bootcamp Want Windows 10 on your new M1 Mac? Ask Microsoft, Not Apple

[Vishera]

Just now, Dracarris said:

Why dual-boot at all, with all its disadvantages?

I see it as an advantage,booting natively gives you the most performance and the least amount of compatibility related issues.

Just now, Dracarris said:

Why not simply use hw-suppported virutalization with hw passthrough?

You can't passthrough a GPU if you only have one (like in the M1 Macs).

[Dracarris]

3 minutes ago, Vishera said:

I see it as an advantage,booting natively gives you the most performance and the least amount of compatibility related issues.

At this point we are talking about a mere 8% or so. Supposed to go down even more in the near future. Seriously, go through all the trouble for a single digit improvement? How should compatibility be improved through native boot? I think the opposite is true, having still a host OS which supports all the HW natively can massively help in getting all the nasty HW details sorted out.

 

I am pretty sure the GPU support will be vastly improved very shortly. After all you also get 92% of your CPU performance, even though there also is only a single one.

[RedRound2]

35 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Really? They do actually, I'm certainly not Microsoft and I can get Windows ARM edition just fine. What is the case is the avenues to get Windows ARM editions is limited, either from a device that comes with it or with a Microsoft license agreement and you purchase it, there is no retail purchasing of Windows ARM editions (the OS specifically). 

 

It isn't supported because there isn't an agreement between both companies to get it working, whether that be because one or the other doesn't want to or hasn't allowed it or both don't. I'd say both do not, neither is going to be all that interested in such a partnership. Unless Apple offers up M1 SoC to other OEMs then at that point Microsoft would be more likely interested, but for those devices rather than Apple/Mac hardware.

 

Supporting it just doesn't really fit with either company, anyone holding their breath for it to be supported might not live very long 

How does this make any difference? So I need to somehow convince Microsoft to get me the Enterprise volume version of Windows just for ARM version of it? There's no consumer version available. That's the point.

 

This is thee quote from Craig

Quote

As for Windows running natively on the machine, “that’s really up to Microsoft,” he said. “We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that’s a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.”

 

[RedRound2]

55 minutes ago, Vishera said:

How will you boot Linux on it?,It seems like there are other restrictions,

This is what Linus Torvalds said about it:

 

Not restrictions rather a lack of drivers and support. Apple isn't going to write Linux drivers. Someone has to. And eventually someone will

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

and the T2 chip would block anything else from booting anyway.

there are no T2 chip on M1 Macs, the Secure Enclave takes care of that. T2 is implemented to overcome the weaknesses in the security of Intel chips including the TB3 DMA vulnerability.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by like_ooh_ahh

[Blade of Grass]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

What other PCIe cards do you have?

 

Also Apple has thrown away things after a single generation before. If they do make their own dGPU I don't see why they wouldn't bring the capabilities of the Afterburner card in to the dGPU. So it might go away but the technology and capability they designed not.

 

Also generalizations are not negated by exceptions either, that's why they are exceptions. In general really does mean in general. But what I pointed to is actually a real thing, not talking about Apple users but entire computer market. So many people buy full size motherboards, or go with HEDT, or worry about future expandability and never end up using it. It's not a bad thing, just common. Also not saying the Mac Pro wasn't wanted or needed either, I've wanted a new one to come out for a long time and I think it's pretty damn awesome, still doesn't change that the majority purchased will never get used at full expansion capacity in the same way most servers don't either.

 

P.S. I was one of the first here that said Apple will be making larger SoC for higher tier product lines, but the Mac Pro is still highly unknown for now, for the reasons I gave in one of these topics. I would however change my mind on that if someone had good sales data that shows there is a large enough customer base to warrant an SoC design just for the Mac Pro.

I would be a bit surprised if they ditched all the Mac Pro work they did after only one generation, that would be quite out of the norm for Apple. It's not just the Afterburner cards, but its also all of the quasi-custom add-on cards that they/their partners made to support them. Of course it's possible, just seems unlikely that they would make such a poor financial decision. 

 

Re: Mac Pro being low volume, halo products exist, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept it kicking around--SoC or not. 

15 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Why can't they bake it into the Pro SoC? Would save them a ton of money on expensive FPGAs, a ton of space on the board and circuitry, while improving performance and efficiency. Not as flexible, but you can always push newer gear to your customers.

The likely answer would be power envelope restrictions.

5 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

You were making a joke, but i've been wondering, could several of these SOC's be stuck together on a motherboard to make some kind of super machine?  (Like, by Apple, not me with superglue)?

That's kind of how multi-socket servers work, but the memory being built into the SoC would make NUMA access worse/more complicated/slower.

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

How does this make any difference? So I need to somehow convince Microsoft to get me the Enterprise volume version of Windows just for ARM version of it? There's no consumer version available. That's the point.

No it's not, non consumers might want to run Windows ARM on the M1, that is a thing. You said 3rd parties cannot get it and they can and business customers are a huge part of Windows so there is no case to just ignore this because it's not consumer.

