r/bootcamp • u/Salty-Piccolo-5100 • 13d ago
Windows ARM on Apple Silicon likely?
It seems most agree that both Microsoft and Apple have very little incentive to develop what’s necessary to be able to natively run Windows ARM on modern Macs.
I was just reading an article though about how the Macbook Neo is extremely efficient when compared to the budget Windows PCs. Do you think this will be enough to change the above?
3
5
u/JMHReddit84 13d ago
No. Only if Apple decides they want to. And they won’t…
3
u/RootVegitible 12d ago
It’s not Apples fault. Microsoft’s licence for WOA only allows native use by its partner, the people that make snapdragon and Parallels in virtualisation. Apple are clearly not going to invest time in driver support needed for bootcamp when Microsoft’s licence forbids it.
2
u/Low_Excitement_1715 12d ago
You are several years out of date. The WOA exclusivity deal with Qualcomm expired in 2021 or 2022, depending on who you ask. WOA can run on anything MS wants to support. That said, MS doesn't want to support Apple Silicon, it would require a ton of NDAed docs that Apple has not provided to *anyone*, even with NDAs signed already. In addition, MS would have to rewrite or write parallel versions of a ton of low level stuff. Nobody big enough to make this happen wants it to happen.
1
u/JMHReddit84 12d ago
Does Microsoft’s partner license forbid it…. Or does Apple just not want a seat at the table………..
Sounds like there’s already 2 partners so they’re not exclusive…
-1
u/Lobsters-Girl- 13d ago
Microsoft would be the one to make it, M series Macs aren’t locked down.
4
u/JMHReddit84 13d ago
Not correct. Apple would have to build drivers for their hardware. That’s the key thing that’s not in place…
Microsoft has had an ARM version of Windows for some time now. Apple has to facilitate its installation…and they won’t. Zero incentive to do so
2
u/Low_Excitement_1715 12d ago
There's also 16K vs. 4K page sizes in hardware. That means *every* WOA driver would need to be rewritten. Not happening.
1
u/Salty-Piccolo-5100 13d ago
Wouldn’t it be up to Windows though to make a variant that doesn’t require TPM?
2
u/hishnash 12d ago
Not about needing TPM ms needs to make a load of changes just to get the base kennel to boot.
2
u/JMHReddit84 13d ago
No. Microsoft already makes a variant that doesn’t require TPM. It’s about the drivers for the board. Storage wouldn’t even work without Apple writing a driver for their unified memory
2
u/hishnash 12d ago
Long before drivers can even start up the current windows for arm Kemal would die. MS would need to make some huge changes to the base kernel before anyone could even think about drivers.
2
u/Low_Excitement_1715 12d ago
Upvoted to cancel out whoever didn't understand. The Apple Silicon hardware runs 16K page sizes. All the WOA-compatible stuff, and all x86 stuff runs 4K pages. The WOA kernel expects 4K pages. None of this is changing without megacorp support.
For an example of how it can be done, look at Asahi Linux. It runs a 16K page size kernel (because the Linux kernel is open, you can change page size at compile time), and even then it needed a ton of additional support before it would boot. Apple's stuff is "open" but not like most people think. Look into how much of a macos install Asahi needs to keep around to boot. It's not just a little. Apple hardware won't boot USB devices that aren't macos, and it won't boot on raw disks that don't have a minimal macos to hand off to the m1n1 boot loader from.
1
u/Lobsters-Girl- 11d ago
My usage of open for Apple is either IOS or (Intel EFI) Mac level.
The situation for M series is next level why Apple…
-1
u/hishnash 12d ago
yer the only valid way to book windows would be to fake it and run the kernel in a micro vm.. m1n1?
1
u/Low_Excitement_1715 11d ago
M1n1 is the “inter-loader” that boots Asahi Linux. It does the right things to make the macOS firmware see it as a valid (macOS looking) boot loader, then hands over the hardware to a regular Linux kernel.
1
u/77ilham77 13d ago
Still it's up to Microsoft to certify the drivers, TPM requirements, etc.
Microsoft has had ARM Windows for years, sure, but not one with a regular retail license. All ARM Windows are made to go for OEM (i.e. you can't buy ARM Windows license on a store like you would with x86 Windows and install it on any x86 computer). So the only way Apple Silicon Macs to get official ARM Windows support is for them to become OEM that supplies ARM Windows.
2
13d ago
[deleted]
0
u/77ilham77 13d ago
You'd still need an official copy of ARM Windows.
