Apple license WinARM. Make bootcampARM a paid for option to recoup the license fee and $profit$
Apple has confirmed its forthcoming Mac hardware using Arm-compatible Apple-designed processors will do away with Boot Camp, the iGiant's tool for booting Microsoft Windows directly on Macs. In a video interview with Apple pundit John Gruber, Apple senior veep of software engineering Craig Federighi explained, "We couldn't …
I don't think that Apple will do this. Short term they are focussed on making the platform a success. Medium and long term efforts will be focussed on reaping the benefits - the economies of scale to be gained by sharing both a hardware platform and a single kernel across all platforms. Switching away from Windows support will simply lose a smallish percentage of sales from people who used Bootcamp or removed MacOS altogether to run Windows. Not Apple's target market.
I don't think the percentage is that small. Back in the days when software was sold in boxes on retail shelves, you would see Parallels for Mac, but not anything for running on Windows hosts. There are a lot of Mac users who need to run Windows software for one reason or another. The current set-up gives them the best of all three worlds, a Mac for doing Mac stuff, as well as the ability to do Unix stuff natively and the ability to do Windows stuff.
It's not a small percentage at all. The ability of Macs to run Windows allows them to be funded by organisational IT budgets. Lots of middle/upper management types bump themselves up to a Macbook on this basis. Because under Bootcamp the Mac directly boots into Windows, it's no different from an IT department licensing point of view as buying bare from any PC maker and re-using existing licenses on it.
However, I don't imagine that running Windows in a virtualised container would come under that licensing, so while Apple supporting Windows 10 Arm trough a VM might be fine for individuals who need Windows, it may not fly with the corporate customers who've used Bootcamp as a way of getting work to subsidise their personal laptop.
Well it think it was pretty obvious that bootcamp was for the boot on an ARM based Mac. Unless MS come to some sort of deal to boot to the ARM based Windows on them, but then I suspect most people would be wanting X86 Windows compatibility anyway. Although it might be a nice feature for some people who have to occasionally boot into Windows to run some program where no Mac version exists, you would have more money than sense to buy a Mac and run it under Windows as your main OS, as they aren't exactly cheap compared to buying a similar spec laptop from someone like HP, Lenovo or Dell.
"you would have more money than sense to buy a Mac and run it under Windows as your main OS"
You would think that, but we have a surprising number of clients who do this, despite all rational advice we give them. Some actually (bizarrely!) aim to do this. Others just go for the shiny and pay CIT (Cupertino Idiot Task), then have a toys/pram egress situation when they find they can't run their business applications and we have to install Windows.
I am the anonymous coward who wrote the post, not Mr Gonzo wizard (thanks for the support by the way!)
The rational advice we offer is:
"You want to run Windows applications, why not buy a machine that runs Windows?"
Not sure what the problem with that is. We are simply offering advice on what will best suit their business requirements.
"You want to run Windows applications, why not buy a machine that runs Windows?"
but that's what a Mac with BootCamp does ! A Mac is hardware+OS, you can buy the hardware and install another OS on it. That's what I did (albeit for Linux). Worked like a charm until the MacPro 2014 or so. The drivers were very common, price was correct, ports a-plenty, replaceable/upgradable RAM and HD ! Then cam bean-counter Cook and now it's all proprietary and glued.
Obvious : they cannot accept that someone else's experience go contrary to their biased opinion of what should actually happen.
Then you have the mention of the Idiot Tax, which sends some Apple fanatics into conniptions.
So, basically, it's a post that shows Apple users in a rather poor light, and there are Apple users who just simply cannot let that slide.
People downvote for many reasons. Sometimes I think it's what they think you said rather than what your said.
I've written several posts about various things where I've said that one reason that companies use Windows PCs in digital signs and advertising hoardings when raspberry pis, or other single board computers could do the job just as easily. I usually argue that one likely reason for this is that while it is a pain in the arse at times, System Center Configuration manager makes it almost as easy to manage thousands of remote PCs as it is one. I have asked, in all seriousness if the PI can be managed via a similar MDM system. I have a project at work that needs multiple small computers to control various screens around the building. I could easily design a system that would do that using PIs (the PI is actually my preference), but any suggestion I make to use a PI will likely be thrown out unless I can demonstrate that it would be managed by an MDM system (my employer would prefer system center, but I'd be happy with any).
