Who said Windows wouldn't run well on #AppleSilicon...

[hishnash]

 

 

Summary

Some skilled twitter users have figured out how to make the macOS virtualisation framework to boot and run the window ARM in a hardware accelerated VM on the M1 cpu.

 

My thoughts

Apple has said this was `up to MS` but it turns out that it does not even need MS to do any work. It will be interesting to see how many new apps on macs make use of the new VM apis that no longer need any kernel extensions. Once this image of windows graduates out of developer-program  into general release i expect there will be a load of apps out there (from open source GitHub projects to large historic providers like Parallels and VMWare)

 

Sources

 

[Coolmaster]

6 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Apple has said this was `up to MS` but it turns out that it does not even need MS to do any work

While it is possible, a real company like Apple won't violate Microsoft's Intellectual Property to get Windows on ARM. It's still upto Microsoft to let Apple run it.

[Electronics Wizardy]

18 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

While it is possible, a real company like Apple won't violate Microsoft's Intellectual Property to get Windows on ARM. It's still upto Microsoft to let Apple run it.

how would this break microsofts tos? Microsoft already has a version of windows for arm, so licensing shouldn't matter the device it runs on. Or if its a vm, just license it like any other arm vm would be licensed.

[Coolmaster]

5 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

how would this break microsofts tos? Microsoft already has a version of windows for arm, so licensing shouldn't matter the device it runs on. Or if its a vm, just license it like any other arm vm would be licensed.

Microsoft have stated that they will only allow Windows ARM on a device if it comes preinstalled as the only OS by the manufacturer. So it's upto Microsoft to change that policy.

[captain_to_fire]

22 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

how would this break microsofts tos? Microsoft already has a version of windows for arm, so licensing shouldn't matter the device it runs on. Or if its a vm, just license it like any other arm vm would be licensed.

Because WoA is only licensed to OEMs, it is not like x86 Windows 10 where you can download and install to any PC 

[bcredeur97]

I really don’t see why MS wouldn’t allow this. It’s just more devices that can run their OS. Unless they really want to push their own hardware that hard? 

 

+ not like we can LEGALLY run Mac OS on anything outside of Apple 

 

but qemu is great. So if this only exists in non MS approved form.... *shrug* 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, hishnash said:

Some skilled twitter users have figured out how to make the macOS virtualisation framework to boot and run the window ARM in a hardware accelerated VM on the M1 cpu.

That sounds closer to "we got Doom to run on task manager" than "dual boot is back" to me...

 

2 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

Because WoA is only licensed to OEMs, it is not like x86 Windows 10 where you can download and install to any PC 

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

+ not like we can LEGALLY run Mac OS on anything outside of Apple

 

Psst, who cares! Time for a Hackintosh vs WARMM1 showdown

[hishnash]

2 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

Because WoA is only licensed to OEMs, it is not like x86 Windows 10 where you can download and install to any PC 

The build on the dev portal from MS is not limited you can get the ISO from there and run it on any machine. (you cant sell that machine without a differnt license but you can run it legaly)

 

 

[Coolmaster]

1 minute ago, hishnash said:

The build on the dev portal from MS is not limited you can get the ISO from there and run it on any machine. (you cant sell that machine without a differnt license but you can run it legaly)

 

 

Windows ARM isn't on their website, that's the x86. Only OEMs can get Windows ARM.

[Belgarathian]

5 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

how would this break microsofts tos? Microsoft already has a version of windows for arm, so licensing shouldn't matter the device it runs on. Or if its a vm, just license it like any other arm vm would be licensed.

Microsoft will only sell Windows ARM to OEMs that pre-install. 

[hishnash]

2 hours ago, Coolmaster said:

Windows ARM isn't on their website, that's the x86. Only OEMs can get Windows ARM.

 

2 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Microsoft will only sell Windows ARM to OEMs that pre-install. 

Incorect if you have a developer account MS you can download windows arm this is the same place you can download pre-release versions of windows. They do not list it on the public site yet as this is only for the next version of windows are (that support x86-64 emulation) that is not released tot he public yet. As to if MS will sell this later as a one of purcase or require you to be subscribe to something i expect MS would like to move all users to subscribtion so like the dev accounts you will likly need a corporate MS subscribtion to get this ISO.

