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

[Doobeedoo]

Would be fun to see direct compare on same hardware with properly optimized software of course. 

[Lord Vile]

18 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

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.

Windows for ARM definitely has a clause forbidding it to be installed onto any system by a user.

[Master Disaster]

7 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Windows for ARM definitely has a clause forbidding it to be installed onto any system by a user.

Correct but that's not relevant to our current discussion.

 

You said Apple needed Microsoft's permission to create Bootcamp and Bootcamp did not run WoA.

[Bombastinator]

18 hours 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.

It reduces it from a functional requirement to a legal one though. This was the claim UNIX thought it had when BSD came out of berkley.

[DrMacintosh]

Apple said it was up to Microsoft to allow something a easy as Bootcamp to run and be a marketable feature. You can’t reasonably market being able to VM Windows to millions of customers as a replacement to Bootcamp, bc it’s not. 

[Bombastinator]

There seems to be a conflation between windows and software designed to run on windows with x86.  Windows itself still has issues.  A lot of software designed to run with windows doesn’t though.  I’m kinda curious how such stuff appears GUI wise.  If one has an app designed for windows does it just show up as a clickable icon on the Apple desktop and you just run it?

[captain_to_fire]

The best Windows 10 on ARM you can get is a M1 MacBook Air

 

 

 

Apple should bring back the "Get a Mac" ad campaign

 

[hishnash]

23 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

 stuff is they either don't help you out through their awful tech support, and/or they just deactivate the license

So if you have an ORG level license with MS you can already legally run the windows 10 for ARM images on any VM (it is only the personal licenses that do not let you do this the license companies have, that are subscription licenses already permit this).

 

 

23 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Apple, on the other hand, that's a different story.

Apple really do not care what you do as an individual, they do not bother with hackenthoshing at all.

But if you start to sell hardware with macOS pre-installed they will go after you hard and that is expected. Also if you started to rent out a macOS vm on a cloud provider were the VM was not running on mac hardware apple would go after you hard, in this case it would be the same is MS if you rented out windows VMs and did not have the correct license for that windows install MS would go after you hard.

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, hishnash said:

So if you have an ORG level license with MS you can already legally run the windows 10 for ARM images on any VM (it is only the personal licenses that do not let you do this the license companies have, that are subscription licenses already permit this).

 

 

Apple really do not care what you do as an individual, they do not bother with hackenthoshing at all.

But if you start to sell hardware with macOS pre-installed they will go after you hard and that is expected. Also if you started to rent out a macOS vm on a cloud provider were the VM was not running on mac hardware apple would go after you hard, in this case it would be the same is MS if you rented out windows VMs and did not have the correct license for that windows install MS would go after you hard.

My understanding is Apple has gone after hackentoshing incrementally for many years.  There was some sort of statement many years ago that they thought they simply wouldn’t be able to solve it in one whack, because people got too inventive trying to find ways around stuff, so what they would do is fix issues in permanent ways as they came up, and that it would take many years to eliminate, but it would get more and more difficult.  This seems to be the case.  Every revision it gets harder and harder to hackintosh. The irony is the whole thing provided them with some pretty good security features that are standing them in good stead now.  Weird discovered advantage.  Hackentoshing wound up helping Apple develop new tech.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Bombastinator

[hishnash]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

My understanding is Apple has gone after hackentoshing incrementally for many years

Apple have never gone after users just companies selling them.

Non of the security changes in macOS over the years have been targeted at hackentosh users, all these security measures depend on as secure boot pipeline (this requires hardware) so by definition is not applicable top  hackentosh.  This shows that apple has not been doing anything to try to stop personal hackentoshing as they understand that they cant do anything due to the kernel being hacked. 


 

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Apple have never gone after users just companies selling them.

Non of the security changes in macOS over the years have been targeted at hackentosh users, all these security measures depend on as secure boot pipeline (this requires hardware) so by definition is not applicable top  hackentosh.  This shows that apple has not been doing anything to try to stop personal hackentoshing as they understand that they cant do anything due to the kernel being hacked. 


 

Not Apple legal.  I’m talking about engineering.  T2 has been a massive problem for hackintoshing for one.  Hackentoshing used to be easy.  Like really really easy.  It was mostly a matter of making sure you had hardware that Apple had written drivers for.  Now it’s almost absurdly complicated by comparison.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Bombastinator

[WhitetailAni]

I like the virt-5.2 and the 2GB only of RAM part.

Plus it doesn't list a GPU at all.

 

elephants

[Kisai]

On 11/26/2020 at 4:45 PM, Coolmaster said:

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.

 

System Integrators have been selling OEM versions Windows since Win95. The only requirement was that it came with hardware, and a lot of stubborn nerds got the OEM versions of 95-XP by buying things like computer mice. Windows 3.1/3.11 also used to come bundled with some OEM mice.

 

All this means is that Microsoft is not selling retail versions, which is the version you need for virtualization, as the OEM version will want to keep being re-activated as the virtual hardware will keep changing.

 

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

System Integrators have been selling OEM versions Windows since Win95. The only requirement was that it came with hardware, and a lot of stubborn nerds got the OEM versions of 95-XP by buying things like computer mice. Windows 3.1/3.11 also used to come bundled with some OEM mice.