Been downvoted for every one, despite repeatedly stating I like macOS, Windows and Linux in every one. No particular order, I believe in using the right tool for the job.
I have asked, in all seriousness if the PI can be managed via a similar MDM system. I have a project at work that needs multiple small computers to control various screens around the building.
And that sounds like a very reasonable request. I don't know that anything in the rPi firmware could provide that functionality (that level of system engineering is outside my experience), although I wonder if some sort of "hat" for the rPi could provide that functionality. Or perhaps there's some rPi-like SBC that has the capability.
Not sure what all MDM can do, but on the Pi or any other Linux box you should be able to do everything with either (1) Sufficient Chef/Puppet trickery or (2) just network boot the board each time.
With that said, I haven't had good luck with RasPi in moderately demanding applications. I've given up on them in outdoor settings. In hot weather they crash a lot, and if it gets cold enough then it never boots again. I've had good results from Beaglebones and from the devilishly expensive ARM boards from Technologic Systems. I've run the TS-7800 at 78C all day, fanless, no problems, but it's over $200.
Icon because 78C is way too hot to handle without gloves.
For people who uses desktops is not a big problem to have a separate machine to run Windows.
If you use a laptop and need portability (something rare in these quarantine times but hey some people still go to the office anyway) carrying two machines is annoying as hell when you only need Windows for a few things you do not use otherwise.
All well and good if you can move all your files and back end servers to the cloud as well. Try running a client on your terminal server accessing a server on prem over a WAN link. SQL will struggle, other crappy DB engines are likely to collapse in a heap or corrupt your data.
This is why terminal services exists in the first place. Citrix created WinFrame to put client/server applications on the same local network while still allowing remote access. They then licensed the multi session technology back to Microsoft.
"But why not just virtualise, if you need to run Windows on a Mac? Yes, you need the memory, but modern Macs have enough of that to host a Win10 session if required."
Direct access to the hardware might be an issue there (Though I cant see it being a massive issue for most). But for example some plug in hardware doesn't have mac support, works in bootcamp but not parallels.
The only example that springs to mind is a fairly high end PCIe Sound card* (I forget the make), which works find in windows via bootcamp but isn't passed through to parallels because the mac hasn't a clue what it is.
I expect the number of people worldwide that will be affected by this and similar issues will be insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
*So more applicable to desktop offerings than laptop.
x86 Windows cannot be virtualised on an ARM Mac. A virtual OS relies on the host device having the same processor instruction set. The best that could be done in the short term is emulation, which is a much much slower and very different kettle of fish.
There may be a time when MS produce a reasonable ARM version of Windows. Until that happens, you can probably forget using VMWare or Parallels Windows on Apple Silicon.
No reason you can't emulate x86 to run Windows in a virtual layer. Just don't call me to complain about the dreadful performance.
Isn't that one of the capabilities of QEMU? It's usually used these days for processor-native virtualization, but it can also do "User-mode emulation" and "System emulation". Definitely slower than native virtualization, but hey, you're running MSWindows, you should be used to "slow".
"There may be a time when MS produce a reasonable ARM version of Windows."
Windows 10 is fully ARM-native, including all of the built-in applications. Latest release includes the ARM-native Edge Chromium as default browser - the lack of an ARM-native Chrome was the biggest issue with Windows 10 ARM, but with Edge Chromium, that pretty much goes away.
Of course, third-party application developers can do what I want regarding ARM architecture support (as Apple will also discover that means that current products will get updated, and publishers will use this as an opportunity to kill unprofitable older product lines in the hope of spurring sales of newer versions), but Microsoft has already done the bit that's under their control.
There is the problem of cost, and also the problem of space. For instance, in my current work at home space, I have a fairly decent/ midi tower sized PC. While I don't need one so it doesn't bother me, I have no room for a 2nd PC. I daresay a lot of Mac users are in the same position. In fact, in the case of the Mac Mini, or iMac, the fact they can run Windows and macOS on one, relatively small device may have been the primary selling point of the device.
