Microsoft Brings x64 Emulation to Windows on Arm PCs

[Analog Kid]

I'm sure Microsoft is looking at the M1 very carefully. Maybe they know something is coming soon from the x86 world that moots the M1 but otherwise, Windows risk being relegated to an inferior platform.

I don't see any reason Apple would prevent native Windows. They didn't prevent it before. They're a hardware (and now services) company. The OS and application development is financed by hardware sales-- if a bunch more people are buying the hardware but not using the software, that still helps underwrite the software development.

The one open question in my mind is how well Windows can use the custom coprocessors on the AS SoC. Will Apple give them access to the neural engine, for example, and will Microsoft be willing to stay nimble in fully supporting the features of what I expect will be a rapidly changing architecture.

If Microsoft makes Windows available on AS, that's a huge win for Apple. While Windows users would sometimes buy Macs in the past because they preferred the hardware, but really it was just a PC by another name. Now there is a performance reason to switch. I think this would drive a spike in Mac sales volumes that we didn't see with just the switch to Intel.

This could likely do irreparable harm to Microsoft's relationship with Intel, largely because it could do irreparable harm to Intel.

It would also drive a massive wave of competition in the ARM CPU space as people fight to compete with Apple for their share of the Windows market. I think we'd eventually start seeing non-MacOS ARM PCs running Windows only.

Which would be another nail in Intel's coffin.

In short, I'm pretty sure the Intel folks are sending lots of wine and flowers to Redmond right now.

 

[zorinlynx]

I can't believe you said MS and done right in the same paragraph. 😱

LOL, my sides! It's so true, but I meant "done right" as defined by Microsoft. As in, still buggy, but sorta works enough that big companies will keep using it.

 

[tdar]

If you run the Windows 10 x86 emulator on the latest Qualcomm "desktop" ARM CPUs (i.e. 8cx Gen 2), it gives performance equivalent to ~400 in Geekbench 5 (vs ~800 native). Emulating x86/x64 is of course very important on Windows because the vast majority of Windows is x86/x64, and that won't change any time in the foreseeable future given that x64 has and will continue to have a massive marketshare advantage in the Windows ecosystem.

The M1 scores ~1300 in Rosetta and ~1700 native. It's hard to imagine Windows OEMs having much success selling ARM systems that run most of the Windows software 4x slower than a MacBook Air. Within the x64 world, that differential would be equivalent to selling a circa-2008 Intel/AMD Ultrabook when your competitor is offering a 2020 Intel/AMD Ultrabook. Even the Intel/AMD systems won't be very competitive against the M1 and its successors, but at least they won't be totally embarrassed like the ARM systems.

You make the case for Microsoft to build an Apple Silicon Version of Windows 10 for ARM.

 

[aevan]

Maybe Microsoft should pay Apple to have them port the Rosetta 2 technology to Windows, as they seem incapable of providing a usable experience of non-arm programs to its arm platform.

It wouldn’t work. Rosetta is specifically designed to take advantage of M chips, and M chips are specifically designed to run Rosetta well. Once again, it’s the combination of hardware and software and full vertical control that allows Apple to do their magic.

 

[robjulo]

If 10 million Mac users download copies at $100, that’s $1 billion. Not much, but not nothing, either. And it would validate ARM as a platform for Windows. Qualcomm might decide to improve their next chips, making them viable to other OEMs. I’m sure Dell, HP, Asus, et. al would like to have devices to compete with the M1 Mac’s combination of power and battery life.

I fully agree.....I was responding to the other poster.

 

[zakarhino]

Can people seriously stop referring to VMs on M1 as "running X OS on my M1 machine." You're emulating it, you're not booting into it and running the OS directly on the hardware vs. wrapping it in all the macOS 11 BS. Just say "I'm emulating X OS on my M1 machine."

 

[MacLC]

I have a bunch of old 32-bit games that I'll probably miss out on then like SimCity 4. Great game, much better in many ways compared to the SimCity reboot.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread but now I pretty much have to.

Thankfully after losing my copy of SC4 I got it on sale on GOG/Steam or whatever, but haven't played in several years, but now I suddenly want a taste.

Worst case scenario, I'll play those games on my $400 Windows "media center" rig. When SC4 first came out, my expensive PowerBook was so slow, the time barely moved. That same mac ran SC2K on Cheetah so fast the date was a blur.