 

You might not be able to get it right now but millions and millions of others can or can by way of their employer being able to.

 

I'm not sure any business actually want to or not, or their users, because Window ARM is in general rather bad and that's not just from having slow CPU options either. Still as a device a MacBook Air running Windows ARM would currently be the best possible experience for that version of Windows.

 

But like I said I don't think either company is interested so I have no idea why the source statement for this story was made.

[captain_to_fire]

6 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

You were making a joke, but i've been wondering, could several of these SOC's be stuck together on a motherboard to make some kind of super machine?  (Like, by Apple, not me with superglue)?

Apple did dual socketed boards back in the day with the Power Mac G5 and the 2006 Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo Xeon

But I was indeed joking when I said about stackable Mac mini modules to turn it to a new Mac Pro, which I think even Apple knows is a bad idea because that will defeat the purpose of their AS transition of achieving more performance while consuming less power.

Edited November 23, 2020 by like_ooh_ahh

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Re: Mac Pro being low volume, halo products exist, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept it kicking around--SoC or not. 

I wouldn't either, I just wouldn't be totally surprised if/when the time comes around it ends up being another Intel or AMD based platform. I know that is unlikely based on what Apple has stated about the ARM transition. It just also seems unlikely to me Apple would pay for the entire development process of a very large SoC suitable for the Mac Pro considering how expensive that actually is. But I guess even that is viable if the price is high enough and it's not like people haven't been buying the current top spec Mac Pros which are not cheap at all.

 

Or Apple just slightly adjusts how the target the Mac Pro and utilize the highest spec SoC they have for products like the MacBook Pro and Mac Mini and have it as a platform primarily for storage and device expandability rather than being significantly faster on the CPU front. As long as you can put a few accelerator cards in it (GPUs/Afterburner) it'll be faster than everything else.

 

I look forward to when Mac Pro rumors start coming out.

[Blade of Grass]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I wouldn't either, I just wouldn't be totally surprised if/when the time comes around it ends up being another Intel or AMD based platform. I know that is unlikely based on what Apple has stated about the ARM transition. It just also seems unlikely to me Apple would pay for the entire development process of a very large SoC suitable for the Mac Pro considering how expensive that actually is. But I guess even that is viable if the price is high enough and it's not like people haven't been buying the current top spec Mac Pros which are not cheap at all.

 

Or Apple just slightly adjusts how the target the Mac Pro and utilize the highest spec SoC they have for products like the MacBook Pro and Mac Mini and have it as a platform primarily for storage and device expandability rather than being significantly faster on the CPU front. As long as you can put a few accelerator cards in it (GPUs/Afterburner) it'll be faster than everything else.

 

I look forward to when Mac Pro rumors start coming out.

If Apple were smart (which, undeniably, they are) they could probably develop some server-grade CPUs for the Mac Pro and use them internally in their own DCs. Would be a good way to get their unit cost lower (w/ higher volume, even if it's for internal use, could sell for full price and enjoy the margin) and if they perform as-extrapolated, could be beneficial to their bottom line (higher perf/w, lower DC op costs, maybe longer-term improvement in service offerings).

[leadeater]

Just now, Blade of Grass said:

If Apple were smart (which, undeniably, they are) they could probably develop some server-grade CPUs for the Mac Pro and use them internally in their own DCs. Would be a good way to get their unit cost lower (w/ higher volume, even if it's for internal use) and if they perform as-extrapolated, could be beneficial to their bottom line.

Well that is something I had not considered at all. Apple getting back in to the server ecosystem would be exciting, even if they never plan to sell the servers. Would make some nice ebay finds in the years to come.

[Blade of Grass]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that is something I had not considered at all. Apple getting back in to the server ecosystem would be exciting, even if they never plan to sell the servers. Would make some nice ebay finds in the years to come.

Excited to buy $700 rails for them too

[captain_to_fire]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that is something I had not considered at all. Apple getting back in to the server ecosystem would be exciting, even if they never plan to sell the servers. Would make some nice ebay finds in the years to come.

They did back in the day. It is called "Xserve"

https://web.archive.org/web/20090822021106/http://www.apple.com/xserve

Edited November 23, 2020 by like_ooh_ahh
nvm, leadeater said get back to the server ecosysem

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

It just also seems unlikely to me Apple would pay for the entire development process of a very large SoC suitable for the Mac Pro considering how expensive that actually is.

The same lineup could also serve the imac (pro) series to break down RnD costs significantly better.

[Dracarris]

3 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

there are no T2 chip on M1 Macs, the Secure Enclave takes care of that. T2 is implemented to overcome the weaknesses in the security of Intel chips including the TB3 DMA vulnerability.

Well the functionality of the T2 is now simply integrated into the M1.