Then there is cost. Even a cheap PC is going to cost a couple of hundred pounds. They may not have that spare.
You're partially right - but even if you could run an ARM version of windows, what use would that be? The whole point of windows is as an operating system - the carrier for the applications you need to run, and if they're x86 CPU code, you're shit out of luck.
In many companies I've worked in IT for, the number of C-level senior execs that would want a Macbook as their primary laptop wasn't funny. Do not underestimate the power of peer pressure for these guys. More money than sense doesn't figure when they're sat in a boardroom with colleagues who do. Otherwise, using the same argument, if we all took the 'more money than sense' point nobody would drive BMW's, Audi's or Rolls Royces.either. Even as a company car, the tax bill for an X5 is ludicrous - and you could easily buy a Dacia Sandero to achieve the same ends. But it doesn't look as flashy in the office car park.
In my experience, the level 1 and 2 support issues generated by Macs running both Windows and MacOS were minimal. For windows, it was primarily due to the fact that Apple actually did their drivers really well and rarely created any issues. In fact I seem to remember the most reliable Windows Laptop on the Register's awards for years running was a 13" Macbook Pro. Usually because you could get away with running vanilla windows 10 without the bloatware of the Dell/HP/Lenovo vendor driver packs.
Even if you take the large vendors devices back to vanilla windows 10 you can't get away without installing certain drivers for the chipset where the vendors hide other bloatware they say 'is essential''.
I have to admit, I don't like the attitude expressed by some people that people are wrong because they are happy spending a little more when a basic device (be it a car, computer, phone or whatever) will do the job. If you have the money, and wish to spend it, why not? A Ford Fiesta can get you down the road just as easily as a Rolls Royce or a BMW, but it won't be nearly as comfortable. Similarly, a Big Mac meal will fill you up just as well as a meal in a restaurant costing three figures, but it likely won't taste as nice.
I have a decent gaming PC. It's on the high end of mid range, but it's more than enough to run every game I throw at it at high or ultra settings at 2k resolution, and can play a lot of them at 4k mostly at more than 30fps (struggles with 60fps for some). I could easily spend two or three grand on it to get it up to a spec where it can run every game at 60fps, 4k res and ultra settings. I haven't, because I don't need that power, but I like the fact the finances permitting, I am free to spend that money.
The bootcamp mechanism also allowed for alternative OSes like FreeBSD and Linux to be installed.
Does that mean that the newer Apple hardware will be locked down junk like the WinRT tablets? That would be a shame, having a powerful ARM laptop would be pretty nice. Even in 2020 it seems like the Pinebook is our only option haha.
You could install FreeBSD or even Windows with normal EFI booting and GPT partitioning entirely without Bootcamp! I’ve done it before. You can even install rEFInd if you want a fancy boot manager.
All Bootcamp really did was make it easy to handle the partition resizing and then preload Apple drivers into the Windows installation.
When work gave me a Macbook (against my protestations that I'd rather have a laptop with a decent keyboard) I booted Linux on it without Boot Camp. Admittedly I wasn't interested in dual booting anything else on it though.
At least at work we had a choice between a MacBook Pro and a ThinkPad. Give me jet-black sleekness any day (and it's a decently sized model, not one of those wimpy X1's).
I have heard through the grapevine that Slackware's ARM port will support the new Apple hardware sooner rather than later. Why anyone would want it is anyone's guess, given that Slack runs so well on cheap, generic hardware ... I guess lusting after expensive "look at me!" haberdashery is a plague that infects all groups of humans equally.
I read elsewhere that the EFI will be locked by default, but it will be possible to unlock. So there should be no problem booting Linux, assuming it has drivers for Apple's hardware - I suspect that will be the limitation especially Apple's GPU. It may work only in console mode. Booting it in a VM should be fine.
Probably the same story for Windows/ARM, while theoretically this method would allow it to boot, without the support of Windows drivers for the hardware which Apple will not be providing it won't work. Again, booting it in a VM should be fine and should work for any business requirements for running Windows applications (x86 applications can be run via Wow64 so long as they do not demand a lot of performance) No demanding games, the VM overhead for complex graphics is too big of a hit.