Now my 5 year old $400 media center runs SC4 like my PowerBook once ran SC2K. Oh how time flies.

 

[dogslobber]

Rosetta 2 for Windows?

 

[iAlexandre]

I guarantee that Microsoft will do it, but only as a VM. I do not think that Apple plans to allow Bootcamp (for many reasons, security among them).

Easy claim to make in that it has already been done. :-D

Apple already said that they are ready for Bootcamp on M1 Macs and that this is up to Microsoft. This will come, sooner than most people think.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Can people seriously stop referring to VMs on M1 as "running X OS on my M1 machine." You're emulating it, you're not booting into it and running the OS directly on the hardware vs. wrapping it in all the macOS 11 BS. Just say "I'm emulating X OS on my M1 machine."

Sorry, you are just wrong. Virtualization is not emulating the software, the hypervisor provides partitioned access to the underlying hardware, and depending on the system, a abstraction layer for some hardware (which is just what Metal is, an abstraction layer for GPUs and ML).

 

[Alan Wynn]

Apple already said that they are ready for Bootcamp on M1 Macs and that this is up to Microsoft. This will come, sooner than most people think.

Apple did not say that. They said the opposite:

Apple later confirmed it’s not planning to support Boot Camp on ARM-based Macs in a Daring Fireball podcast. “We’re not direct booting an alternate operating system,” says Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering. “Purely virtualization is the route. These hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn’t really be the concern.”

 

[Digital Dude]

Ever since the surface line was introduced, Microsoft has made steady improvements with its hardware. While still painfully slow, Microsoft has not been standing still. I love Surface Studio 2, and I look forward to purchasing version 3. I think this device has great potential for business types that like to review, sign, manipulate, and process documents into any format and shoot them off to whomever.

The hardware design is near Mac-like' in terms of structural build quality, especially the hinge mechanism. I would rather have this device vs. an iMac based largely on the tilt-down design and other features. While I'm still a died-in-the-wool Apple conservative, I do see the value in competing designs.

 

[JustAnExpat]

0%: Chance that Microsoft will make Windows run on Apple Silicon.

100%: Chance that somebody else will do it.

Why won't they work with Apple to release Windows for Arm Macs? Microsoft makes money on operating system sales. Apple makes money on hardware sales. They haven't been competitors in at least two decades now.

 

[sfwalter]

Still Microsoft does not license Windows Arm to end-users. Hopefully, this will change by the time the version with X64 support is out.

 

[ian87w]

I'm sure Microsoft is looking at the M1 very carefully. Maybe they know something is coming soon from the x86 world that moots the M1 but otherwise, Windows risk being relegated to an inferior platform.

I don't see any reason Apple would prevent native Windows. They didn't prevent it before. They're a hardware (and now services) company. The OS and application development is financed by hardware sales-- if a bunch more people are buying the hardware but not using the software, that still helps underwrite the software development.

The one open question in my mind is how well Windows can use the custom coprocessors on the AS SoC. Will Apple give them access to the neural engine, for example, and will Microsoft be willing to stay nimble in fully supporting the features of what I expect will be a rapidly changing architecture.

If Microsoft makes Windows available on AS, that's a huge win for Apple. While Windows users would sometimes buy Macs in the past because they preferred the hardware, but really it was just a PC by another name. Now there is a performance reason to switch. I think this would drive a spike in Mac sales volumes that we didn't see with just the switch to Intel.

This could likely do irreparable harm to Microsoft's relationship with Intel, largely because it could do irreparable harm to Intel.

It would also drive a massive wave of competition in the ARM CPU space as people fight to compete with Apple for their share of the Windows market. I think we'd eventually start seeing non-MacOS ARM PCs running Windows only.

Which would be another nail in Intel's coffin.

In short, I'm pretty sure the Intel folks are sending lots of wine and flowers to Redmond right now.

Microsoft is definitely looking into that option. The fact that they had Office working natively on AS by WWDC showed MS commitment. Under Satya, MS is more keen into being platform agnostic than the old Microsoft.

And Microsoft is not really good buddy with intel anyway. In fact, MS was a better buddy of AMD than intel. It's just that intel holds the majority marketshare of PC hardware, and MS being the majority software platform, people tend to see PC as a "wintel" duo.

