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

There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm

Lihp8270 said:
Windows 11 runs on Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm. That’s 1 more chip than MacOS runs on. Let’s not forget that Win11 can run “unsupported and unlicensed” virtualised on AS too. It will also run on non-AS macs too.

My comment sounds stupid because it is. But it just highlights the flaw in your post. It’s really not a way to measure now open/closed a platform is.

Not that MacOS is a “closed” platform in itself.
Click to expand...

macos runs on amd
 
nathansz said:
i can’t imagine vm gaming ever being worthwhile
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was driving at.

I have no need for Windows in my life or work.

Purchasing a Windows machine would be a waste of money, because I do MOST gaming on a PS5.

I do like the Halo games and would love to play Flight Simulator, but I have no desire to buy an Series X/S for those titles.

I think Xbox cloud gaming is not fully baked, but it will make my question moot if it really takes off.
 
Lihp8270 said:
Windows 11 runs on Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm. That’s 1 more chip than MacOS runs on.
Click to expand...

AMD is not an architecture. macOS runs fine on AMD CPUs.

macOS also used to run on PowerPC and 68k, and NeXT used to run on 68k, x86, SPARC and PA-RISC.

Likewise, Windows used to run on i860, Alpha, Itanium, MIPS, and PowerPC.

So, that seems like a weird benchmark. If Apple or Microsoft needed macOS or Windows to support more architectures, the core work is already there — modern kernels (where modern means: anything since the early 1990s) are architected such that they run on multiple ISAs.

 
Its fun to live in a world where Microsoft, one of the scummiest companies in tech, can get away with pretty much anything because only Apple stories gets headlines
 
chucker23n1 said:
AMD is not an architecture. macOS runs fine on AMD CPUs.

macOS also used to run on PowerPC and 68k, and NeXT used to run on 68k, x86, SPARC and PA-RISC.

Likewise, Windows used to run on i860, Alpha, Itanium, MIPS, and PowerPC.

So, that seems like a weird benchmark. If Apple or Microsoft needed macOS or Windows to support more architectures, the core work is already there — modern kernels (where modern means: anything since the early 1990s) are architected such that they run on multiple ISAs.
Click to expand...

to be fair, the Mac OS that ran on 68k is not really the same as, or even related to, the macOS in question
 
  • Like
Reactions: huge_apple_fangirl
nathansz said:
to be fair, the Mac OS that ran on 68k is not really the same as, or even related to, the macOS in question
Click to expand...

NeXTSTEP also ran on 68k. And whether an OS is related is arguable. Windows 10 is an NT-based OS, so is it related to Windows 9x? Microsoft would probably argue: yes. But many of its key components are vastly different. Likewise, macOS derives from NeXTSTEP, but also has Mac OS Classic components, even today — AppleScript, Finder (albeit since rewritten), Keychain, …
 
BobSc said:
Really? You may not want or need windows, but many of us need to run a windows only program and don't want to buy a windows machine just to run one program. You see, your assumption that what you don't need or care about should apply to everyone, well it's nonsense.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that having Windows available for M1 Macs would be terrible, of course not. Of course it would be great to have it.

But not having it is not a big deal as lots of different options are available. You need to run some Windows based program and don't want to buy Windows machine? Fine, get Parallels and run Windows on it. Don't want to do it? Fine, get Shadow PC subscription and run your program on it.
 
Last edited:
chucker23n1 said:
NeXTSTEP also ran on 68k. And whether an OS is related is arguable. Windows 10 is an NT-based OS, so is it related to Windows 9x? Microsoft would probably argue: yes. But many of its key components are vastly different. Likewise, macOS derives from NeXTSTEP, but also has Mac OS Classic components, even today — AppleScript, Finder (albeit since rewritten), Keychain, …
Click to expand...

yes NeXTSTEP ran on 68k, as did classic Mac OS.

macOS, a descendent of NeXTSTEP did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huge_apple_fangirl
I really don’t like Boot Camp on Macbooks. Because you have to partition the drive and one occasion Windows ****ed up and borked my partitions. On a Mac Pro Boot Camp was cool because Windows doesn’t touch the macOS drive.
 
chucker23n1 said:
AMD is not an architecture. macOS runs fine on AMD CPUs.

macOS also used to run on PowerPC and 68k, and NeXT used to run on 68k, x86, SPARC and PA-RISC.

Likewise, Windows used to run on i860, Alpha, Itanium, MIPS, and PowerPC.

So, that seems like a weird benchmark. If Apple or Microsoft needed macOS or Windows to support more architectures, the core work is already there — modern kernels (where modern means: anything since the early 1990s) are architected such that they run on multiple ISAs.
Click to expand...
A very weird benchmark indeed. Hence why the bit you cut out of the quote said “my post is stupid”
 
nsayer said:
Probably because the only way you can legally run it is on a crappy snapdragon.
Click to expand...
What else is out there? M1 is out of question because Apple does not want Windows on it. So the best ARM CPU available from CPU vendors is crap that does not have a chance against x86 processors. Why would MS bother releasing an OS for it?
 
falainber said:
What else is out there? M1 is out of question because Apple does not want Windows on it. So the best ARM CPU available from CPU vendors is crap that does not have a chance against x86 processors. Why would MS bother releasing an OS for it?
Click to expand...

That's entirely a chicken and egg thing. Qualcomm, Mediatek and others are reluctant to invest in better ARM chips because nobody's buying. Microsoft is reluctant to make better ARM computers because the chips aren't great.

Apple has solved both sides of the issue.
 
chucker23n1 said:
That's entirely a chicken and egg thing. Qualcomm, Mediatek and others are reluctant to invest in better ARM chips because nobody's buying. Microsoft is reluctant to make better ARM computers because the chips aren't great.

Apple has solved both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...
Apple solved one issue but created another one. Obviously there are tons of people who want/need to run Windows on their computers. The net effect of Apple move is too early to assess yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobcomer
chucker23n1 said:
That's entirely a chicken and egg thing. Qualcomm, Mediatek and others are reluctant to invest in better ARM chips because nobody's buying. Microsoft is reluctant to make better ARM computers because the chips aren't great.

Apple has solved both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anybody really has the ability to go toe to toe with apple.

Without being both hardware and software producers, along with having the industry power that Apple has nobody really has a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back