Bochs is a nice toy for retro purposes, but it lacks much of what you would need to make this a solution. On the other hand, you're on the right track, qemu which has a dynamic recompiler and x86/ARM64 JIT would be a solution... it won't be particularly fast though. To run Windows worth a damn today, GPU drivers are an absolute must... even if it's just an old Intel GPU, the Windows compositor really thrives on it.
That's nice. But on Mac, QEMU apparently cannot use KVM or Apple's Hypervisor without added hacking, so it still has to emulate instructions. I agree it is nevertheless likely to be much faster than Bochs, which does only straightforward instruction-by-instruction emulation without JIT.
Linux runs spectacularly well (and natively) on Apple hardware and has long been the go-to OS solution for hardware that Apple no longer supports. Works a treat on the latest and greatest hardware as well. If your employer hands you a Macbook, resize and partition the pre-installed MacOS, install rEFInd, and dual/triple/quad boot the OSes of your choice. Or just back up, wipe, and install the OSes of your choice in place of MacOS.
Nope. Linux on my work provided 2016 15' Macbook Pro has issues with keyboard and trackpad not always detected at boot. Never been fixed, as it has a quirky chipset. The days of Linux kernel devs favouring Macbooks is long over, and support has become a bit flaky.
If you don't use it, then you shouldn't care. However, quite a lot of businesses (including the one I work for) have moved to buying Apple laptops for their workforce on the basis that you could also run x86 Windows apps when needed.
Without that, there are two choices. Stop buying Apple laptops that can't run x86 Windows apps easily, or move the apps to Mac. Stopping buying Apple laptops is a much cheaper option and in some cases legacy x86 Windows apps won't be able to be practically ported.
I've been running Windows in VMs on MacOS for over 10 years and never found it to be slow. As long as the VMs can use the hardware hypervisor there's no reason why it should be.
There will be a hit for Windows 10 x86 on MacOS ARM because of the emulation. Apple is clearly saying to Parallels and VMWare: if you want performance it's up to you to do it but, again, the hypervisor might help here for CPU stuff. Bigger problems will be with anything wanting to use x86 hardware acceleration: MMX, etc. because Apple might not make any optimisations it's done for this available to other software, as is already the case on MacOS for codecs. But it also had a vested interest in Windows on MacOS not being completely unviable. Guess we'll soon see reports from people running QEMU on the new developer boxes.
I may have missed it, but there are a lot of people who depend on hackintosh or virtualization out there. There are companies with full farms of virtualized Macs for running XCode compiler farms. There are a surprising number of people using virtualized Macs as iMessage gateways.
By Apple making this move, they can make little tweaks like CPU instructions that are Apple specific. They can also make their own TPM that would block any XCode compiled application from running on a non Apple CPU.
How about large enterprises who depend heavily on virtualized Windows on Macs... for example IBM? They actually dumped Windows PCs in favor of Macs because they could remote desktop or virtualize corporate desktops and the users would all have a pretty easy "press the key during boot to wipe your PC and reinstall it". I guess this would still work... at least remote desktop VDI.
What happens to all the developers at Microsoft carrying around Macs? If you've ever been to Microsoft Build Conference, you'd think it was sponsored by Apple.
This is true. However at the end of 2019 they had ~290,000 Apple devices of which ~200,000 use macOS. At the same time they had 383,800 employees, obviously some employees will use more than one device. I have a relative who is a very senior IBM techie who told me that in his (large) part of IBM far more techies use Linux than Windows - He was also of the opinion that a number of IBMers elected to go to Apple rather than move from Windows 7 to 10.
According to IBM, Mac users cost less to support with about 1/3 of the support personnel and are generally happier and more productive.
A few years ago IBM made statements about switching to Mac's from PCs and the cost savings involved. It's an IBM announcement at an apple conference so take it with a grain of salt: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html
I seriously doubt Apple is going to tamper with the ARM64 instruction set. The Arm architecture manual is 8000 pages (sigh for the PDP-11/VAX-11 days where you could read the architecture guide in a single session). Apple won't want to take on the responsibility of documenting that. And, although they are a major contributor to the Clang compiler, they are by no means the only user of its LLVM code generator for ARM64, and they'd then have to start maintaining that on their own.