Having said all of that, I doubt that AS Macs, even with Windows running on it natively, will put too much dent on the intel PC marketshare. Simply because majority of PCs sold are less than $1000 PCs, more even in the $600 and under. The majority in my country, for example, are the low end Acers and Asus. Apple is not in that segment at all, let alone the enterprise market.

Imo mobile/smartphones are the ones doing that dent to the PC market.

 

[omenatarhuri]

Apple Silicon Boot Camp on its way....

 

[luvbug]

They'll get their ARM act together, or they'll become another IBM/Honeywell/Univac. Although IBM has hung on better, with all their legacy gov't mainframe "stuff".

 

[alien3dx]

It's almost 2021. This is basically like saying there is 0% chance MS SQL Server will run on Linux. Ubuntu won't run on Windows/HyperV. Powershell for Linux. The list goes on.

Microsoft finally realized that they aren't going to control what the end user buys. They can either play nice and have tons of users or not play nice and never reach certain users. Microsoft absolutely wants you to still run Windows if you have a Mac.

This article and a lot of commenters are pretty biased. I'm already doing some tests with Win10ARM on my M1 Mac. 32-bit applications are running surprisingly well (Not perfect but plenty functional). Comments saying Microsoft are copying Apple are pretty darn laughable. You think Microsoft threw this together in a couple months? This has been an ongoing project for a long time. ARM has reached a point where it has enough power for both Apple and Microsoft to really start exploring these translation paths to embracing ARM.

I honestly didn't know they were adding 64-bit support too. This isn't Windows RT anymore this is a real player. If they do get it running in bootcamp I can already tell you from the little bit I've played with the VM its going to be a serious grandslam with the best of both worlds.

I'm pretty excited. Incredible progress in very little time.

i like sql server , but just dont like if backup/restore failure.If backup/restore no issue would suggest to customer.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I'm sure Microsoft is looking at the M1 very carefully. Maybe they know something is coming soon from the x86 world that moots the M1 but otherwise, Windows risk being relegated to an inferior platform.

Pretty unlikely that they would know about it, but Intel would have hidden it from Apple, hence I would not count on it.

I don't see any reason Apple would prevent native Windows.

Here is a partial list:

1. It would require them to provide low level documentation for many systems for which they would not want to do that.
2. It would prevent them for changing the hardware interfaces at will. One of the big wins for their approach is that they hardware, silicon and software teams work together to produce the best product. Not having outside clients makes that possible.
3. It would create security issues (requiring they provide access to the secure enclave would be an example).
4. If Microsoft produced a terrible implementation, it would have an impact on the perception of the Apple Silicon product as a whole.

I am sure there are two to three times as many reasons, but these were the first four that came to mind.

They didn't prevent it before.

When the made the transition last time, they were in a much weaker position then they are now.

They're a hardware (and now services) company. The OS and application development is financed by hardware sales-- if a bunch more people are buying the hardware but not using the software, that still helps underwrite the software development.

Taking limited time from the engineers who would have to make this happen would be bad for them. It is not a cost issue, it is mindshare issue.

The one open question in my mind is how well Windows can use the custom coprocessors on the AS SoC. Will Apple give them access to the neural engine, for example, and will Microsoft be willing to stay nimble in fully supporting the features of what I expect will be a rapidly changing architecture.

A perfect example as to why they would not want to do it. Currently, Apple’s Silicon team has one customer. Wether intentionally or not, this would mean there were at least two. That is bad for them and they will want to prevent it.

If Microsoft makes Windows available on AS, that's a huge win for Apple.

There are certainly some benefits for a version of Windows that run in a VM on Apple Silicon. There are also risks and long term downsides. Probably not enough to prevent it from happening, but it is not all sweetness and light.

While Windows users would sometimes buy Macs in the past because they preferred the hardware, but really it was just a PC by another name. Now there is a performance reason to switch. I think this would drive a spike in Mac sales volumes that we didn't see with just the switch to Intel.

Agreed. Maintaining the performance advantage for their own OS is a benefit.

This could likely do irreparable harm to Microsoft's relationship with Intel, largely because it could do irreparable harm to Intel.

Microsoft cares about Microsoft. If hurting Intel is good for Microsoft, they will not care.

