Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
in respect of refusing to boot anything else, when Microsoft got slated for years for similar behaviour (but not quite so severe).
I like more than one system on my computers and am constantly playing with different OSes. It's a sickness I have :)
It'll be an ex sickness if I get a new M1.
It also changes the spec of a prospective new M1 for me. I won't need as much SSD space and I probably won't choose the 16GB option for ram, whereas with more OSes I would.
Similarly with virtualisation looking more and more iffy on an M1 the same applies.

I know Apple say it's for securty reasons but I'm a big boy and I really can make my own decisions re: risk.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robotica

digitalbreak

macrumors regular
Jan 3, 2016
161
124
New technology and pushing the boundaries do come at a cost. And, Apple is known to control its hardware and software to provide the best performance/optimizations they can build using the combo - so it’s not surprising that M1 chips today lack a lot of features for use cases like yours.

Me personally am a Mac user and loving all the improvements from M1 chip so don’t necessarily bother about running different OSes.

And on security: An average user or even a tech savvy user is prone to a lot of security issues - you may never be the security expert to determine what is going on. So, Apple does sure know what could happen or what one could take advantage of and exploit others as a result, if not done properly.
 

BeatCrazy

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2011
5,042
4,408
A simplistic answer - Apple gains the most "new" customers (aka switchers from Windows) when those customers are simply frustrated by Windows inconsistencies and want the familiar experience of their iPhone/iPad.

The more Apple locks things down, the more they can put on the guardrails that ensure a better experience for the "new" users.
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
I'm not sure that pushing boundaries and improved hardware necessitate the change in policy to be honest.
I'll have to wait and see what reaction there may be.
Any security issues I may open myself up to are of my own making. Or would be if I had the choice.
So I can either stick with Intel and use whatever OSes I want or I can have massive performance improvements with an M1.
I'm not sure the choice should be that stark.
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
A simplistic answer - Apple gains the most "new" customers (aka switchers from Windows) when those customers are simply frustrated by Windows inconsistencies and want the familiar experience of their iPhone/iPad.

The more Apple locks things down, the more they can put on the guardrails that ensure a better experience for the "new" users.
Hmm, maybe.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,360
19,432
Do we actually have any evidence that they prevent anything else from booting? Is it possible that they just use their own proprietary hardware and protocols that would need to be reverse-engineered first to allow third-party OS? Intel Macs run on standard software, with standard EFI, so booting Linux or Windows is fairly straightforward (as in — plug your USB stick in straightforward). But Apple Silicon Macs that went full custom? And I am not taking about something as complex as a GPU driver... but already getting storage to work is going to be far from trivial.
 

deeddawg

macrumors G5
Jun 14, 2010
12,260
6,412
US
in respect of refusing to boot anything else, when Microsoft got slated for years for similar behaviour (but not quite so severe).
I like more than one system on my computers and am constantly playing with different OSes. It's a sickness I have :)
It'll be an ex sickness if I get a new M1.
It also changes the spec of a prospective new M1 for me. I won't need as much SSD space and I probably won't choose the 16GB option for ram, whereas with more OSes I would.
Similarly with virtualisation looking more and more iffy on an M1 the same applies.

I know Apple say it's for securty reasons but I'm a big boy and I really can make my own decisions re: risk.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I've missed where this is documented as policy rather than a bug?

Until that's settled, it may be a bit premature to grab the pitchforks and torches...
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
Do we actually have any evidence that they prevent anything else from booting? Is it possible that they just use their own proprietary hardware and protocols that would need to be reverse-engineered first to allow third-party OS? Intel Macs run on standard software, with standard EFI, so booting Linux or Windows is fairly straightforward (as in — plug your USB stick in straightforward). But Apple Silicon Macs that went full custom? And I am not taking about something as complex as a GPU driver... but already getting storage to work is going to be far from trivial.
Fair enough, in view of it being the first iteration and all. Maybe things will change in the future.
We'll have to wait and see.
I've missed where this is documented as policy rather than a bug?

Until that's settled, it may be a bit premature to grab the pitchforks and torches...
I thought an Apple Boff said as much in a presentation.
And nobody's grabbing pitchforks :)
Just asking.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,360
19,432
Fair enough, in view of it being the first iteration and all. Maybe things will change in the future.
We'll have to wait and see.

To make it clear: I don't think that Apple will ever officially support Linux boot support (maybe Windows if they can come to an agreement with MS, but who knows). That is not the use case they care about. As far as they are concerned, they are not selling you hardware, they are selling you an integrated package. Fully custom hardware allows them to tweak things in ways not possible until now.

