Craig Federighi: Native Windows on M1 Macs is 'Really up to Microsoft'

[peter2]

It is really unlikely. Why would Apple support booting to Linux?

The demand is small in any case for several reasons:

1. Apple Silicon is designed for highly efficient virtualization which makes virtual Linux instances very fast.

2. A lot of traditional Linux tools are available as native MacOS applications, which may make even the virtual Linux unnecessary.

3. If you need a single Linux tool, you may run it in Docker.

As a personal experience, I used to have a Linux VM running all the time. During the last years I have started it more and more seldom because of reasons 2 and 3 above.

The andwer is very simple. After 5-6 years (if not earlier) macOS version compatible with these M1 macs will stop receiving updates. Hence the only safe way to continue uding them will be to install Linux, or other OS that will still receive updates. Virtualisation inside the, then unsupported/unpatched version of macOS, does not help you in this respect.
So, as as a result, this means fast obsolence. Needles to say, that is quite bad news for the environment, and for the owners of those machine, sadly :-(

 

[peter2]

Ubuntu will come out with a version. they had versions for G4 and G5 so why not the M1.

T2 chip (or whatever replaces it inside the M1)

 

[peter2]

I am pretty sure that Rosetta 2 will sort that out.

Rosetta 2 will be killed by Apple rather soon, same way as they killed Rosetta 1 in the past. Unfortunatelly.
I never understood why on earth can’t Apple let me run old apps emulated (there is plenty of CPU power to do so). But they won’t :-(.

 

[Zdigital2015]

The MS Surface Pro X has an ARM chip. I think that was the first and currently only product running the ARM version of Windows.

My Surface RT disagrees with you.

 

[Kabeyun]

I wonder if Federighi is honest here or it's just false advertising. After all they won't let linux run on the M1.

Incorrect. At WWCD 2020 Apple demonstrated a prototype version of Parallels Desktop virtualizing Linux on Apple Silicon.

 

[BGPL]

This would impede on their surface market, they won't do it. MS doesn't make enough on Windows 10 licensing to make it worthwhile.

 

[peter2]

Incorrect. At WWCD 2020 Apple demonstrated a prototype version of Parallels Desktop virtualizing Linux on Apple Silicon.

I guess by “running Linux on M1” the OP meant running /booting directly, without macOS as hypervisor underneath (e.g. once that M1 mac will not be supported by Apple anymore).

 

[deconstruct60]

That is not a slam dunk for intel because there is always a huge gap between what intel promise on paper and what they offer. This is a big reason why Apple finally had to ditch intel. Intel have been behind ever since Skylake.

Did you actually look at slides? One part is a measurement and the other is the target projection. Those slides are not about "roadmaps". It is about tests being done at the beta stage. They have built it, no they have to optimize it.

And as I said closing the gap between currently measured and targeted is more a software thing; not a hardware thing. ( have to tweak the windows scheduler to deal with asymmetric processing. ). Software optimizations for hardware is not something that Intel has a long "fail" track record on. intel's optimizing compiler versus Apple's ? There is no big gap.

Just hand waving that Intel fails at hardware roadmaps has traction in other contexts, but that isn't what is going on here.

 

[Maconplasma]

Microsoft it is up to you to get on the stick and release native M1 Chip apps and Windows for the new Apple computers. Time will tell. Good to know Macs can run Windows if Microsoft licenses them to do it.

Yeah well "IF" is the keyword here. There's no real reason or benefit to Micro$oft to do this. Furthermore it gives them more ammo to get customers off Macs and back to buying Windows PC laptops and desktops. It's bad enough they dumb down the Mac version of Office by excluding key applications that only the Windows version has, yet the Mac customers pay 100% the same price for Office as the Windows crowd does. So don't count on M$ doing Mac customers any favors in regards to running Windows on a Mac.

 

[Maconplasma]

That would instantly make the MacBook one of the most popular Windows machines.

Well if you're buying a Mac to run Windows you're buying it for the wrong reasons and you should only invest in a Windows computer. I never get this. I buy a Mac to run MacOS only. If you need Windows buy a Windows machine.

 

[Maconplasma]

Yeah, this is exactly what so many of us have been worried about. It's easy for Mac fanboys to decry any need to run Windows at full speed, but that's just not the real world for so many people. For many persons in my circle, both personal and professional, the ability to run Windows was in fact KEY to their ability to switch to Mac, period. Unless they wanted to lug two systems around all the time, which let's be real, the majority of people don't want to do.

I certainly hope that the murmuring we've been hearing about Microsoft getting off their arse and actually making a good version of Windows for ARM is true.

Then don't buy a Mac. I run my entire insurance office on Mac software only. The few Windows machines we have are for emails and Office. If I primarily needed Windows I wouldn't have bought any Macs. Some of you should listen to yourselves here saying you can't get along in life without Windows. Then don't buy a Mac. Why spend $$$$ on a Mac only to install Windows? That's stupid. That made sense back in 2006. Today it doesn't.