It would also drive a massive wave of competition in the ARM CPU space as people fight to compete with Apple for their share of the Windows market. I think we'd eventually start seeing non-MacOS ARM PCs running Windows only.

One thing we will see is the difference between custom silicon and generic silicon, unless Microsoft spends a lot of money for a very small market and tries to develop their own.

In short, I'm pretty sure the Intel folks are sending lots of wine and flowers to Redmond right now.

I doubt that. I do not think they see how bad their current situation is.

 

[btrach144]

Apple have been building their own ARM based chips since 2009, but it ain’t a competition.

Just look at that laggy POS Microsoft released compared to the M1 machines....

Not a competition... proceeds to put down rivals product. Okay, triggered

 

[Analog Kid]

Microsoft is definitely looking into that option. The fact that they had Office working natively on AS by WWDC showed MS commitment. Under Satya, MS is more keen into being platform agnostic than the old Microsoft.

And Microsoft is not really good buddy with intel anyway. In fact, MS was a better buddy of AMD than intel. It's just that intel holds the majority marketshare of PC hardware, and MS being the majority software platform, people tend to see PC as a "wintel" duo.

Having said all of that, I doubt that AS Macs, even with Windows running on it natively, will put too much dent on the intel PC marketshare. Simply because majority of PCs sold are less than $1000 PCs, more even in the $600 and under. The majority in my country, for example, are the low end Acers and Asus. Apple is not in that segment at all, let alone the enterprise market.

Imo mobile/smartphones are the ones doing that dent to the PC market.

Of course we just saw a sub $699 Mac trounce top end Intel hardware...

Mobile devices are putting a squeeze on consumer sales of PCs for sure. I think my comment regarding Macs was the relative improvement in sales for Apple. A 50% bump in sales for Apple, for example, would be big for them while maybe not qualifying as dent in Intel.

When the other PC makers start shifting to Arm though, and the Acers and Asuses of the world realize they can sell Arm based Windows machines more cheaply than Intel ones, that when there starts to be a dent in Intel.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

And what would you do with it, seriously? Install it on your Raspberry Pi? What for?

I agree. Why does ANYONE want to use Windows? Outside of development efforts and those would be very slim, I can't see why anyone would. Maybe some have to run Windows only app from 1998?

I have ZERO issue with boot camp being pulled from the M1 Mac's and I personally do not care if Parrelles, VMware or virtual box ever get Windows running in a VM on a M1 Mac.

I have to occasionally use Windows at work, or help an unfortunate family member with their Windows computer. Mind you have I have many Microsoft certifications (MCSE NT 4.0, 2003, 2008R2, Exchange 5.5, 2000, 2003, 2012, Hyper V, SCCM, etc) and I dread using Windows. Windows 10 is a dumpster fire of an OS, even after 5 years of bi-annual updates.

 

[Tech198]

Apple does it right, Microsoft does it wrong

 

[ian87w]

Apple does it right, Microsoft does it wrong

Well, Apple can drop legacy support willy nilly. Microsoft even today still has to retain 32bit x86 support and even some win9x stuff. The fact that Windows 10 64bit can run 32bit x86 transparently is already an achievement imo. Now Microsoft has to emulate all of those into ARM. Obviously the wall is much higher than Apple's.

 

[alien3dx]

I agree. Why does ANYONE want to use Windows? Outside of development efforts and those would be very slim, I can't see why anyone would. Maybe some have to run Windows only app from 1998?

I have ZERO issue with boot camp being pulled from the M1 Mac's and I personally do not care if Parrelles, VMware or virtual box ever get Windows running in a VM on a M1 Mac.

I have to occasionally use Windows at work, or help an unfortunate family member with their Windows computer. Mind you have I have many Microsoft certifications (MCSE NT 4.0, 2003, 2008R2, Exchange 5.5, 2000, 2003, 2012, Hyper V, SCCM, etc) and I dread using Windows. Windows 10 is a dumpster fire of an OS, even after 5 years of bi-annual updates.

1. I don't have to use DOS, while apple people talk about "terminal"
2. To search is easy but to search in MACOS, er aaa let open "terminal" locate.

Why do I use macOS iMac?

1. I hate laptop keyboards either it was windows or mac. I got broken keyboard magic 2 and a lot of broken keyboard laptop after one year
2. I build iOS apps. If not I prefer to stay in ubuntu/fedora/windows.