It's just another instruction set. The sky is not going to fall in. If you want to virtualise, or run on unauthorised hardware, though, you'll need to start with a CPU of the same architecture. The good thing about Aarm64 is that, unlike x86_64, it can be licensed by any company that wants to produce a competitive CPU.
"I may have missed it, but there are a lot of people who depend on hackintosh or virtualization out there"
Apple don't care if you depend on hackintosh - running osx on non apple hardware is against the TOS, they don't make money from it so if apple really don't care if hackintoshes stop working.
As for virtualisation, that's more of a grey area BUT I doubt that apple are going to be too worried about it given that it seems like most of the cases you give there would be a violation of the TOS for OSX.
The agreement basically says that you can only virtualise OSX on *apple hardware* already running OSX.
You cannot use the virtual machines for commercial purposes other than as part of the software development process (You might be able to argue the compiler farm case on this one, but I think even that might be shaky).
"What happens to all the developers at Microsoft carrying around Macs?"
They will probably carry on as normal, I expect there will be a Apple Silicon build target added to the .net core compiler in due course and I'm sure the dev tools will also be updated before apple release the hardware (Probably not visual studio, but I've already seen VS code on arm so that should be fairly straight forward).
Can you explain the legal basis for these Hackintoshes and virtualised MacOS instances? Apple famously doesn't permit MacOS to run virtualised except on another Mac. I'd be pretty surprised if there are large numbers of companies running unsupported and unlicensed farms of virtual Macs.
Happy to be proved wrong but the last time I checked and all that... as an ex MacOS Server owner...
Had arguments about this all over the web.
Windows for ARM is no more Windows than Windows RT, Windows for DEC Alpha, Windows CE or any other version. "Windows" means "x86 Windows" to most people who want to use it so desperately that they'll set up something like bootcamp.
And as soon as you're running x86 on ARM, it's no longer virtualisation (with small overhead), it's emulation (with huge overhead and crap performance).
I rarely need to boot to Windows on my Macs. What I do do frequently, though, is fireup VMWare Fusion and run a Windows VM to run minor applications that are only available as Windows apps.
*IF* VMware/Parrallels, etc were to emulate an x86 processor on ARM on Mac, top speed isn't required. It just needs to be fast enough to do a task.
Having to build every Docker container for multiple architectures so it will run on both developer and production machines is just not worth the faff. Unless ARM servers start to become more widely available I can see a lot of places dropping Macs in favour of Linux or (more likely) WSL.
So, people who must have Boot Camp Windows on Mac are largely developers who develop for MacOS and Windows, and find carrying just one machine convenient. For next few years there will be x86 Macs sold, including new Intel Macs that haven't been announced yet. There is also the option of renting a Windows VM in the cloud. Longer term? Dunno, but people will things out.
Another use case for Windows on Macs was that until a few years ago Windows laptops mostly had poor trackpads and other hardware niggles - but that is no longer true. Today very good Windows laptops are available.
And then there are gamers... well, I don't think Macs were ever a 1st choice for gaming. For sure, if you've spent loads of money on a Mac with GPUs for work then I can't blame you if you fancy a bit of gaming after hours. But if you're a casual gamer Mac/iOS have enough games, if you're an enthusiast gamer you wouldn't be using a Mac to begin with. And who knows, maybe game streaming services a la Google Stadia will mature.
For next few years there will be x86 Macs sold, including new Intel Macs that haven't been announced yet.
Apple said they expect the transition to take about 2 years, ie. 2 years from now they will not be selling x86 machines. x86 will continue to be supported by the OS for "years" (my guess would be 5-6 in line with current practice of deprecating hardware chez Apple) but it may soon become "maintenance" mode if they can sell enough of the new ones.
We won't really know until the new devices appear towards the end of the year and we can see whether Apple silicon does have better TDP and memory performance than x86. For example, same battery life / performance as now but in machines < 1 kg. That would be serious bragging rights. But let's see what they come up with.
