Can’t blame Apple for Microsoft doing the usual half-assed effort when building ARM Windows despite actually building and selling an ARM platform. MS has a tradition of kinda-implementing solutions (like their tableto-laptop which has worst features of both and runs a castrated Windows wih no apps) and incredible reluctance to shed technological debt and cut off backwards compatibility. If MS had proper follow-through, it would’ve been ARM Windows in that Apple demo.
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.
Rosetta Won't Support x86 Virtualization Apps Running Windows
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is that Apple expects to gain more Mac users from existing iPhone and iPad users than they lose from the inability to run Windows natively or in virtualization.
Unfortunately working tor a corporation means we still need to use windows. but, I can now use Windows inside remote desktop while I run an azure VM 
So, I hope they weren't looking to sell a lot of Intel based macs in the next 2 years. I heard of enough people that were complaining about the change to Intel, and how their now useless PPC macs were, well, useless.
Time marches on. But, hmm...
Should anyone buy a new Intel based mac in the next 2 years? And they just announced the New New New Mac Pro!
Awkward?
Will they have a New 'macOS Pro' that only supports Intel processors? Hmm... I suppose New 'macOS Pro' could go 'massively parallel', to support the liquid cooled New New New New Mac Pro with 10 24-core Xeon processors.
Time marches on. But, hmm...
Should anyone buy a new Intel based mac in the next 2 years? And they just announced the New New New Mac Pro!
Awkward?
Will they have a New 'macOS Pro' that only supports Intel processors? Hmm... I suppose New 'macOS Pro' could go 'massively parallel', to support the liquid cooled New New New New Mac Pro with 10 24-core Xeon processors.
According to AppleInsider, only about 2% of Macs run Boot Camp. Apple is betting that for every one of you who leaves, more will migrate to the platform because their favorite iPad apps will run.
[automerge]1592957053[/automerge]
Probably not as many as you think. According to AppleInsider, only about 2% of Macs run Boot Camp.
I jumped onto Google as I was posting in this thread and thinking about the problem space, and I promptly found QEMU. Hadn't heard of it before, but it satisfied my curiosity as to what was out there already today in the way of potential x64 on ARM solutions.
I suspect we are going to see a large uptick in interest in such products. It would be very interesting to see benchmarks of QEMU running x64 on a Surface Pro X for example. Or, perhaps even more germane here, running on the ARM Mac Mini Apple is about to starting shipping out (but it might violate license agreement to do so).
That’s probably why Apple made a point of saying they would support running Linux in virtualization.
Apple did say, clearly, that they will be releasing Intel-based Macs "for years to come", so for those that absolutely require native x86-64 compatibility, the Intel platform will remain available. What's the problem?
But I get the idea that this is a limitation of Apple's own virtualization and kludge to support two different incompatible code bases at the same time. Like a bridge. Who knows what will be on the other side, and VMWare could step up and develop a 'New Apple Custom Silicon' version of Fusion.
I'm retired, but when I was working, I had VM's of several flavors of Windows and Windows server on my MacBook Pro. It was GREAT! I can't see running it any other way, back then. If they dump ALL virtualization, they will lose a lot of market share. If they think that poop sandwich is going to be popular after the change to their own 'silicon', they will be surprised...
But who knows. Maybe people won't mind.
Sucks for me, but I’m sure it works better for more users. I’ll move to Linux on a Thinkpad and use VMware Workstation. I’ll still have my iPhone and iPad Pro and I’ll hope that my iPad continues to get more features as this transition happens, especially better external monitor support.
I wonder if Parallels will rise to the challenge. Their subscription model has overcharged for years for doing very little to maintain "compatibility" with the latest versions of macOS. Now they'll actually have to put some real effort into things.
As a Java developer by day, and someone who has worked with JavaFX (now OpenJFX) and really liked it, I'm also concerned/curious if that will be updated to work with this new ARM-based macOS.
As a Java developer by day, and someone who has worked with JavaFX (now OpenJFX) and really liked it, I'm also concerned/curious if that will be updated to work with this new ARM-based macOS.
sorry but don’t need a toy app MacBook to run apps optimized for an iPad. Lol. Perhaps there’s a market for it. The kiddos will still want an iPad though.
The pros (or the few who remain with Apple still) will switch to windows. While Apple narrows its focus to targeting the mainstream crowd with a dumbed down macOS and crap apps.
I probably bought my last Mac. Maybe one of the arm ones later might make a good entertainment device. Sort of like an iPad does already.
They said they have some more Intel Macs in the pipeline, but not they will continue for years. They expect the transition to their chips to take 2 years, but they’ll continue to support Intel for some time after that. Probably for like 5 years. But for me, I’ll move sooner as I’d like to figure out a new workflow since I know my MacBook Pro will be out for my general work.
Right. Connectix and SoftPC/SoftWindows didn't have any native x86 code running from the PowerPC CPU as we do with current x86 Macs yet it produced a reasonable emulation that was usable.
The exact same thing could be done that they did back then with full x86 emulation of modern Intel/AMD chips and it could be surprisingly fast with future ARM silicon from Apple. So don't write off the ability to run Windows reasonably well on the new hardware.
But the world is a lot different from what it was 15 years ago. Back then, Windows support was critical to wooing “switchers” from Windows to the Mac. Now, there is a larger installed base, many of whom never even think of running a Windows program. And as long as XCode is the only tool for writing iOS/iPadOS apps, developers will likely continue buying Macs. Maybe they’ll just buy cheaper MacBook Airs instead of the 16” MacBook Pro, since their other coding will be on Intel-based PCs.
In any case, I’m guessing Microsoft is rooting for Apple to succeed. They’ve tried to wean themselves from Intel before. Windows NT was the first attempt back in the 1990s. It was supposed to run on PowerPC and SPARC chips.
My company is mostly a windows shop, but a couple of us have Macs and use Parallels for applications without a MacOS equivalent. I've been kind of itching to move to Windows as a service in Azure so I can assert more granular control over those virtual desktops, this is probably a good opportunity. This solution obviously won't work for everyone who is using virtualization, but it's a compromise I am willing to make.
It's still early, so I'm not sure how much we can ascertain from current limitations. Does make me glad I upgraded from Windows years ago though. Life is better when you don't do Windows! Still from the way they are talking this does not sound like a permanent limitation, but MS might not be licensing, you know MS, everything to make it hard for the customer
When Final Cut Pro starts running circles around anything on the Intel side, I’m guessing the Mac will become a favored platform for video editing.
I highly doubt these new ARM Macs are going to be cheaper.
As a Mac user, I don't care what percentage of users I group with. I'm done.
As an Apple shareholder, I hope you are right.