 

All this means is that Microsoft is not selling retail versions, which is the version you need for virtualization, as the OEM version will want to keep being re-activated as the virtual hardware will keep changing.

 

Ultimately, Microsoft doesn't seem to care about OEM being sold without hardware anymore. I mean, for as long as you're using it within license (which means once activated, it stays with that system forever and can't be sold anymore unless you sell whole system), it's fine.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's hard to enforce in court to begin with, and in the US /f they cared only Maryland and Virginia are the only two states where they could actually do anything about it.  Plus, if you build your own system you technically are an OEM by definition.

In the past online computer stores here have restricted selling OEM Windows license version unless you also add a CPU and motherboard to your cart and stay in there while completing the order. Just a super crude way to attempt to ensure things are all above board licensing/ToS wise, ass covering basically.

[Coolmaster]

12 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

System Integrators have been selling OEM versions Windows since Win95. The only requirement was that it came with hardware, and a lot of stubborn nerds got the OEM versions of 95-XP by buying things like computer mice. Windows 3.1/3.11 also used to come bundled with some OEM mice.

 

All this means is that Microsoft is not selling retail versions, which is the version you need for virtualization, as the OEM version will want to keep being re-activated as the virtual hardware will keep changing.

 

While it is possible to get a hold of a copy pretty easily, a company like Apple won't do that to Microsoft. I don't think it's likely that Apple will preinstall Windows on their new devices.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Not Apple legal.  I’m talking about engineering.  T2 has been a massive problem for hackintoshing for one.  Hackentoshing used to be easy.  Like really really easy.  It was mostly a matter of making sure you had hardware that Apple had written drivers for.  Now it’s almost absurdly complicated by comparison.

The T2 chip only came out two years ago. Yes, if you have a laptop that is Whiskey Lake or higher, you will need a FakeT2 kext to get around it, but all other computers would just run normally, like the Macs without T2.

 

If Apple truly hated Hackintoshing, they would send a cease and desist to the makers of FakeSMC, they've done it over much more petty things before. But they haven't. Why? Apple knows that people who Hackintosh would have not bought a Mac from them in the first place. Most people hackintosh because Macs are slow, or they're not being updated quickly enough, or they're simply just too expensive. These three categories of people would never have considered a Mac in the first place, so why bar them from using it on their own hardware? There's no monetary incentive in this case. In fact, if people hackintosh and spend money on the Mac App Store or on Apple Music or Apple TV+ directly because they have macOS, that's profits that they wouldn't have received the other way.

 

Hackintoshing is dead now that Apple is switching away from macOS. I'm not saying that it couldn't work, I'm just saying that macOS without graphics drivers would be hell and unusable even if you hacked it together on a Qualcomm chip. But I don't see Hackintoshing being Apple's enemy and the reason for the switch. This is just like how they don't go after jailbreaking, although, the law forced their hand in that.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

The T2 chip only came out two years ago. Yes, if you have a laptop that is Whiskey Lake or higher, you will need a FakeT2 kext to get around it, but all other computers would just run normally, like the Macs without T2.

 

If Apple truly hated Hackintoshing, they would send a cease and desist to the makers of FakeSMC, they've done it over much more petty things before. But they haven't. Why? Apple knows that people who Hackintosh would have not bought a Mac from them in the first place. Most people hackintosh because Macs are slow, or they're not being updated quickly enough, or they're simply just too expensive. These three categories of people would never have considered a Mac in the first place, so why bar them from using it on their own hardware? There's no monetary incentive in this case. In fact, if people hackintosh and spend money on the Mac App Store or on Apple Music or Apple TV+ directly because they have macOS, that's profits that they wouldn't have received the other way.

 

Hackintoshing is dead now that Apple is switching away from macOS. I'm not saying that it couldn't work, I'm just saying that macOS without graphics drivers would be hell and unusable even if you hacked it together on a Qualcomm chip. But I don't see Hackintoshing being Apple's enemy and the reason for the switch. This is just like how they don't go after jailbreaking, although, the law forced their hand in that.

It got a lot harder over time even before t2.  An argument based on an “if” which attempts to predict behavior of a corporation is by definition weak. Of course my argument is based off an over 20 year old memory of a statement by an Apple employee which is pretty weak too without a reference.  Mine is backed up by observation of difficulty of creating hackintosh computers over time but that strength is questionable because it has the same problems as the earlier “if” supposition. At any rate it’s soon to become moot as Apple has started making its own silicon.  MacOS is completely portable and has been for many years.  If Apple wanted to create a version of MacOS that would run on, say riscV, they could do it without a lot of trouble.  Apple had trouble with work-alike machines even before it moved to intel though.  The pear was not an intel machine.

[Dracarris]

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgwhPbyOJ0GseAzHX3N4AaABCQ

Quote

I’m running a DirectX 11 32-bit Windows program built for x86 on a 64-bit Wine layer for Intel Macs that itself is being emulated via an x86 to ARM translator on a 12-15W mobile CPU. And it actually works. It’s bloody bananas.

 

There you go, ladies and gents. Who said we need WoA to run on the M1.