[Video Beagle]

8 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

15 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

 

Apple did dual socketed boards back in the day with the Power Mac G5

I have one gathering dust somewhere in my apartment. As I point out often in thes m1 threads..this level of the hardware is magic land as far as I'm concerned...I was curious if these SOC's, which i understand are more than just a cpu, could be used together...Blade of Grass said it'd be difficult because of the memory, but like you take 4 m1's, but then in the corners, than in the middle you have more ram (maybe dram, maybe something else) that shovels data to the 4 different m1s, maybe sacrificing some speed for power?

 

--------

re: XServe....that was such a sexy looking server!

[captain_to_fire]

8 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

.I was curious if these SOC's, which i understand are more than just a cpu, could be used together...Blade of Grass said it'd be difficult because of the memory, but like you take 4 m1's, but then in the corners, than in the middle you have more ram (maybe dram, maybe something else) that shovels data to the 4 different m1s, maybe sacrificing some speed for power?

We don't really know if the future Mac Pro will use the unified memory system as the M1 or it will be a server grade ARM chip that will still use standard ECC memory modules. Because this is still Apple we are talking about, they might eventually bring back that awful trashcan Mac Pro.

 

 

[Video Beagle]

The Trashcan, like the G4 Cube before it, was way cool looking, you have to admit. (Yes, form over function,but pretty form)

[Morris_lee_9116]

9 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

The Trashcan, like the G4 Cube before it, was way cool looking, you have to admit. (Yes, form over function,but pretty form)

ah yes, form over function, typical apple product

[leadeater]

11 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

I have one gathering dust somewhere in my apartment. As I point out often in thes m1 threads..this level of the hardware is magic land as far as I'm concerned...I was curious if these SOC's, which i understand are more than just a cpu, could be used together...Blade of Grass said it'd be difficult because of the memory, but like you take 4 m1's, but then in the corners, than in the middle you have more ram (maybe dram, maybe something else) that shovels data to the 4 different m1s, maybe sacrificing some speed for power?

 

--------

re: XServe....that was such a sexy looking server!

It's actually not as bad as pointed to, not really. It's not that different to how dual/multi socket servers already work.

 

CPUs have memory controllers integrated in to them and the memory is tied to that CPU, a NUMA domain. So in multi socket configurations if data needs to be passed between NUMA domains it has to traverse through each CPU to do so, minimum (depends how many CPUs/socket and how they are linked).

 

For Intel their CPUs use UPI links and for AMD those use Infinity Fabric, these are dedicated components in the CPU so there would have to be an equivalent in an Apple SoC to do the same.

 

Do note the CPUs only have a certain number of UPI links, different models have different amounts too so the above picture is not always possible or true for every Intel Xeon. The dotted orange lines are for the CPUs with fewer UPI links, so in a 4S configuration with those CPUs access from CPU 1 to CPU 4 has to go via an extra path, rather than direct.

 

AMD EPYC only supports dual socket.

Each Chiplet is linked to the opposite equivalent Chiplet in the other socket, for EPYC 1. 8 total effective NUMA domains.

 

Each IOD is linked for EPYC 2, 2 total NUMA domains.

 

How this relates to the Apple SoC, as known right now. Well it's the same other than the memory is on package but functionally the same as Intel and AMD in regards to the memory domain being attached to the CPU, the only difference is the RAM is a lot closer and not on DIMMs to the CPU/SoC. Add in an inter SoC link to the SoC and then multi socket configurations would be possible and the functional layout would be most similar to Intel.

[AlTech]

On 11/22/2020 at 12:03 PM, leadeater said:

Don't suppose you know of any source that has measured the physical dimensions of the M1? I can't find anything. I would be very interested to compare that to the TU102.

Based on the size of A12X/A12Z and A12 compared to A14 I'm gonna go with a guess of roughly 130-150mm^2 for M1.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Based on the size of A12X/A12Z and A12 compared to A14 I'm gonna go with a guess of roughly 130-150mm^2 for M1.

It's 119mm². It's listed on wikichip which I would normally check, don't know why I didn't do that first.

[AlTech]

Just now, leadeater said:

It's 119mm². It's listed on wikichip which I would normally check, don't know why I didn't do that first.

Interesting. Definitely more of an iPad Pro style chip then.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Interesting. Definitely more of an iPad Pro style chip then.

Well it's in line with standard shrinks from nodes, TSMC's 5nm is just that dense. If you were to move it up to 7nm it would be the size of a RTX 3070/GA104 and 12nm would be RTX 2080 Ti/TU102. It may be small but it's a beast of a thing, the A14 also on 5nm is 88mm².

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well it's in line with standard shrinks from nodes, TSMC's 5nm is just that dense. If you were to move it up to 7nm it would be the size of a RTX 3070/GA104 and 12nm would be RTX 2080 Ti/TU102. It may be small but it's a beast of a thing, the A14 also on 5nm is 88mm².

I honestly doubt it. Apple saved almost nothing going from A13 on N7P to A14 on N5.

 

The M1 more and more screams to me that it's an A14X chip running macOS at 10W instead of 5W.