 

[Maconplasma]

I don’t really see a downside for Microsoft here. In the same way that they’ve been eager to maintain their iOS footprint, maintaining a version of Windows for dual-boot Macs is ultimately beneficial to their installation numbers.

I would love for you to explain how this is beneficial for Microsoft? As it stands many that install Windows via Bootcamp aren't even paying for Windows. They either use a cracked version or they install the "demo" version from Microsoft's website and never install the activation key.

 

[Maconplasma]

If Windows support comes I will buy a new Apple Silicone Mac instantly. I like having one machine that does it all I don’t want a separate PC setup.

You can do this with Hackintosh.

 

[avonord]

I would love for you to explain how this is beneficial for Microsoft? As it stands many that install Windows via Bootcamp aren't even paying for Windows. They either use a cracked version or they install the "demo" version from Microsoft's website and never install the activation key.

Getting windows to run natively on Mac will increase their install base of windows on arm, something they desperately need. It will also discourage game developers from writing Mac specific games, if they can manage to make porting wintel games easy.

 

[NMBob]

I have a fe Windows-only games. I'm curious to see how they'd run.

Chip’s Challenge forever!

 

[deconstruct60]

I wonder if Federighi is honest here or it's just false advertising. After all they won't let linux run on the M1.

Pragmatically they do. Federighi even references Linux already running on the M1 in the article. Apple showed Linux running on macOS on Apple Silicon back at WWDC 2020.

Apple doesn't let it run Linux run "raw" on the hardware. That's actually firmware boot issue, but not technically running. if the user can open a new linux terminal window and start/stop a apache service launched from a linux binary and then install a new version of linux Postgress and install linux kernel bugfixes into the OS image .... how is the Linux operating system not running ? All those raw binary opcodes executing on the M1 and it is not running on the M1?

Federighi is being precise. It is folks trying to loop in pre-boot issues that are drifting from the truth. That grumbling is more about "control" than about "running".

 

[laptech]

The demand for Windows ARM on Apple silicon will come from the business sector because for the rest of us, having a dual boot MacOS and Windows OS is a gimmick. If there is enough demand from the business sector for it and for programs to run on it that would allow Microsoft to turn a profit then they will do it otherwise they wont.

The business sector will be the driving force because there are many businesses, companies and traders out there who use Windows and Windows software to operate and run their business. If a Mac using business wants to do business with a Windows using business, and vice versa, along the line there will be incompatibilities, businesses do not want to have to spend valuable time making edits and changes to files because of minor incompatibilities when converting mac files to windows files and vice versa. If a business wants clients, they have to make sure they can operate with the client on all levels which includes the computer operating system they use and the software programs they use because if the client senses there is going to be problems, the client will go else where and the business loses out.

It therefore makes business sense for businesses that solely use Mac computers to be able to run native windows programs which match those that the client use. For example, an engineering firm is trying to win a multi million dollar contract but they only use Mac computers and the company they are trying to win the contract with only uses Windows software. So naturally it would make sense for the Mac using company to have a machine that can run both operating systems because the potential client would want to know that if any software issues occurred, the mac using company would be able to handle it without any problems and having a dual booting OS machine, of course the business would be able to say yes.

I have two mac computers at home that are dual boot (bootcamp) and I did it because I wanted to see how both machines would handle windows. I used the windows portion for about 2 days, thought it was cool then went back to MacOS and have not used windows on those machines since. I am sure the same can be said for many of us general consumer users. Microsoft is not going to develop Windows ARM for the likes of us because they know people like us will not use Windows as our daily driver, we will revert back to OSX. The business sector on the other hand will buy Windows ARM, they will also buy software produced for it and they will use it continually, they will upgrade, purchase new software and even purchase service agreements to make sure the software continually to function 100%.

Question is, is there enough people in the business sector to make it worthwhile for Microsoft to develop ARM for the M1 mac's or will it be a case of such businesses having to go out and purchase a Windows based computer. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Apple, please, never fire or let go Johny Srouji ! He is a masterpiece when he was at Intel, and now he is a masterpiece at Apple for so many years

lmao I beg to differ. My 4790k is crippled after all the patches they released to address exploit after exploit after exploit. He's made plenty of mistakes too.

 

[Bonte]

Rosetta 2 will be killed by Apple rather soon, same way as they killed Rosetta 1 in the past. Unfortunatelly.
I never understood why on earth can’t Apple let me run old apps emulated (there is plenty of CPU power to do so). But they won’t :-(.

If I remember correctly was Rosetta 1 a licenced product from a 3 party, Apple stopped paying for it at some point. Rosetta 2 seems like an in-house solution that they can keep running for a long time.