But it is possible that there will be some open source effort to make Linux run on Apple Silicon Macs... even if I don't expect them to grow beyond a tinkerer's garage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quackers

Gnattu

macrumors 65816
Sep 18, 2020
1,027
1,402
Regarding to boot alternate OS: Linux booting has lot of problems on post-T2 Macs, due to lack adequate of firmware and drivers. Windows works because Apple provided a complete bootcamp driver package. To support alternate OS, there is more than "not being locked down". An alternate OS is not going to work if an opened up boot loader is all it has. Spending time to solve software problem for alternate OS is way out of scope here. The best thing Apple can do is to provide more technical documents to let others write drivers/firmwares for alternate OS if they don't want to do it themselves, but if Apple has no intention to support alternate booting in the first place, the chance they will provide such document is also very low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MevetS

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
Regarding to boot alternate OS: Linux booting has lot of problems on post-T2 Macs, due to lack adequate of firmware and drivers. Windows works because Apple provided a complete bootcamp driver package. To support alternate OS, there is more than "not being locked down". An alternate OS is not going to work if an opened up boot loader is all it has. Spending time to solve software problem for alternate OS is way out of scope here. The best thing Apple can do is to provide more technical documents to let others write drivers/firmwares for alternate OS if they don't want to do it themselves, but if Apple has no intention to support alternate booting in the first place, the chance they will provide such document is also very low.
You don't (or didn't) have to use Bootcamp to install Windows. Certainly not on my 2012 rMBP. I installed it in EFI mode and it worked very well. Sadly it did not have drivers for sound but everything else was fine.
Similarly 2013 and later MBP's (at least for a while) could install Windows natively.

My point really was that Apple's intention is quoted as locking its bootloader which doesn't leave much room for manouevre afaik.
The term locked down has actually been used in the press.

However, time will tell their intention.
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
But it is not. Current software is not ready yet, but Apple does provide a complete framework for virtualization.
That's partly my point.
Current software is not ready and Parallels and VMWare won't commit to a timeline at all.
I realise there has been some success with qemu.
 

pmiles

macrumors 6502a
Dec 12, 2013
809
676
Talking of lockdown, can you believe we're going back into Tier 3 re: COVID.

When will this ever end?
I suppose the folks that suffered through the Spanish Flu asked the exact same thing...

Good news is, it will be another 100 years before the next pandemic!

Waiting for the class-action lawsuits to come out over the Government forced closures and imposed poverty. It will happen... just wait.
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK

Maconplasma

Cancelled
Sep 15, 2020
2,489
2,216
“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.”
From The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21302213/apple-silicon-mac-arm-windows-support-boot-camp
A Mac should be used a Mac. That's why Apple allows virtualization but they are done with allowing a full OS to be installed "basically" in place of their OS.
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
A Mac should be used a Mac. That's why Apple allows virtualization but they are done with allowing a full OS to be installed "basically" in place of their OS.
Change in message there?
What about Apple developers that want a second version of macOS for development purposes?
Virtualisation? Well, not yet anyway.
 

Maconplasma

Cancelled
Sep 15, 2020
2,489
2,216
Change in message there?
What about Apple developers that want a second version of macOS for development purposes?
Virtualisation? Well, not yet anyway.
Partitioning the storage drive to install MacOS has not been blocked and had always been a feature even long before Apple switched to Intel.
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
Partitioning the storage drive to install MacOS has not been blocked and had always been a feature even long before Apple switched to Intel.
Nobody is questioning partitioning the drive. It's booting from another partition that they'll need.
That is explicitly supported.
I'm glad to hear that :)
Is this what I was reading the other day about allowing a dual boot environment?
Is it only for Devs, do you know?
Surely they can do that for everyone?
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,360
19,432
Nobody is questioning partitioning the drive. It's booting from another partition that they'll need.

I'm glad to hear that :)
Is this what I was reading the other day about allowing a dual boot environment?
Is it only for Devs, do you know?
Surely they can do that for everyone?

You create a new partition and install another version of macOS there. I don't really know what to tell you more :)

Of course, right now there is not much choice since only 11 is supported...
 

Quackers

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 18, 2013
1,938
708
Manchester, UK
You create a new partition and install another version of macOS there. I don't really know what to tell you more :)

Of course, right now there is not much choice since only 11 is supported...
Well, on an M1 it's not that easy but even if it was how are you going to boot that second system?
Or, more accurately how will the Devs boot that second system? There must be some amended booting arrangement that isn't currently available for others. No?
 

David Hassholehoff

macrumors regular
Jul 26, 2020
122
90
The beach
in respect of refusing to boot anything else, when Microsoft got slated for years for similar behaviour (but not quite so severe).
It really isn't a comparable situation. Apple sells you specific hardware with tailored software, whereas Microsoft dominates an industry. You can't run macOS on a DELL (officially, not technically). I would have no problems with Microsofts own hardware (Surface) not booting anything but Windows.
I have huge problems with Microsoft conspiring/extorting all hardware manufacturers they can get their claws into to make Windows the only option available anywhere.

I get where you're coming from though, I went from casual to full time Mac when Apple switched to OS X because I came from GNU/Linux and BSD and the environment was familiar to me. Every OS has its use.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.