) during the upgrade and the system was completely shafted. I think it took us most of the day and all night to get thing up and running again.

After that we stopped hosting the service ourselves. 

GeorgeBMac said:

Rayz2016 said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Why would Microsoft want to embarrass themselves (and their ARM devices) by allowing Windows on an M1 MacBook that will massively outperform their own devices?

Microsoft has never been one to miss an opportunity to embarrass itself.



But the chap running the show these days much more of a pragmatist. That's why he binned billions of dollars in development and now makes sure their software runs on iOS and Android.

Actually, Apple and Microsoft have had a long love-hate relationship but eventually almost always working together for mutual benefit.  And, the real winners were us.

I find it perplexing that Apple is simply laying back saying "Not my problem".   But it is their problem.   Just because they have to work with Microsoft to fix it doesn't mean it's not their problem.

I'm hoping they drop their childish petulance and work with Microsoft to bring native Windows back to the Mac.   Everybody would win.   There would be no losers.

You keep throwing this word 'petulant' around, and I'm not sure you know what it means.

The interviewer asked Apple about Windows support, and Apple replied that it was up to Microsoft, which obviously it is.

Microsoft owns Windows ARM
Microsoft does not permit standalone installations of Windows ARM

So where, in this scenario, is Apple being petulant? They were asked, they explained. Your expectations have been managed.  Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it isn't the answer. Try not to be such a Trump about it.

"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," said Federighi. "But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs." Federighi concludes, "But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."

Apple's already done their bit.

Or did you want some begging?

And sorry, but more than ever, in the world of PC's it's a Windows World.  

If this were true then mobile Windows wouldn't have crashed and burned and Microsoft wouldn't be releasing stuff on iOS and Android before getting to Windows. It's a web and mobile world. Even Microsoft knows this. 

As I said, CloudPC will probably be the best option for running Windows apps on the Mac, because I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would rather folk did this than install Windows ARM on an ASi Mac.

If that won't work for you, then your best bet is to leave the Mac platform and get yourself a PC.

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

zimmermann said:

All Microsoft has to do is make Office and Teams run on those machines. And Their CRM. Who needs Windows but to run applications? If these applications run as well on iOS, I would say Windows is not necessary.

If your school or company wants you to run an application that does not function on your ARM based Mac you have 2 options:

Either:   Quit

Or:  Buy a Windows machine.

This is an untenable situation for Microsoft, Apple and their customers.   It needs to be resolved.

Like it or not, we live in a world of Windows

Apple standing back with their arms folded over their chests and pouting that it's Microsoft's problem is petty and juvenile and does neither their customers nor their stockholders any good.  It also could irreparably the MacBook line as it gets squeezed between powerful, laptop capable iPads and Windows laptops.

Microsoft must also step up to the plate.   Not only is history on the side of them swallowing their pride and working with Apple (at least when Gates was running things) but, ARM based processors will only be growing in prevalence and popularity.   It is in Microsoft's best interests to flesh out the ARM based version of their OS and make it available for retail purchase.  They need to make it the equivalent of their Intel version rather than a weak sibling.

If each does their part, we all win.  

Why is it Apple's problem to make Windows accessible on the M series Mac's?...

Because everybody benefits:   Apple, Microsoft as well as the customers of both Apple and Microsoft.  Apparently Apple is washing their hands of it saying "Not my problem".

Do they HAVE to?   No, of course not.   But it's silly of them not to help, support and encourage Microsoft to port their OS to Macs.   Again.
Bill and Steve knew that working together benefited everybody.   Hopefully, their wisdom has not been lost.

My friend was ready to buy a MacBook Air -- until I told her that it could never run Windows.   She immediately eliminated Macs from consideration.  

She loses and Apple loses.  

Don’t you read the articles? Apple hasn’t stopped MS from supporting M1 Macs and will clearly make the supporting software—like they do now—if MS wants it.

My prediction is this happens because M-series Mac interest and marketshare will grow even faster due to the new performance gains and ability to use iOS and iPadOS.

What we don’t yet know is if Apple has or will built virtualization support for running their OSes on their M-series chips. My guess is that the M1 doesn’t have it, but that beefier M-series chips could have it.  It emulation, as the article incorrectly states, but virtualization for OSes that support the AArch64 ISA.

Don't you read the posts that you're responding to?  

Here, let me repeat:

If your school or company wants you to run an application that does not function on your ARM based Mac you have 2 options:

Either:   Quit

Or:  Buy a Windows machine.

This is an untenable situation for Microsoft, Apple and their customers.   It needs to be resolved.

Like it or not, we live in a world of Windows

Apple standing back with their arms folded over their chests and pouting that it's Microsoft's problem is petty and juvenile and does neither their customers nor their stockholders any good.  It also could irreparably the MacBook line as it gets squeezed between powerful, laptop capable iPads and Windows laptops.

Microsoft must also step up to the plate.   Not only is history on the side of them swallowing their pride and working with Apple (at least when Gates was running things) but, ARM based processors will only be growing in prevalence and popularity.   It is in Microsoft's best interests to flesh out the ARM based version of their OS and make it available for retail purchase.  They need to make it the equivalent of their Intel version rather than a weak sibling.

If each does their part, we all win.  

"Customers"?
"Stockholders"?

I think we're now far beyond the stage where Apple needs Windows running on MacOS to thrive. 

The problem here is that your perspective is understandably much narrower than Apple's. You're also focussed more on looking back, when Apple is more concerned with driving things forward. 

Let's start with numbers.

I think it's pretty clear now that even without Intel dropping the ball, this move has been on the card since Apple started designing their own processors for the iPhone/iPad. So the only thing that was left to decide was the timing. One of the points they highlighted at the WWDC was that only 2% of Mac users used BootCamp. Now you can argue that the figure doesn't include folk who're using Parallels or some other VM software, but if people are using Windows in a VM, then more often than not they'll be using the BootCamp installation running through Parallels. So it's really not going to get much higher than that, and I would be astonished if it was growing. Why?

1. The main reason that folk want to run Windows is to run Office. Office is native on the Mac and so the need to run Windows natively.
2. More people are running web apps such as the Google suite on their machines, and more businesses are switching over to cut costs 
3. Macs have never been great for games, and so BootCamp has never been a massive draw for the serious gamer.
4. Most bespoke applications are now built for the web or mobile. Even Microsoft targets iOS and Android, often before its desktop platform.

Apple's ability to run Windows has been a boon, but it has never been (and should never be) the reason folk should buy a Mac. There are far cheaper ways to do it. If you're buying a Mac when you're heavily dependent on Windows then you've made a mistake. There has never been any promise that Windows would run forever (unless you can show me one), and Apple is not going to handcuff itself by promising it now.

Apple's 'hands-off' approach is absolutely the correct strategy for Windows support. They've supplied the industry with a fully ARM compliant architecture. They didn't have to  use the ARM instruction set at all; they could've come up with a completely new instruction set to go with their ARM chips that aren't really ARM chips, but that would've made it impossible for low-level stuff like containers and virtual machines.

They should not be polluting it to run operating systems that aren't built for full ARM compliance. That would mean that they would be tied to Intel and Microsoft when it came to fixing problems and supporting changes they make on their side. That's part of the reason OS/2 sank without a trace: IBM couldn't keep up with the changes (some say deliberate breakages) that MS was making in Windows in order to keep the emulation running. Having people, like yourself, screaming at the gates demanding to know why the latest update to Windows won't run is a distraction they don't need or want. Better to just keep a distance and let Microsoft handle what is absolutely their responsibility of making sure their OS runs on Apple kit. Then we won't end up in a position where Apple can't make changes they want to their systems because it would cause problems for the two per cent running Windows. 

And let's not forget that the problem here is that Microsoft doesn't license Windows ARM as a standalone installation. Not really much Apple can do about that. and I don't see any real advantage to them in asking.

If your school or company wants you to run an application that does not function on your ARM based Mac you have 2 options:
Either:   Quit
Or:  Buy a Windows machine.

geekmee said:

A thought that I believe would keep competitors up late at night, is the fact that... The M1 chip is going to be the slowest chip that Apple will ever make!

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/we-are-giddy-interviewing-apple-about-its-mac-silicon-revolution/

The implication seems to be that this is merely the opening volley. These might be some of the fastest Macs yet released, but they are likely the slowest Macs with Apple Silicon the company will ever introduce. Unless huge changes are coming to the basic structure of the Mac product line, it only goes up from here.

While running Linux is important for many, other users are asking about Windows. Federighi pointed to Windows in the cloud as a possible solution and mentioned CrossOver, which is capable of "running both 32- and 64-bit x86 Windows binaries under a sort of WINE-like emulation layer on these systems." But CrossOver's emulation approach is not as consistent as what we've enjoyed in virtualization software like Parallels or VMWare on Intel Macs, so there may still be hills to climb ahead.

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."