[leadeater]

41 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Incorect if you have a developer account MS you can download windows arm this is the same place you can download pre-release versions of windows. They do not list it on the public site yet as this is only for the next version of windows are (that support x86-64 emulation) that is not released tot he public yet. As to if MS will sell this later as a one of purcase or require you to be subscribe to something i expect MS would like to move all users to subscribtion so like the dev accounts you will likly need a corporate MS subscribtion to get this ISO.

And you can purchase Windows ARM under a volume license agreement. The only consumer avenue to get Windows ARM is via a device pre-loaded with it but it's not the only way to get Windows ARM.

[Dracarris]

Why should Apple care where the end user gets its copy of WoA from? All they provide is an environment to install it, not the OS itself. So in the end it would still be the user that breaks any ToS, not Apple.

 

It's not like Bootcamp was supplied with any Windows .iso ..

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Why should Apple care where the end user gets its copy of WoA from? All they provide is an environment to install it, not the OS itself. So in the end it would still be the user that breaks any ToS, not Apple.

 

It's not like Bootcamp was supplied with any Windows .iso ..

But to get windows on bootcamp they needed Microsofts consent. 

[saltycaramel]

Seeing the progress people are making on this in just a couple of days, makes me think that by late 2022 with M3 Macs (which could be even +50% faster than M1 ones) and after 2 years of people working on this, virtualized Windows ARM running emulated x86-64 apps at usable speed could very well be a thing..

 

Now, the problem of having an “average Joe” way to obtain the Windows ARM license for consumers is important for

- regular people (the lawyer or accountant just needing one particular windows program needs to have an easy spoonfed way to do all of this, that includes acquiring the license)

- virtualization software vendors (VMware, Parallels), who wouldn’t enable the feature without a legit way for customers to buy a license (as an example, think about the fact that unpatched ESXi only supports macOS on apple hardware because licensing)

- businesses (as a consequence of the above), since they need commercial virtualization software to rely on

 

hacker-y solutions can only go so far...everything need to be agreed upon by all parties involved (Apple, MS and virtualization software vendors)...we already have 2 out of 3...now we only need to hear from MS...maybe they’re just waiting for commercial VT software to be ready...or to perfect x86-64 app emulation..

[Dracarris]

4 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

Seeing the progress people are making on this in just a couple of days, makes me think that by late 2022 with M3 Macs (which could be even +50% faster than M1 ones) and after 2 years of people working on this, virtualized Windows ARM running emulated x86-64 apps at usable speed could very well be a thing..

 

Now, the problem of having an “average Joe” way to obtain the Windows ARM license for consumers is important for

- regular people (the lawyer or accountant just needing one particular windows program need an easy spoonfed way to do all of this, that includes acquiring the license)

- virtualization software vendors (VMware, Parallels), who wouldn’t enable the feature without a legit way for customers to buy a license (as an example, think about the fact that unpatched ESXi only supports macOS on apple hardware because licensing)

- businesses (as a consequence of the above), since they need commercial virtualization software to rely on

I don't see how this would help after all. Havin Win x86 Apps running on WoA still leaves us with the utterly bad and horribly slow x86 emulation on WoA. The real winner would be some way to run virtualized x86 Windows with very small performance penalty.

[Master Disaster]

21 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But to get windows on bootcamp they needed Microsofts consent. 

No they didn't. They might have needed help with drivers and the likes but Bootcamp is just software.

 

Just like VMware, VBox, QEMU, Parallels etc there's nothing in the Windows ToS that forbids a user to run Windows in a virtual environment plus Bootcamp isn't really virtualisation anyway, the OS pretty much runs on bare metal. As long as the user is running the OS in license there's nothing MS can do about it and TBH nor would they want to.

[saltycaramel]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I don't see how this would help after all. Havin Win x86 Apps running on WoA still leaves us with the utterly bad and horribly slow x86 emulation on WoA. The real winner would be some way to run virtualized x86 Windows with very small performance penalty.

 

That’s not possible tho.  

Running VT WoA at almost no penalty, and then within WoA running x86-64 apps at some penalty, is the closest thing. 