I switched to Mac in 2012 and got Parallels to run Windows as there were a few apps that only ran on Windows. The main one was some Excel VBA code that was slightly different on the Mac version of Excel (it ran on both if coded under Windows but the print routines fell over if coded under MacOS/OSX). There were a few other programs I used that need Windows but I've subsequently found alternatives (mostly better and cheaper) for the Mac. I only keep my Windows VM running to keep myself up to date when needing to fix other folks Windows issues. I know others need Windows as a prime OS but, if it's a business situation, running a separate Windows box shouldn't be an issue. I switched to Mac because it did what I needed better than Windows (a lot less hassle keeping up to date).
Horses for courses. Don't buy a Mac if you don't want MacOS and its apps. If you need Windows, and the ARM powered Mac doesn't run it, get a separate machine - as somebody has said, they're pretty cheap...
But as a multi-platform developer, a Mac was my machine of choice. I write for Windows with Visual Studio via Parallels and OSX, iOS and Android using OSX. Now, to do the same, I have to carry 2 devices. To me this feels like Apple have forgotten or don’t care about some of the core requirements and uses of their machines. Sad day for developers.
They are probably completely out-numbered by the people who want to run iOS stuff on their laptop.
I look at this debate as the same thing that happened when Apple dropped the built-in floppy disk drive. Then the built-in CD drive. In a few years' time people will be scratching their heads at the concept of having different processor architectures between desktops and mobiles. Albeit PCs will probably need both x86 and ARM chips.
Okay, I think it is time that Borkzilla swallows the pill and licenses its DirectX technology to all and sundry. DirectX is clearly the best tech for rendering games, and Redmond has profited from it enough now. Windows is a service, right ? So license it off to Cupertino and the world of Linux and stop vainly and uselessly trying to get everyone to Windows.
Everyone is already using Windows apparently - even the well-heeled shiny ones who take care to show to everyone that they have a Mac. Apparently, they still boot into Windows, the irony.
I won't suggest open-sourcing DirectX, I know that that will never happen, ever. So just sell the license already.
Eh? DirectX is only used in some Windows games and Xbox. The main target for games is Android which uses Vulkan, and iOS which uses Metal (a close variant). Most AAA games target Playstation which again isn't DirectX.
Even if the low level graphics layer were 100% DirectX, next to no-one codes at that level. The real API is "Unreal Engine" and "Unity".
The only thing I used Bootcamp for was playing games, so that's not a big loss.
What is more worrying, however, is losing x86 virtualisation. I make a lot of use of both VirtualBox and Docker for my job, and losing the ability to run x86 stuff in a VM is a much bigger blow than losing Bootcamp is.
That's a shame, will have to take it off my list of things to consider when its time to get a new laptop.
It was never a consideration for me anyway. The processor doesn't change that. My only Apple/Mac device is a 10 year old MBP I bought at a flea market last year. It was meant mainly for any rare occasion I'd need access to MacOS. Although lately my daughter has been using it for conferencing with her tutors over FaceTime (and a cheap, used gen 4 iPod Touch could do the same thing).
As a multi-platform developer I carry one Mac running Parallels with Windows 10. I can go to a customers with one device and have all my development needs covered. The last thing I need to have to carry Is two lots of hardware to achieve the same thing. Sadly Apple have done no favours for multi-platform developers.
"At this rate there'll only be one platform in the future."
Nope. There will be two. Linux and BSD. Both are FOSS, which by their very nature will always be with us. Corporations are, also by their very nature, ephemeral. Apple and Microsoft are doomed to die, eventually. Shirley the proverbial Thinking Man should throw their lot in with the obvious long-term winners and eschew the obvious losers?
Before you poo-poo this, think about it. Where are Burroughs, Sperry, Allied Signal, Philco, Amdahl, Remington Rand, DEC and ROLM? And that's just for a start.
Not that the Cupertino & Redmond fans will pay any attention, of course. One wonders how supposedly computer literate people can be so fucking illogical ...
Avi Tevanian on arrival at Apple declared several times in public that his goal was to destroy Macintosh.
Mac OS X makes me cry or grind my teeth so hard they chip.
But even on the cutdown retarded agonisation that is Mac OS X (by comparison to Mac OS), the pre-existing culture in Apple Corporate of grimly gleefully steamrolling their customers STILL rolls on, stays dominant.
Eg FireWire. STILL has me fuming.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021