BootCamp and M1 Mac Computers

not workin bootcam assisten

Apple has stated that Windows through Bootcamp will not be supported - https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21302213/apple-silicon-mac-arm-windows-support-boot-camp

Virtualization is how it will be done in the future - https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-apple-silicon-mac/

I'm ready to run Windows on my MBP M1 though. Can't wait! The M1 flies! :)

In https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-apple-silicon-mac/, I find this statement

 Parallels is also amazed by the news from Microsoft about adding support of x64 applications in Windows on ARM. 

full of subterfuge. Confusing Microsoft/Qualcomm ARM SQ1/SQ2 with Apple ARM M1 is a very poor marketing strategy.

This

Given the small percentage of macOS users that actually use Boot Camp and the roughly 100 million install base of Macs, running Windows 10 on ARM natively on Apple’s ARM-based Macs clearly wasn’t a priority for Apple.

is a much cleaner way of articulating the issue.

The x86 driver catalog hosted by Microsoft (https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Home.aspx) is very large. Porting all these drivers is a significant undertaking. Virtualization will also limit performance of such drivers.

It is better for Mac+Windows to stay with Intel. If consumers want an Intel Mac, they can ask Apple to continue building/supporting the Intel line. The other option is to license macOS-on-Intel to a separate corporate entity which can carve it's own path based on customer demand (similar to the now-defunct PsyStar).

Jobs also tried to negotiate (around 1997-2001) macOS running on non-Apple hardware and came close with Compaq and Sony (and some others), but significant deals never materialized.

Charlievarley66 wrote:

I and others have been looking into the compatibility and speed of games within Parallels 16.5 and posting the results of YouTube.

Have you tried comparing games on native Intel Windows Desktops vs the Apple M1s? The Mx line should start producing faster CPU/GPU/Cores which should improve the performance on Parallels as well.

blasrodriguez wrote:

just use parallels. parallels will run decently well considering you have a MacBook Pro m1.

Parallels may run but Windows 10 won't. Running Windows on M1 Macs is the subject of this thread. Windows 10 will not run on an M1 Mac using Boor Camp or using Parallels.

"Just run Parallels," seems to be the stock standard answer, but Parallels has never been a good solution for running Windows apps on a Mac. Not only is it ridiculously expensive, to the point where in a few years of using it you could have bought a dedicated low end Windows machine, but many apps wont run on Parallels at all.

Using Windows on an Apple silicon Mac is pretty well dead at this stage, with no signs of Apple bringing this functionality back. The best thing users can do if they need Windows, is to purchase a dedicated Windows based PC. This could be used directly, or remotely through solutions like Microsoft Remote Desktop. Cloud computing using products like Azure might also be an option.

Derek Currie wrote:

To be clear: Parallels (latest version) provides a path to run the ARM version of Windows 10 successfully. That’s a compromise as the ARM version cannot natively run x86 apps. There is an emulator built in that runs some, but not all, x86 apps. When it comes to high end games, forget it.

There is an ARM version of WINE, but it is not much of a solution, having been stalled for some time and having all the limitations of WINE in general.

That is great but it does not answer the subject of this thread. The ARM version of Windows 10 is not available publicly so it is a mute point whether or not Parallels can run the ARM version of Windows. Users may be confused into thinking they can run Windows 10 in a production environment on a M1 Mac. They can't. Tinkering and testing environments may work, but for the average user wanting to run Windows 10, they want it to work without tinkering, potential loss of data, or possible errors.

Bob: Read and respond to what i wrote, plus please be nice as well as accurate. Your attitude is neither appreciated nor helpful IMHO. What I posted is entirely helpful and on target. Apparently, you’d rather the thread ended with “You can’t do that, goodbye.”

Null0000 wrote:

Windows has had ARM versions since Windows RT back in 2012.

Windows RT 32-bit ARM version derived from W8/W8.1 for the Windows Mobile devices.

• https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/business/surface-pro-x/processor has an ARM64 processor from Qualcomm (SQ1).
• https://www.windowslatest.com/2021/03/29/qualcomms-snapdragon-8cx-gen-3-for-windows-10-benchmark/

Not all ARM processors are created equal.

microsoft never sold windows arm based for end users its has only sold it oem for preInstall for companies who build arm based windows laptops

the official stance seems to suggest this will continue with windows 11

microsofts arm version test suggest it takes an even bigger toll running x86 based apps then apples rosetta stone 2, so anybody wanting windows to game would likely weigh it and find it wanting.

And there are thousands of x86 processors. Minus the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit. They all run the same instruction set architecture. My point main point in bring it up is that while it wouldn't be trivial, it would probably be easier for Apple to make a boot camp for the ARM version of windows. x86 is a convoluted mess the intel has to decode into a RISK instruction set in hardware. ARM is much simpler.

No one buys a Mac for gaming. Have always seen boot camp as a tool for people that needed to run a trivial windows only program. Was responding primarily to Mr Hoffman, but see that I didn't mark that clearly. Main point for bringing it up was if Apple can make bootcamp for x86 it would be an easier processes for ARM since its a RISK architecture. It's about their willingness to. Not the change in the silicon.

it would only be possible with the arm version of windows,

bootcamp is a collection of 3 things

a bootloader which choose what partition to launch

a configuration tool for the partitions

a zip file of windows drivers for the hardware

windows in bootcamp at not running on top of apple software really it's running directly on the hardware

so if apple where to make a bootcamp which supported x86 cpus they would have to make an emulation layer in between

which would be slow.

I used bootcamp back in the day to game on my old imac 2011 it ran ok.

for bootcamp to work it would require microsoft to sell the arm windows version to end users which they don't

Craig Federighi says Windows can run natively on M1 Macs but is 'really up to Microsoft' - 9to5Mac

with x86 windows people build computers and needs to purchase a windows version to install, with arm devices people buy a usually laptop with arm windows preinstalled the manufacturer purchase the arm windows version oem which is something users can not normally do.

Null0000 wrote:

And there are thousands of x86 processors. Minus the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit. They all run the same instruction set architecture.

This does not need be true between each ARM implementation. In general, they can have the same minimal instruction set, and any extensions that a specific implementation chooses. Also, UMA has been done before, for example, by SGI under the ccNUMA architecture. The integrated GPU/Memory model has also been around for a while.

My point main point in bring it up is that while it wouldn't be trivial, it would probably be easier for Apple to make a boot camp for the ARM version of windows.

Yes, Apple can supply Bootcamp Assistant, but Bootcamp Drivers will become very messy. From my perspective, BC Assistant can be replaced with a manual set of steps. If Microsoft wants Windows on Apple M1, it can Retail the ARM version as a first step. It has been done before with Windows NT and a HAL (for MIPS/Itanium/Alpha/Intel).

x86 is a convoluted mess the intel has to decode into a RISK instruction set in hardware. ARM is much simpler.

Completely agree. The most attractive aspect of ARM is power consumption in the current mobile-everything world. Also, Intel is very familiar with ARM and RISC. The choice of CISC is based on Revenue streams, not on technology demand. Intel has offered to fabricate the M1 for Apple, as TSMC is doing now. However, Intel still rules the Cloud and Data Center world.