bootcamp and M1

sievebrain wrote:

Then I will no longer be purchasing Apple products. I'm a developer and the combination of Apple hardware with the ability to boot natively in Windows is the sole reason I purchased my Mac Pro Desktop (Yes, $4,000.00+). It allowed me to develop software for ANY platform. Parallels, as good as it is, is still painfully slow to develop with. I'm sure one of the main reasons sales sky rocketed in 2006 (when you switched to Intel) was exactly this reason.

'You' is not Apple here in this discussion. 😉.

• If you buy an Intel-based Mac, you can use Bootcamp.
• If you buy an Apple M1 Mac, you will need to use Virtualization.

The choice is a buyer's choice.

You've made a huge mistake, basically taking a step backward to the days of the PowerPC and all the issues that came along with that.

Product Feedback - Apple is the best resource for such feedback, not the ASC.

You've now basically lost both the development and gaming population. I can run all my Steam games very nicely when I boot to Windows on my Mac Pro Desktop. Now I won't be able to do that as well.

Gaming is not the only vertical industry that uses Macs. The Corporate world uses Macs, too. Other software development utilizes the U*nix features of Macs.

No matter how fast this environment is, nobody will be developing games for it just like nobody develops games for it now. You'll only have the same, frankly lame games you currently have.

Microsoft Surface Pro X uses an ARM 64 SoC.

HUGE MISTAKE.

Time will tell. 😜

MIstah_Broadway wrote:

LMAO WOOOOOOW !

Why even include bootcamp in M1 if we can't even use it ?!

Since you have a MacBook Air (M1, 2020), what do you see when you try to run Bootcamp Assistant?

Also, from Boot Camp - Official Apple Support,

sude13 wrote:

so we can’t use microsoft on new macbook,right?

If there is a Windows version for ARM/M1, then you can. Get started with Boot Camp on Mac - Apple Support will be updated when macOS Big Sur is available. M1 can only run macOS Big Sur.

Lol, I spoke with Apple this morning and was told I could partition the drive and install Windows but that was their general support team for existing Macs.

So I asked again just now to the technical team and was told Bootcamp is not available on MacBooks running M1 and it is recommended not to partition the drive.

The solution they offered was to use a Virtual machine such as Parallels (but I don't think they have a version for MacBooks running M1).

So I asked 1 question and got 2 different answers! Thats 2020 for you!

Virtualization engines that have been ported to the M1 will support Windows. This is not the same as native booting of Windows via Bootcamp.

WWDC showed Linux using Parallels on a Mini using an ARM/M1 processor.

The problem is the missing support of Windows gaming. I’ve loved combining the unsurpassed mac UX on productive stuff with gaming via bootcamp on Windows and Apple’s high-end desktops have been excellent in that regard, but will abandon Apple sadly if I can’t do this anymore in the future :(

Then I will no longer be purchasing Apple products. I'm a developer and the combination of Apple hardware with the ability to boot natively in Windows is the sole reason I purchased my Mac Pro Desktop (Yes, $4,000.00+). It allowed me to develop software for ANY platform. Parallels, as good as it is, is still painfully slow to develop with. I'm sure one of the main reasons sales sky rocketed in 2006 (when you switched to Intel) was exactly this reason.

You've made a huge mistake, basically taking a step backward to the days of the PowerPC and all the issues that came along with that.

You've now basically lost both the development and gaming population. I can run all my Steam games very nicely when I boot to Windows on my Mac Pro Desktop. Now I won't be able to do that as well.

No matter how fast this environment is, nobody will be developing games for it just like nobody develops games for it now. You'll only have the same, frankly lame games you currently have.

HUGE MISTAKE.

This advantage does not offset the loss to both developers being able to develop on ONE machine at hardware speeds vs the painfully slow speed of a VM. You've also lost gamers, since the game developing community will not switch to this now hobbled environment.

sievebrain wrote:

Then I will no longer be purchasing Apple products.