 

[deconstruct60]

The andwer is very simple. After 5-6 years (if not earlier) macOS version compatible with these M1 macs will stop receiving updates. Hence the only safe way to continue uding them will be to install Linux, or other OS that will still receive updates. Virtualisation inside the, then unsupported/unpatched version of macOS, does not help you in this respect.
So, as as a result, this means fast obsolence. Needles to say, that is quite bad news for the environment, and for the owners of those machine, sadly :-(

If solely just using macOS as a Hypervisor just how wide is the sercuirty hole here. For example the latest Security Bulletin.

About the security content of macOS Big Sur 11.0.1 - Apple Support

This document describes the security content of macOS Big Sur 11.0.1.

support.apple.com

Most of those are non kernel applications. If the virtual machine software doesn't use those then is no vector. Even the parts where there is a kernel issue it often is "Malicious application ..." .. Well on the hypervisor framework there is no MacOS application running. I suppose if load up a compromised OS to host and it exploits the kernel there is a problem ... but the security horse already left the barn .. the OS being hosted is compromised.

Apple's hypervisor needs some substantial work. They need to add the ability to add/map a physical device to a specific hosted OS ( so give the host OS its own private Ethernet controller. ) so that it is isolated from the hypervisor/kernel normal code also.

If the user stops making updates and using the underlying macOS instance and pragmatically just air gaps it... the overwhelming vast majority of the security problems disappear if get off the Internet and stop installing new software. ( if don't let people in then no problem to mitigate).

Essentially can abandon macOS in place . Big iron IBM mainframes and power systems never run any OS that is installed for user interaction "raw" on the ha.rdware. The "boot" process is always run on top of a small hypervisor layer. What Apple is missing if they want to go on this path is a scaled down pragmatically hypervisor only version of macOS. Not exactly like, but something akin to HyperV . Apple has a new "system recovery" image they have squirreled away hidden on the system.

In short, if Apple is going to put a lot less effort into the infrastructure around Boot Camp then they need to put all that effort level and more into the hypervisor. Right now, t it is a bit of doing less work and also less work over both. ( at least from the outside view. ) . The hypervisor framework isn't that different than it was several years ago.

If Apple is going to point 100's of thousands of folks at this this hypervisor ... it needs to be substantially better if they are going to completely cut off boot time OS image options. Apple can make the choice to cut that off for security reasons, but that shouldn't be a "free lunch" to do less work. There is just other work to do.

That problem won't resolve itself if folks just ask Apple to open back up what Apple thinks is an security vector problem. The two sides will be talking past each other and probably nothing will get done over the long term.

 

[deconstruct60]

lmao I beg to differ. My 4790k is crippled after all the patches they released to address exploit after exploit after exploit. He's made plenty of mistakes too.

the 4790k launched in 2014. If backtrack 4 years from 2013 (give Intel a final year 'polishing' of design and roll out) then you get to 2009. Srouji left Intel in 2008.

There are older processors that have problems so some of rot started in his tenure, but he also didn't have a chance to catch it either after he left. ( lots of other folks didn't catch it either both inside and outside of Intel.) I suspect Apple may have sniffed out more their fair share of problems with Intel when they started intense , detailed semantic gap matching between Intel x86 and ARM (subset that Apple was tracking). But yes.... Intel should have been looking earlier.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

That would instantly make the MacBook one of the most popular Windows machines. It would decimate the Surface line of Microsoft products, especially the Surface Pro X.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. That's why they won't do it.

 

[Maconplasma]

Getting windows to run natively on Mac will increase their install base of windows on arm, something they desperately need. It will also discourage game developers from writing Mac specific games, if they can manage to make porting wintel games easy.

Gotta be blunt here. Are you listening to yourself? Why in the world would anyone buying a Mac want game developers to be discouraged from writing Mac-specific games? That's so ridiculous. It's just the opposite in fact. People want more Mac-specific games since Windows ports generally suck so badly. Don't buy a Mac then if that's your frame of mind. I realize you were addressing my question but then your money should be invested in a Windows machine, period. Obviously you're a Windows fan that is supporting Microsoft's well being. SMH. Apple doesn't make Macs for people to use Windows on them. There would be no point in Apple making MacOS at all then. By your mindset we as consumers should only be running Windows. I can't believe after all these years some people still have this mindset.

 

[chucker23n1]

Gotta be blunt here. Are you listening to yourself? Why in the world would anyone buying a Mac want game developers to be discouraged from writing Mac-specific games?

Um, your question was how it’s beneficial to Microsoft. This is one possible answer. Whether users want that is an entirely different question.

 

[Nicole1980]

I thought windows for arm basically couldnt run 'intel windows' software. Or am I wrong? If I'm right and it cant run all the regular intel windows stuff, then its kind of useless to me.