Kind of proves my point. Microsoft can't even get its OS in beta form to run properly on general ARM and you expect their emulator on M! to be better? He he? You're serious?!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
After Anti-M1 Ads, Intel Wants to Make Future Apple Silicon Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kind of proves my point. Microsoft can't even get its OS in beta form to run properly on general ARM and you expect their emulator on M! to be better? He he? You're serious?!
My point is that Windows doesn't run on the M1 in a way that you can use it professionally.
The thing is the way Apple has the OS integrated to the M1 single-core performance is only part of the picture and it may not be as slow as you think it is.
It's already slow on my systems.
The M1s are not magic.
Compare it to an Exadata system and you'll find it is way underpowered.
As I demonstrated it does run. Either as a beta or slow but Windows does run on an M1.
Of course it would have to be either translated or emulated and if the later it is not going to do as well. Not Apple's fault.
Never claimed they were.
Based on their prices Exadata systems are medium to high end. Also an M1 machine can do its thing on just 30 W. I seriously doubt there is any Exadata system that runs on that small a wattage footprint with comparative native software performance.
With 1.4 TB of RAM? Probably wouldn't run on 30 Watts. But they are nice to run in cloud data centers.
The original complaint was that the M1 doesn't run Windows.
It doesn't. In any practical sense of the word.
And certainly not in the corporate world. Asking your boss for an M1 in a Windows environment? Your IT department is just going to say no. They aren't going to support QEMU or Windows ARM beta.
Exactly, the M1 is just as a failure as the PowerPC was - and the fact no more Bootcamp makes it that no one should buy apples M1 garbage processor !!! The Exadata system is 300 times powerful than the M1 and will blow the M1 out ! Sorry, Intel won this battle !
The M1 is useful and will become more useful as software gets ported to it and as IT departments kick the tires to consider them. But I don't expect this to happen that quickly. Companies and organizations that rely on x86 as a requirement will have a lot of difficulty. They aren't going to be running QEMU, and, even if they tried it out, they'd be better off with a Lenovo for performance. You have to have an organization where it is really easy to go with M1 and where IT costs to add them are justified by the costs of supporting them.
If it were easy, then I'd be all in. Instead, I have to run a mixed environment. Companies typically don't like to support multiple systems per employee.
This is all highly similar to... same situation as forever ;-)
OMG The Cube!
It's half the clock rate, but faster bro!
Given everybody and his brother, except Intel, is going ARM (even AMD) this is going to be an issue as time progresses. In the mobile market ARM is king and if you can get the desktop market there too that makes it easier on programmers.
Last edited:
Appeal to the future.
I'm talking about the situation right now.
If you need Windows right now, you don't buy an M1 unless you're going to be using it with an x86 PC.
Considering I've run MS OS' on Apples since the PC Transporter days, and am using Parallels right now on an M1 Mac, I know it can be done. Looking at UTM as well.
But that's not my point. It's a perception and change issue.
Most people do not know you can run Windows on a Mac. When they buy a PC, they want what they know and chances are that's a PC. They do not have the desire to discover what a Mac can do, they want to buy a machine, turn it on and have it run the software they are used to running. Even if they know, they don't want to mess with buying an expensive product, setting it up, plus a buying Windows license for a total thats 1/3 the cost of a new Windows laptop; all on top of the price of a Mac.
A sane person that wants Windows buys a Windows PC with an AMD or Intel Chip.
Which is why Windows on a Mac has another problem - if it won't run programs people want they won't buy it.
I'd guess the later. I only have it for PowerBI since I don't want to mess with having 2 machines.
My guess most IT departments won't consider them because it adds to their workload supporting two different systems. Anecdotally, the only place I've seen any significant number of Macs is in research organizations or small consulting firms where the staff pick the machines.
I just want Apple defeated by Intel.. Intel’s goal
Is to defeat apple. When Steve died, Apple died with him and now we are seeing garbage being produced - badly designed un-upgradable stuff - too much control and less DIY upgrades. Really, I think Apple is eventually going to fall by it’s own greed in management and QA, because I have their iPhone XR and it’s absolutely the worse phone I have owned and I can’t stand them limiting the service area because they FORCE you to buy new. This is why Intel has a much more advantage.. I used to be strong supporter of Apple or fanboi till I read truth about Apple.. now I am extreme anti-Apple after Jobs died.
Bootcamp is forever gone on the M1 Mac.. bad move by Herr Tim Cook.. this will make more people leave Apple - one thing I want to see is the internal IMPLOSION of Apple. I am waiting for this to happen so cook can be ousted and someone who like Steve can run the company. Not having Bootcamp is a tragedy which will decline sales of Apple’s overpriced M1 Mac which is a rip off of Exadata.
I've been using QEMU for a while, mostly to run macOS on random hardware. No big deal. Best performance is KVM/QEMU on Linux. Then there are issues with GPUs - you need a second GPU for good performance.
My son's organization issues Macs. They do bio research, development and engineering. They need to be able to run Linux, macOS and Windows. They have flexible servers so that they can run VMs for Windows and Linux but it's often more convenient to do work locally if the workload isn't huge. His MacBook Pro has a bulging battery so he's using one of my old MacBook Pros while waiting for a new MacBook Pro 16 Intel from his workplace. Things are a mess with their IT because of WFH.
Places like Oracle, Google, Mozilla, IBM issue Macs. They have big enough IT staffs so that they can support multiple hardware and operating system platforms. I'm sure that there are lots of others that do this - I just happen to know about these companies specifically.
I am trying UTM from the app store ($10 vs free on the UTM site) mainly because it's an all in one solution and I have no desire fiddling with installs and it supports further development. I'm wasting enough time getting my RaspberryPi setup as an arcade emulator.
Researchers seem to like Macs. Years ago when I worked at a research institute we were all Mac; which was quite different than my previous all PC environment.
I'm not surprised valley companies use Macs, given the techie nature of their employees; and didn't IBM ink a big deal with Apple a while back? Most of my experience is working with not tech companies or government; which tend to be PC oriented except for isolated areas. My guess is cost is a big driver - when you but thousands of machines the price delta between a PC laptop and a Mac becomes significant. Plus as you point out, unless you have a large IT staff rolling out updates, ensuring compatibility, etc. can be a pain as well.
To me, it gets back to the average user has no idea what their machine can do, Mac or PC. They run with what is pre loaded and that's it; maybe adding a game or some sort of personal productivity / social networking app. They don't know sites like MacRumors exist, and if they stumble on it wading through all the nonsense makes it unlikely they'll stick around.
I work with some really smart people who are Mac users and after I saw them keep using finder to move items or attach them to emails I showed them Yoink and they loved it but would not have found it by themselves.
Part of the problem it's hard to find good curated lists of apps for specific use cases. The app store isn't bad but it gives you a pretty generic list of categories. Setapp is a bit better, even if it lacks some real killer apps, but it also has far fewer apps than the App store so it's easier to categorize and present all results.
Steve Jobs was infamous in not wanting upgradeable macs. He is the reason Apple has the philosophy that computers should be like appliances and not have slots, sockets, etc. Your post is full of errors.