<snip>

HUGE MISTAKE.

You realize that Microsoft also has released ARM computers as well right? So I don't know what you are going to do.

Yes, and they also released Windows RT and who bought those? Who is buying the ARM versions of Microsoft's Surface? ?According to this article, it's not going so well.

Microsoft bet against Intel with its new Surfaces — and lost

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/11/7/20954044/microsoft-amd-qualcomm-intel-processors-arm-surface-laptop-3-pro-x-future-computers

So, now Apple is doing the same thing?

So, what would be my upgrade path? I can't keep using my Mac Pro Desktop, it's already incompatible with some of the software I use.

I can't buy a new Mac, unless I no longer want to do Windows development.

Therefore I'm back to having a Mac to do Mac development and a PC for doing Windows development.

It's a step backwards for me and an increase in hardware cost. Running a VM on the Mac is just too slow.

What would you suggest?

Windows NT (fathered by Dave Cutler) at one point supported Intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, ARM, PowerPC, Itanium,... . Microsoft stuck to Intel and removed support for others in W2K.

The choice of ARM is partly driven by battery limitations. Intel has many issues with 5nm fabrication. Microsoft/Qualcomm use an ARM SQ2 design for Surface Pro X.

If Microsoft and Apple step away from Intel, and vendors like AMD and nVidia produce their own ARM SoCs, Intel will be in a tough place.

Will they though? Virtualisation and Emulation are two different things. Running x86 architecture on an ARM processor requires some emulation as well as virtualisation. It's the same reason you cant run AIX/Unix type operating systems on Intel Processor based virtual platforms.

I think you'll find this assumption is not correct and even if they do manage to emulate the command set it'll be resource intensive and potentially very slow.

sailingbikeruk wrote:

Will they though?

Unless Intel can address it's fabrication issues, the pursuit of non-Intel CPUs/GPUs will continue.

There will always be room for non-Intel processors on devices. Mobile phones are a prime example of such use.

Virtualisation and Emulation are two different things. Running x86 architecture on an ARM processor requires some emulation as well as virtualisation.

It has been done before, and many times over. Apple chose to stay away from such on Rosetta2.

It's the same reason you cant run AIX/Unix type operating systems on Intel Processor based virtual platforms.

This is a bit confusing. macOS Big Sur is U*ix. Parallels/Fusion/VirtualBox support U*ix. WiNE emulates Windows. ESXi and Xen both allow U*ix. Can you clarify your statement?

I think you'll find this assumption is not correct and even if they do manage to emulate the command set it'll be resource intensive and potentially very slow.

Yes, this is partly true. Resource-Intensive - yes. Slow - perhaps, but it will be dependent on the specifics of the implementation. Computing hardware industry has waffled between CISC and RISC architectures for decades.

Loner T wrote:

Unless Intel can address it's fabrication issues, the pursuit of non-Intel CPUs/GPUs will continue.

There will always be room for non-Intel processors on devices. Mobile phones are a prime example of such use.

I wasnt disputing this, I was challenging your assertion that Bootcamp and software for x86 architecture would run on a virtualised platform.

This is a bit confusing. macOS Big Sur is U*ix. Parallels/Fusion/VirtualBox support U*ix. WiNE emulates Windows. ESXi

and Xen both allow U*ix. Can you clarify your statement.

I accept that there are Unix like systems that have been written for or ported to x86 but the point is that they have had to be re-written, you can't take AIX and run it on a virtual platform because it is specifically for IBM pSeries, similarly with Sun Microsystems, they ported their OS to x86 but the original doesn't run natively so wont run on a virtual platform.

It could all change and become fairly academic if Microsoft decide to follow Apple wholesale to ARM and port Windows to that architecture (which it seems is already done for the Surface). It's not a great leap and there is more of a call for light portable devices with longer battery life - it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

As things stand - Bootcamp won't work and no current virtualisation will work and allow x86 programs on ARM Architecture.