Personally I don’t need it but I’m thinking of people working in places that need some lightweight windows app to connect to their system. That would be enough for that.

[Dracarris]

4 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

That’s not possible tho. 

Are you sure about that? Why not use a very clever emulation layer between the VM and MacOS?

4 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

Running VT WoA at almost no penalty, and then within WoA running x86-64 apps at some penalty, is the closest thing.

As long as MS does not get their shit together with x86 emulation, this would mean a lot of Pro users are left out of the game. For example all the CAD users (not only mechanical CAD). A lot of this SW is only available on Win x86 and getting that shit run natively on Arm would probably be a hell ton of work. Considering the performance it already requires with native code, using it with bad emulation is just impossible and no sane person will ever do that.

[Lord Vile]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

No they didn't. They might have needed help with drivers and the likes but Bootcamp is just software.

 

Just like VMware, VBox, QEMU, Parallels etc there's nothing in the Windows ToS that forbids a user to run Windows in a virtual environment plus Bootcamp isn't really virtualisation anyway, the OS pretty much runs on bare metal. As long as the user is running the OS in license there's nothing MS can do about it and TBH nor would they want to.

Just because they can doesn't mean they're allowed to. 

 

You've hot the nail on the head without realising it. Bootcamp isn't virtualisation. Theres a big difference between a user installing a program to do it and it being baked into an OS like Bootcamp is. It would be like windows shipping with a tool to duel boot MacOS.

[Dracarris]

25 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You've hot the nail on the head without realising it. Bootcamp isn't virtualisation. Theres a big difference between a user installing a program to do it and it being baked into an OS like Bootcamp is. It would be like windows shipping with a tool to duel boot MacOS.

As long as that tool does not use any code or IP from Apple, there would be jack shit that Apple could do legally about it. All bootcamp does is change the partition map and replace the boot loader.

 

You have a machine and you have an OS. What you choose to do with that OS is under your control, not of Apple or MS.

[Master Disaster]

23 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Just because they can doesn't mean they're allowed to. 

 

You've hot the nail on the head without realising it. Bootcamp isn't virtualisation. Theres a big difference between a user installing a program to do it and it being baked into an OS like Bootcamp is. It would be like windows shipping with a tool to duel boot MacOS.

No it wouldn't.

 

Apples ToS for macOS has a specific clause that forbids its users to run the OS any anything other than Apple hardware. Windows has no such restrictions, as long as the user has a legitimate license they can run it on a toaster if they want to.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Dracarris said:

As long as that tool does not use any code or IP from Apple, there would be jack shit that Apple could do legally about it.

 

You have a machine and you have an OS. What you choose to do with that OS is under your control, not of Apple or MS.

Incorrect, Apple expressly forbid users from running macOS or iOS on anything except Apple hardware. They cannot do anything about a bootloader that can boot the OS unless, as you said, it includes copyrighted code but the act of obtaining macOS anywhere outside of a Mac is software piracy.

[Dracarris]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Apples ToS for macOS has a specific clause that forbids its users to run the OS any anything other than Apple hardware.

Even then. If the user decides to break their ToS by installing MacOS on a PC, what does MS have to do with it?

 

If you buy a nail gun at home depot and kill someone with it, will home depot be dragged to court because they sold you a tool that the customer then used inappropriately?

 

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

the act of obtaining macOS anywhere outside of a Mac is software piracy.

Yes but that is none of Microsofts bussiness if they just provide a boot loader and the user obtains MacOS somehow.

 

Btw: Owning a Mac gives you a legit way to obtain any version of MacOS and create a bootable installer. So as long as you own a legit Mac, which most Hackintosh users do, the legal situation is a bit more nuanced.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Even then. If the user decides to break their ToS by installing MacOS on a PC, what does MS have to do with it?

 

If you buy a nail gun at home depot and kill someone with it, will home depot be dragged to court because they sold you a tool that the customer then used inappropriately?

Yep, its the person installing the OS that's breaching the license.

 

I was just pointing out that macOS is different to Windows & Linux in how its licensed. Apple do have rules in place to prevent macOS from running on non Apple devices but ultimately that comes down to Apple Vs the user.