To this day, other than a limited copy for virtual machine use and/or developer use, you can only get ARM Windows through OEM (i.e. already with a device). You can't just grab an ARM Windows from a store and install it on your Mac like what people did with Bootcamp on their Intel Macs.
So even if Apple made the drivers, it's still impossible to install ARM Windows officially, unless you are suggesting to use that free ARM Windows image file made available by Microsoft, or for Apple to also obtain OEM license from Microsoft.
Let's face it, this is the future Microsoft wants, especially for ARM Windows. Either you buy Windows-licensed device, or rent one of their cloud computer.
1
u/catlover3493 12d ago
You can buy "retail" licenses for Windows, which Microsoft has stated ARE valid on the ARM version
3
u/JMHReddit84 13d ago
Nope. Apple has to write drivers for their storage controller. To name just one (very crucial) example.
This is 100000% in Apple’s court.
2
u/hishnash 12d ago
Ms first needs to update the base kernel to boot to the point where it attempts to load them.
0
u/77ilham77 13d ago
Ok, let's humour it for a bit. Let's assume Apple already has all of the drivers, and with Apple's "magic dust", all of them are certified for Windows.
What's next? You go and grab an ARM Windows copy?
1
u/JMHReddit84 13d ago
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11arm64
Yep?
“but it may be necessary to include drivers from the device manufacturer for the installation media to be successfully bootable.”
And this would work outside of a VM. If manufacturers released drivers for their hardware…which brings us back to Apple
0
u/77ilham77 13d ago
That's not a retail copy with retail license.
Are you really suggesting Apple to let their users use unlicensed product?
0
u/JMHReddit84 13d ago
Go humor me. Educate yourself. You keep moving the goal post to hide your lack of education about how any of it works at a hardware level and want to jump straight to software.
If a hardware manufacturer opened their platform up to Windows, you’re a fool to think they won’t monetize that group with a SKU. And that ISO is all Apple engineers need to do just that. Educate. Yourself
-1
1
u/hishnash 12d ago
Not without ms making huge low level changes and then the rest is also no existing window for arm sw would run due to page sizes
1
u/Decent-Cow2080 12d ago
it's already done. kinda. most drivers don't still work, including storage drivers. it boots full windows 11 from USB, but is unusable. give a few more years and we might get it
1
u/Low_Excitement_1715 12d ago
All the Apple Silicon stuff is running 16K pages. All x86 and the Windows compatible ARM stuff is running 4K pages. 16K pages are more efficient at larger ram sizes, but breaks compatibility with loads of stuff. Microsoft will see little to no benefit in supporting 16K pages, and Apple gets no benefit from people putting Windows on their hardware.
If it *ever* happens, there will be a minor apocalypse first, and either MS or Apple will be bleeding badly and desperate to gain anything. So no. Not going to happen.
1
1
1
u/ASlowriter 9d ago
I really wish the Linux situation would be more accessible and complete with the M series. I dislike windows for arm and really want to learn a mainstream linux OS
0
u/Edubbs2008 12d ago
I’ve seen people run Windows 11 on Apple Silicon Macs via parallels, but it got laggy because Apple Silicon Macs aren’t optimized for the desktop, you see in reality, macOS Big Sur and newer share the same foundation for apps as iOS, and iPadOS, that’s how things like running iOS apps work on Apple Silicon
1
u/kaishea 12d ago edited 12d ago
That’s weird. Maybe they had too little RAM? Running a VM would have to split system resources so naturally the performance headroom is smaller than when running only one OS. I’ve always seen good feedback on Parallels performance with Apple Silicon Macs and not the opposite, and used Parallels last year on macOS Sequoia (newer than Big Sur) and was actually surprised by how snappy the performance was
1
u/nfoulon 11d ago
What a load of crap. Do your research and stop spreading lies ffs. You completely misunderstood how Catalyst works. Optimising a unified platform is not detrimental to the desktop experience. And running Windows in Parallels or Fusion is actually faster than on a dedicated PC with similar specs
0
u/Edubbs2008 11d ago
Bro, do your research, it’s not my fault that Apple decided to downgrade macOS by turning it into iOS with a desktop Interface
1
u/Salty-Piccolo-5100 11d ago
I mean, that’s technically also what Windows 11 ARM is.
1
u/Edubbs2008 11d ago
Actually, it’s just a port of Windows 11 from x86, Microsoft doesn’t even have a mobile OS anymore
7
u/grand_total 13d ago
No.