AMD is just x86. The only difference is drivers, and possibly µarch optimizations. It's little different than claiming macOS "doesn't run GeForce legitimately".
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.
There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AMD is just x86. The only difference is drivers, and possibly µarch optimizations. It's little different than claiming macOS "doesn't run GeForce legitimately".
Could be, but the "also wants to run Windows" slice of the market has shrunk considerably since 2006 (though I'm personally part of it).
The post I was replying to. Implied that MacOS runs on Intel and AS based on what apple currently supply with macs.
Of course AMD is just x86 but there’s still no legitimate way to run MacOS on an AMD system as you’d need to be doing a hackintosh.
The post in context was intended to be a satirical take on the other posters comments, and not to be randomly taken out of context
M1 isn't out of the question in the slightest. Windows runs perfectly well on it, including x86-64 binary emulation. The problem here is a licensing one only. Which is to say that someone at Microsoft has their head up their ass because in the normal state of affairs selling N+M things ought to be better than selling N of them.
There's a version of Windows 11 that currently runs on ARM, so it does run on M1. Am I missing something here?
Microsoft has declined to make a version of Windows 11 available for Apple's M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max Macs that are built on an Arm architecture, and now we may know the reason - a secret exclusivity deal with Qualcomm.
According to XDA-Developers, Arm-based Windows has only been made available on devices with Qualcomm SoC's because of a previously unknown deal between the two companies.
Two people familiar with the deal told XDA that the deal is "set to expire soon" but there is no specific word on when it will end. When the agreement between Microsoft and Qualcomm does conclude, it will allow other chip vendors to create machines using Arm Windows, and it may perhaps free up Microsoft to make Arm Windows available on Apple silicon Macs.
Apple silicon Macs do not offer Boot Camp and there is no official Windows support at the current time, leaving M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max owners with few options for accessing Windows on their devices. In September, Microsoft said that an Arm version of Windows 11 for Apple silicon Macs through virtualization or otherwise is not "a supported scenario," so there's a chance that it still won't happen.
Apple silicon Mac owners who need Windows access can use Parallels 16.5 or later to run Insider Preview builds of Windows 10 and 11 that have been created for Arm hardware, but there are often issues to deal with. Parallels continues to be the only solution because Microsoft has made no licensed retail version of Arm Windows available for Apple silicon Macs.
Article Link: There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm
Not if Microsoft charges accordingly. Microsoft will charge $140 for Windows 11 Home and $200 for Windows 11 Pro (free upgrade from the previous version). Maybe 50% off at $70 for Windows 11 Home VM and $100 for Windows 11 Pro VM?
OK so are we gonna see Microsoft Windows running on some quick-to-fail Qualcomm ARM tablet/laptop anytime soon?
Microsoft has declined to make a version of Windows 11 available for Apple's M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max Macs that are built on an Arm architecture, and now we may know the reason - a secret exclusivity deal with Qualcomm.
Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
According to XDA-Developers, Arm-based Windows has only been made available on devices with Qualcomm SoC's because of a previously unknown deal between the two companies.
Two people familiar with the deal told XDA that the deal is "set to expire soon" but there is no specific word on when it will end. When the agreement between Microsoft and Qualcomm does conclude, it will allow other chip vendors to create machines using Arm Windows, and it may perhaps free up Microsoft to make Arm Windows available on Apple silicon Macs.
Apple silicon Macs do not offer Boot Camp and there is no official Windows support at the current time, leaving M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max owners with few options for accessing Windows on their devices. In September, Microsoft said that an Arm version of Windows 11 for Apple silicon Macs through virtualization or otherwise is not "a supported scenario," so there's a chance that it still won't happen.
Apple silicon Mac owners who need Windows access can use Parallels 16.5 or later to run Insider Preview builds of Windows 10 and 11 that have been created for Arm hardware, but there are often issues to deal with. Parallels continues to be the only solution because Microsoft has made no licensed retail version of Arm Windows available for Apple silicon Macs.
Article Link: There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm
It's a good question. It depends if 'ARM Windows' comes with an x64 support layer that works as well as Rosetta 2 does on MacOS
This one is probably hard to quantify. One of the main reasons for running Windows on Macs is games and nothing has changed here. Situation with MS Office soft improved. Everything else? Hard to tell. For example, things like upgrading firmware on Sony DSLRs still requires Windows.
Since ARM Windows has an x86 emulator can you run VMWare inside Windows to emulate old x86 macOS? I'm guessing a hypervisor in a hypervisor is not allowed (nor a true hypervisor) but how fun would that be?! All computing experiences should be capable of being on par with Inception ?
It does come with x86-64 emulation, and it works pretty well. It isn't nearly as fast as Rosetta 2 because R2 has proprietary hardware acceleration in the M1 and Microsoft obviously doesn't use that.
Running Windows on Macs is not that easy for regular users (most of them). But the main issue I was trying to point out is that if MS can't sell ARM Windows to OEMs they have no reason to develop it. In this case, there won't be any ARM Windows to run on Macs regardless of the M1 merits.
In principle, not every ARM chip is necessarily the same. First, there are a number of "levels" of ARM, but even beyond that there can be other platform requirements beyond the processor that impact compatibility.
That said, ARM Windows works just fine on the M1 under Parallels. It's just not supported, and it's de jure unlicensable.
Installing Windows under Parallels is easy enough (and it wouldn't take a lot for it to be essentially a single click), and there's nothing (apart from this blatant anticompetitive behavior) keeping Parallels themselves from being an "OEM" and vending Windows licenses to those of its users who desire them.
Even if possible, that's not enough to make it attractive for MS to invest in ARM Windows.
What "invest"? It's the same Windows they have for their own tablets.
The Surface is one great big bag of hurt.
Only if the revenue generated from selling M units is high enough to maintain the same margin as selling N. Otherwise, it's smarter to invest that money in a higher return product.
Unless they can make the VM versions specific to a VM then people will simply buy the VM version and install it natively. I just don't see a market big enough to justify the investment in developing, ensuring it works with the needed drivers, etc., and supporting it to make it worthwhile.
If the do come out with a retail version I see it likely that they simply do what they do now, let you run it but if you have issues say it is unsupported; and until some hardware manufacturer decides to build ARM machines it's hard to say what they'll do once the Qualcomm experiment ends.
Business software such as PowerBI and Vision still need Windows. OmniGraffle is a great Visio alternative but you still need Visio to check how a document looks, much like WinOffice365.
PowerBI has no Mac version; and the web version is a joke.
I don't get the whole ant-competitive behavior argument. MS decides on how it will sell products based on the anticipated return, and like any company won't enter markets that are not attractive. MS does a lot of anticompetitive stuff, IMHO, but WinARM is not one of them.
For which they control the hardware and ensure everything works, unlike an OEM version where the hardware may differ enough to break things, leaving MS to try to fix it which costs money.
Which are not selling. And those are not "tablets". They are 2-in-1 computers and MS does them with both ARM and x86, x86 being much better models. So far, ARM Windows has not proved there is a business case for it.
Colluding with a particular ARM chip vendor to exclude all others when there is no technical reason (as evidenced by the fact that W11 works so well under Parallels and on other platforms) is anti-competitive behavior.
Go back and read the history of PCs starting with Compaq and then re-write that sentence.
I do. I still need to use it for cad work along side Mac OS. I’m sure many others do too.
Can we all just agree, as a species, that the fact that there are millions of pieces of Windows software that millions of people use daily matters?
Interestingly, another business case for it was created about a year ago. Funny that.
Paging Adam Osborne.
EDIT: That's a little less than fair, because in this case Apple has already released the better product.
Last edited:
