Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #132884 > unrolled thread

Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 04:38 +0000
    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-23 21:45 -0700
      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-24 17:10 +1200
        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-24 02:05 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 01:47 -0700
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 13:29 +0000
        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 09:42 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 09:45 -0400
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 13:10 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 14:42 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-24 10:02 -0400
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 10:24 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 14:38 +0000
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 14:40 +0000
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 16:48 -0700
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 01:53 +0000
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:34 -0700
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 16:47 -0700
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-24 20:17 -0400
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 02:03 +0000
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2020-06-24 23:34 -0500
                      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-25 00:46 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 05:18 +0000
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-25 01:49 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-25 17:47 +1200
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 02:50 -0400
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-25 08:24 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 06:48 -0400
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2020-06-25 07:34 -0500
                            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 08:39 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:34 -0700
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 14:37 -0400
                            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:43 -0700
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-26 08:40 +1200
                            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 13:42 -0700
                      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 04:46 +0000
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-25 08:19 -0400
                      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 12:33 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-26 10:53 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-06-26 23:39 +0000
                      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-27 00:39 +0000
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-26 18:01 -0700
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 14:29 +0000
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 13:41 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 13:55 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 14:42 -0400
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 17:15 -0400
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 17:56 -0400
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 02:31 -0400
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-25 13:06 +1200
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 02:24 +0000
        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-07-03 15:46 -0700
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-07-03 15:53 -0700
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-07-04 15:14 +1200
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-07-04 00:49 -0700
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-07-04 01:15 -0700
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-04 08:09 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-03 20:54 -0400
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-07-04 16:30 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-04 17:12 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-07-05 09:47 -0700
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2020-07-05 19:23 +0100
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 15:50 -0400
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2020-07-05 21:00 +0100
                      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 16:11 -0400
                        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2020-07-05 21:51 +0100
                          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 16:57 -0400
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 15:50 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-07-04 15:11 +1200
      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 15:55 -0400
        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 16:04 -0400
        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 16:51 -0700
    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 15:04 -0400
      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 15:12 -0400
        Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 18:07 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 18:27 -0400
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 02:41 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 06:48 -0400
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 10:53 -0400
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 11:11 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-06-25 18:21 +0000
            Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:32 -0700
              Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-06-25 19:14 +0000
                Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 12:56 -0700
                  Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-06-26 12:22 +0000
                    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-26 12:21 -0700
    Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-27 00:33 +0000
      Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-26 18:02 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#133302

On 7/4/2020 1:30 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip?

> What is more likely to happen is the ability to load the ARM version of
> Windows , run it in Parralells (Apple did mention hypervisor capability)
>   and use whatever 8086 to ARM translation that Microsoft provides with
> Windows.

I wonder what percentage of Mac users run Windows applications either 
via Boot Camp or via a VM?

Every Mac user that I know personally also runs Windows applications 
(and some run Linux applications also). These are not low-resource 
applications that would work well using virtualization and emulation, 
they are commercial, creative, scientific, medical, and educational 
applications that are not available under OS-X. But I'm in Silicon 
Valley, surrounded by engineers and programmers. In other areas of the 
world it could be that only a small percentage of Mac users have a need 
to run Windows applications, or they have a separate computer for those 
applications.

Every time a manufacturer omits capability from a product they know that 
they'll lose some percentage of customer that depended on that omitted 
capability, but the cost savings outweigh losing those customers. Often 
there is a workaround that involves purchasing some extra device or 
adapter. But moving from x86 to ARM is very different than having to buy 
an external Ethernet adapter, Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter, USB external 
optical drive, USB SD card reader, or Lightning to 3.5mm headphone adapter.

One of the big selling points of the Mac is that you can run OS-X only 
applications like Final Cut and Garage Band, but you can also run 
Windows applications, for which there is no OS-X equivalent, on the 
Mac's higher-end hardware. This capability made it worth paying the 
extra money for the Mac hardware. Hopefully there will still be at least 
one x86 Macbook Pro, and one x86 Mac Pro, in the product lineup. They 
can charge extra for it because the B.O.M. cost will be greater.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133303

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 7/4/2020 1:30 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> 
> <snip?
> 
> > What is more likely to happen is the ability to load the ARM version of
> > Windows , run it in Parralells (Apple did mention hypervisor capability)
> >   and use whatever 8086 to ARM translation that Microsoft provides with
> > Windows.
> 
> I wonder what percentage of Mac users run Windows applications either
> via Boot Camp or via a VM?
> 
 
I am one:  I use SDR-Console in a Parallels Win10 VM on MacOS Catalina.
I would not want to lose that facility.  
 
> 
> Every Mac user that I know personally also runs Windows applications 
> (and some run Linux applications also). These are not low-resource 
> applications that would work well using virtualization and emulation,
> they are commercial, creative, scientific, medical, and educational 
> applications that are not available under OS-X. But I'm in Silicon 
> Valley, surrounded by engineers and programmers. In other areas of the
> world it could be that only a small percentage of Mac users have a need
> to run Windows applications, or they have a separate computer for those
> applications.
> 
> Every time a manufacturer omits capability from a product they know that
> they'll lose some percentage of customer that depended on that omitted
> capability, but the cost savings outweigh losing those customers. Often
> there is a workaround that involves purchasing some extra device or 
> adapter. But moving from x86 to ARM is very different than having to buy
> an external Ethernet adapter, Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter, USB external
> optical drive, USB SD card reader, or Lightning to 3.5mm headphone adapter.
> 
> One of the big selling points of the Mac is that you can run OS-X only
> applications like Final Cut and Garage Band, but you can also run 
> Windows applications, for which there is no OS-X equivalent, on the 
> Mac's higher-end hardware. This capability made it worth paying the 
> extra money for the Mac hardware. Hopefully there will still be at least
> one x86 Macbook Pro, and one x86 Mac Pro, in the product lineup. They
> can charge extra for it because the B.O.M. cost will be greater.


-- 
^Ï^     <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.  
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133305

In article <1ot31ax.1iassgv1y2o0loN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
<snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I wonder what percentage of Mac users run Windows applications either
> > via Boot Camp or via a VM?
> > 
>  
> I am one:  I use SDR-Console in a Parallels Win10 VM on MacOS Catalina.
> I would not want to lose that facility.  

sdr doesn't require windows.

there are mac & linux options available.

get a raspberry pi and build a standalone device.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133307

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1ot31ax.1iassgv1y2o0loN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
> <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I wonder what percentage of Mac users run Windows applications either
> > > via Boot Camp or via a VM?
> > > 
> >  
> > I am one:  I use SDR-Console in a Parallels Win10 VM on MacOS Catalina.
> > I would not want to lose that facility.  
> > 
>
> sdr doesn't require windows.
> 
> there are mac & linux options available.
> 

Yes there are a few, but I don't like them.  

>
> get a raspberry pi and build a standalone device.
> 
 
Why should I, when I have a Mac?  

-- 
^Ï^     <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.  
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133308

In article <1ot367x.1ymzm8e17x1hlgN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
<snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I am one:  I use SDR-Console in a Parallels Win10 VM on MacOS Catalina.
> > > I would not want to lose that facility.  
> > > 
> >
> > sdr doesn't require windows.
> > 
> > there are mac & linux options available.
> > 
> 
> Yes there are a few, but I don't like them.  

then you have a problem.

you're also assuming that windows apps will not work on an apple
silicon mac. that may be true on day one, but does not mean it will
always be that way.

if there's sufficient demand for running x86 windows apps, then someone
will provide a solution. 

> > get a raspberry pi and build a standalone device.
> > 
>  
> Why should I, when I have a Mac?

because it's a dedicated device that uses very little power, without
the need to leave a mac on all the time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133310

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1ot367x.1ymzm8e17x1hlgN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
> <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > I am one:  I use SDR-Console in a Parallels Win10 VM on MacOS Catalina.
> > > > I would not want to lose that facility.  
> > > > 
> > >
> > > sdr doesn't require windows.
> > > 
> > > there are mac & linux options available.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes there are a few, but I don't like them.  
> > 
>
> then you have a problem.
> 
> you're also assuming that windows apps will not work on an apple
> silicon mac. that may be true on day one, but does not mean it will
> always be that way.
> 
> if there's sufficient demand for running x86 windows apps, then someone
> will provide a solution. 
> 
 
It isn't a problem, my choice of software works perfectly, thank you.  
Also, I'm not making any assumptions.  I was simply giving an answer 
to sms's question (that you snipped).  No big deal:  this conversation
is just a data point, not a crusade.  
  
It would be a pity If I was inhibited from buying a new ARM powered 
Mac, but OTOH I already run a legacy Mac for 32 bit software.  If
someone is far-sighted enough to provide a solution, then that will 
be one less obstacle to me eventually replacing my existing Mac.  


> > > get a raspberry pi and build a standalone device.
> > > 
> >  
> > Why should I, when I have a Mac?
> 
> because it's a dedicated device that uses very little power,
> without the need to leave a mac on all the time.  
> 
 
That argument doesn't influence me.  
 
-- 
^Ï^     <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.  
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133311

In article <1ot37v1.1q4iztsfjvx9bN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
<snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I am one:  I use SDR-Console in a Parallels Win10 VM on MacOS
> > > > > Catalina. I would not want to lose that facility.  
> > > > > 
> > > >
> > > > sdr doesn't require windows.
> > > > 
> > > > there are mac & linux options available.
> > > > 
> > > Yes there are a few, but I don't like them.  
> >
> > then you have a problem.
> > 
> > you're also assuming that windows apps will not work on an apple
> > silicon mac. that may be true on day one, but does not mean it will
> > always be that way.
> > 
> > if there's sufficient demand for running x86 windows apps, then someone
> > will provide a solution. 
> > 
>  
> It isn't a problem, my choice of software works perfectly, thank you.  

it might work perfectly now, but when it comes time to replace your
mac, you *will* have a problem.

> Also, I'm not making any assumptions. 

you are making the assumption that your windows sdr app will not work
on an apple silicon mac.

as i said, that might be the case initially, but it's not necessarily
forever.

> I was simply giving an answer 
> to sms's question (that you snipped).  No big deal:  this conversation
> is just a data point, not a crusade.  

sms is trolling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133306

In article <rdt079$9i9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I wonder what percentage of Mac users run Windows applications either 
> via Boot Camp or via a VM?

very low.

> Every Mac user that I know personally also runs Windows applications 
> (and some run Linux applications also). These are not low-resource 
> applications that would work well using virtualization and emulation, 
> they are commercial, creative, scientific, medical, and educational 
> applications that are not available under OS-X. But I'm in Silicon 
> Valley, surrounded by engineers and programmers. In other areas of the 
> world it could be that only a small percentage of Mac users have a need 
> to run Windows applications, or they have a separate computer for those 
> applications.

you're lying or you don't know very many people. quite likely both.

you're also trolling, as usual.

> Every time a manufacturer omits capability from a product they know that 
> they'll lose some percentage of customer that depended on that omitted 
> capability, but the cost savings outweigh losing those customers. Often 
> there is a workaround that involves purchasing some extra device or 
> adapter. But moving from x86 to ARM is very different than having to buy 
> an external Ethernet adapter, Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter, USB external 
> optical drive, USB SD card reader, or Lightning to 3.5mm headphone adapter.

yep, you very definitely are trolling with your feature removal rubbish.

while it's true boot camp is gone (for now, it could return), very few
people care.

you are deliberately ignoring the *substantial* amount of new
capabilities that apple silicon will *add* which were previously not
possible with intel processors.

among them includes the ability to run iphone and ipad apps natively
(this is *huge*), mac apps running significantly faster, longer battery
life for laptops, easier app development which means better and more
capable apps for users, plus unannounced features that will be known
only when apple silicon macs are ready.

and with regard to windows, windows on arm exists, and it's up to
microsoft, not apple, to port it to apple hardware and license it for
use, at which point, boot camp could return, assuming there is
sufficient demand, which there really isn't.

> One of the big selling points of the Mac is that you can run OS-X only 
> applications like Final Cut and Garage Band, but you can also run 
> Windows applications, for which there is no OS-X equivalent, on the 
> Mac's higher-end hardware. 

no, that's not one of the big selling points.

there are very few use cases where there is no mac os equivalent,
namely specialized vertical market applications. 

it also hasn't been called 'os-x' in a long time.

> This capability made it worth paying the 
> extra money for the Mac hardware. Hopefully there will still be at least 
> one x86 Macbook Pro, and one x86 Mac Pro, in the product lineup. They 
> can charge extra for it because the B.O.M. cost will be greater.

nonsense.

intel macs are *going* *away*. 

apple said 2 years, but history and common sense indicates it will be
much less than that since there is far less demand for an intel mac
now.

macs with apple processors will be faster and more capable, making it a
very tough sell to buy an older and outdated intel mac with more
limited functionality.

there is also no price premium. mac prices are comparable to windows
pcs for similar specs, and in many cases, macs are *less* expensive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133191

On 2020-07-03 22:46:06 +0000, sms said:

> On 6/23/2020 10:10 PM, Your Name wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> With an ARM Mac, it's going to have to be emulation rather than 
>> virtualisation. Code will have to be translated on the run, which means 
>> it will be slower. Whether that noticeable to the user will depend on 
>> what they're doing and how much more powerful the ARM Macs are.
> 
> Ah, shades of CMS (Code Morphing Software) to emulate an x86 on a low 
> powe RISC processor. Definitely a performance hit, but if you can throw 
> enough CPU power at it then the performance hit may be of no 
> consequence 
> <https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse548/08wi/papers/transmeta.pdf>. 
> 
> 
> Besides performance, another issue is compatibility. I recall being at 
> a class where the development platform, Windows-only, was being run by 
> some Mac users using Bootcamp, and by some Mac users running Windows in 
> a virtual machine with Parallels. The latter had significant 
> compatibility issues in terms of the I/O ports (USB). The next time the 
> class was held they informed people in advance, "Windows 7 or 8 running 
> natively, not in a virtual machine."
> 
> The bottom line is that if you're running Windows on a Mac, using 
> Bootcamp is a much better solution that using a Virtual Machine. 
> Obviously that is going away on ARM-based Macs.

It depends on what you're trying to do, and the latest versions of 
Parallels and Fusion are much better virtualisation than the early ones.

The bonus with virtualisation and emulation is that you can easily 
access both Windows and Mac apps at the same time without rebooting, as 
well as copy-paste information between the two. Both current 
virtualisation solutions on Intel Macs even let you run Windows apps so 
that they look like normal Mac apps (rather than running inside a 
virtualisaed Windows PC).

As has been said, an ARM version of Windows does exist, so running that 
may be a future possibility via either virtualisation and / or Boot 
Camp-style, although not from Apple themselves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132916

On 2020-06-24 00:45, Alan Baker wrote:

> I've used both, and except in some very extreme edge cases, using a VM 
> is far, far better than using Boot Camp.


The VM in this case will have to be like Sheepshaver and provide a
platform emulation (complete with booting support).

From what Apple provided in Monday, Rosetta is more of a utility to do a
one time  convert of a file that contains 8086 binary to create another
file that contains ARM binary.  (both allegedly packaged under the same
.APP directory structure to create that "Universal 2").

There was mention of JIT file support, and I have to wonder if that too
will see the JIT executable fully received, converted and then launched.
(would need more details to confirm).


Launching 8086 Windows in a 8086 emulator will result in the emulator
application (an ARM binary) reading data from an OS-X data file.  (that
file contains the Windows system disk in Windows's native disk format).

Rosetta has no means to convert the content of that data file because it
seen jibberish instead of an OS-X  .APP firectory structure.

**IF** the JIT feature allows an app (the VM) to ask Rosetta to
translate 8086 code store in memory to ARM, then the VM could provide
location in memory of 8086 code loaded by the Windows logic and ask it
tto translate it to ARM and then branch to it.  For DLLs this would also
imply updating the pointers in the list of DLLs so apps can dynamically
link to the translated code version.

or you can do opcode by opcode translation  to emulatr an 8086 computer,
Not as efficient for running apps, but much simpler to implemnent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132917

In article <wcOIG.9486$Vp4.2083@fx44.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > I've used both, and except in some very extreme edge cases, using a VM 
> > is far, far better than using Boot Camp.
> 
> 
> The VM in this case will have to be like Sheepshaver and provide a
> platform emulation (complete with booting support).

no.

> From what Apple provided in Monday, Rosetta is more of a utility to do a
> one time  convert of a file that contains 8086 binary to create another
> file that contains ARM binary.  (both allegedly packaged under the same
> .APP directory structure to create that "Universal 2").

no.

> There was mention of JIT file support, and I have to wonder if that too
> will see the JIT executable fully received, converted and then launched.
> (would need more details to confirm).

you always need more details, but that doesn't stop you from rambling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132927

On 2020-06-24 12:55 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 00:45, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
>> I've used both, and except in some very extreme edge cases, using a VM
>> is far, far better than using Boot Camp.
> 
> 
> The VM in this case will have to be like Sheepshaver and provide a
> platform emulation (complete with booting support).

Stop attempting to talk about things you don't understand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132913

On 2020-06-24 00:38, Arlen Holder wrote:
> Dateline today...
> 
>    "*Boot Camp Is Dead On [all new ARM-based Macs]*"


Initially true. But if Microsoft starts to market ARM based Windows 10
that includes a Rosetta equivalent to run 8086 binaries, due boot might
return.


Have there been any hints on what boot console will be used ? Will Apple
stick with EFI for its ARM based chips or use whatever it has developped
for ita Axx chips for iPhone/iPad/AppleTV ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132914

In article <8tNIG.16028$GQ4.2820@fx02.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >    "*Boot Camp Is Dead On [all new ARM-based Macs]*"
> 
> 
> Initially true. But if Microsoft starts to market ARM based Windows 10
> that includes a Rosetta equivalent to run 8086 binaries, due boot might
> return.

windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks.

> Have there been any hints on what boot console will be used ? Will Apple
> stick with EFI for its ARM based chips or use whatever it has developped
> for ita Axx chips for iPhone/iPad/AppleTV ?

there's no reason to use efi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132922

On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote:

> windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks.

Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on
Itanic as well.  Application ecosystem never materialized and the
platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge )

Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if
Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll
see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips
and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard.

But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps.


> there's no reason to use efi.


EFI is already there , already written, no need to re-invent the wheel.
Rember that desktops require more boot functionality than a single drive
iphone, have wide variety of displays, graphic cards and need to be able
to boot from external disks of various interfaces (USB, thunderbolt etc(


EFI already has that.

Dropping EFI does allow Apple to drop the GPT/GUID partioning scheme and
be native APFS with its own in-partition partitioning.

Keeping EFI means that the boot code gets to keep large chunks of code
with the existing structures for system information, early access to
devices etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132924

In article <J8QIG.30829$0W4.1133@fx42.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks.
> 
> Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on
> Itanic as well. 

win nt was available for power pc too.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.51#Overview>
  The release of Windows NT 3.51 was dubbed "the PowerPC release" 
  at Microsoft. The original intention was to release a PowerPC edition
  of NT 3.5, but according to Microsoft's David Thompson, "we basically
  sat around for 9 months fixing bugs while we waited for IBM to finish
  the Power PC hardware". Editions of NT 3.51 were also released for
  the x86, MIPS, and Alpha architectures

win nt has nothing to do with windows on arm today.


> > there's no reason to use efi.
> 
> 
> EFI is already there , already written, no need to re-invent the wheel.

efi is *not* already there for apple silicon macs.

> Rember that desktops require more boot functionality than a single drive
> iphone, have wide variety of displays, graphic cards and need to be able
> to boot from external disks of various interfaces (USB, thunderbolt etc(

that doesn't require efi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132941

On 2020-06-24 18:27, nospam wrote:

> win nt has nothing to do with windows on arm today.

Actually it does. I beleive that with Windows XP they used the Windows
NT core and just added the retail client windows GUI to it.

Windows NT was designed to be portable (since it originally booted off
Aloha, x86 and pthers (you mentioned PowerPC)

And Apple already has had Widnows on ARM.  Still a lot of work to
productize Windows on ARM machines and market it, provide solid 8086
translator/emulator in it etc.


>> EFI is already there , already written, no need to re-invent the wheel.
> 
> efi is *not* already there for apple silicon macs.

But EFI ios already there in OS-X.

Ovbiously, this is a decision Apple has already made because OS-11 has
support for whatever booting console the ARM based Macs will have.


> that doesn't require efi.

PowerPCs had Apple's own boot console. (forget the name). But modern
OS-X supports EFI already. So it would make sense to just make the
hardware that has EFI as boot console instead of writing both your own
boot console fopr the CPU,  AND updating OS-X to support that new boot
console in the OS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132943

In article <6GXIG.27685$hQ4.19591@fx39.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > win nt has nothing to do with windows on arm today.
> 
> Actually it does. 

it does not

> I beleive that with Windows XP they used the Windows
> NT core and just added the retail client windows GUI to it.
>
> Windows NT was designed to be portable (since it originally booted off
> Aloha, x86 and pthers (you mentioned PowerPC)

windows nt is irrelevant to anything apple does.

> And Apple already has had Widnows on ARM. 

no they don't.

this may come to you as a surprise, but apple does not have anything to
do with windows.

microsoft is responsible for windows and already has windows on arm.

> Still a lot of work to
> productize Windows on ARM machines and market it, provide solid 8086
> translator/emulator in it etc.

that already exists, but it doesn't work that well.

> >> EFI is already there , already written, no need to re-invent the wheel.
> > 
> > efi is *not* already there for apple silicon macs.
> 
> But EFI ios already there in OS-X.

efi has nothing to do with mac os.

> Ovbiously, this is a decision Apple has already made because OS-11 has
> support for whatever booting console the ARM based Macs will have.

which is not efi

> > that doesn't require efi.
> 
> PowerPCs had Apple's own boot console. (forget the name). 

nope. 

powerpc macs used the industry standard open firmware.

68k macs did not use nor need anything.

> But modern
> OS-X supports EFI already. So it would make sense to just make the
> hardware that has EFI as boot console instead of writing both your own
> boot console fopr the CPU,  AND updating OS-X to support that new boot
> console in the OS.

no it wouldn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132949

On 2020-06-25 06:48, nospam wrote:

> windows nt is irrelevant to anything apple does.

This was in context of discussion of Windows going to ARM. Since
Windows's current core has its roots in Windows NT which was designed as
multi-platform, then moving the "industry standard" to ARM is something
that is doable.

Original  Windows/DOS was highly tied to the 8086.


> 
>> And Apple already has had Widnows on ARM. 
> 
> no they don't.

Meant to say Microsoft. my bad.

> that already exists, but it doesn't work that well.

Because there never was a concerted effort to make it work. If ARM gets
better performance and lower power, this equation can change quite fast.


> efi has nothing to do with mac os.

When OS-X on Intel boots, the OS-X code makes extensive use of EFI
service.  Getting hardware config for instance, and the intial VGA
display on screen (such as when you boot verbose, those are all "printf"
calls to EFI which then displays on screen.

The Apple version of EFI also has the ability to select boot drives and
ability to lookup up the structure of the HFS or APFS to load the boot
block directly (as opposed to staring an EFI program in the EFI
partition, which program understands the disk dsurutire of the target OS
and can fimd where the boot block is located).



> powerpc macs used the industry standard open firmware.

OpenBoot. And I stand correct, it was done by Sun and used by Apple. It
has since been officially widthdrawn as an IEEE standard.

> 68k macs did not use nor need anything.

So pray tell, when tyou powered on, what created the chime? What caused
the CPU to issue the IO commands to fetch the boot block, and then
branch to it? What caused the CPU to show a sad face when it didn,T find
a bootage disk drive?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132950

In article <ZT2JG.65177$PN2.46837@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > efi has nothing to do with mac os.
> 
> When OS-X on Intel boots, the OS-X code makes extensive use of EFI
> service. 

that's for intel macs.

it is *not* the case for powerpc macs or future apple silicon macs.


> > powerpc macs used the industry standard open firmware.
> 
> OpenBoot. And I stand correct, it was done by Sun and used by Apple. It
> has since been officially widthdrawn as an IEEE standard.

openboot is what sun called it. outside sun, it was known as open
firmware.

<https://wiki.c2.com/?OpenFirmware>
  Open Firmware is essentially a specification for a largely
  machine-independent BIOS based on the AnsForth standard 
  that is capable of probing and initializing plug-in cards that 
  have on-board IEEE-1275 compliant Fcode in their ROMs. It 
  was invented by MitchBradley to aid in debugging recalcitrant
  hardware at Sun. It is found in Sun, IBM, PowerMacintosh, and
  OneLaptopPerChild systems.

it even has a song
<https://everything2.com/title/The+Open+Firmware+Song>

> > 68k macs did not use nor need anything.
> 
> So pray tell, when tyou powered on, what created the chime? What caused
> the CPU to issue the IO commands to fetch the boot block, and then
> branch to it? What caused the CPU to show a sad face when it didn,T find
> a bootage disk drive?

the mac startup manager, which was in rom and contained a substantial
amount of mac os. there was no separate bios, nor did it need it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web