wellvast.blogg.se

1. #VMWARE FUSION MAC M1 CHIP DRIVERS#
2. #VMWARE FUSION MAC M1 CHIP FREE#
3. #VMWARE FUSION MAC M1 CHIP MAC#

The fact that people are willing to pay more for the Apple experience given cheaper alternatives says something, and that does not make them "sheep" or "stupid for paying that much". Apple would not be ias successful as they are if they "played with everyone else in the market" That market values commodity pricing and high volume to make a profit. That means that it may (and usually does) build devices unlike others on the market. they have ALWAYS stuck with hardware which nobody else in the world uses, refused to allow 3rd party cloning like IBM did, etc.Īpple proves that they want to march to their own drummer to provide a "insanely great" product. Here we are and yet once again Apple proves they do not want to play with everybody else in the market. Users then make their own decisions based on that. That being said, it is ultimately Microsoft's business decision what they decide to support.

#VMWARE FUSION MAC M1 CHIP MAC#

Evidently they don't think that Windows users on the Mac are worth listening to, especially those that use M1 Macs.

#VMWARE FUSION MAC M1 CHIP FREE#

Communicate that they embrace Windows on ARM VMs, and free Parallels and VMware from the gray areas. I'm simply expecting them to listen to their users.

I am not asking Microsoft bow down to Apple. I believe that to be the exclusivity agreement between Qualcomm and Microsoft - not anything technical. The fact that the only "supported" ARM chips are Qualcomm and their own Surface CPUs shows that something else is afoot. The refusal to support Apple Silicon stands directly in front of evidence that Microsoft has through their telemetry that Windows works quite well "as is" on ARM VMs. Here is the article that I found that says Apple's willing to invest in Window on M1 if Microsoft is open to it.

(I'm sure VMware would have ported VMware tools to Windows for ARM if their lawyers didn't feel that Microsoft would cause problems for them). And the entire issue of "Apple proprietary" goes out the window with virtualization solutions as they provide their own virtualized device drivers.

#VMWARE FUSION MAC M1 CHIP DRIVERS#

Apple bore the expense of changing their boot environment with Boot Camp, and providing drivers for their own hardware. Microsoft didn't have to spend R&D and support money to support Apple "proprietary" peripherals, and they don't have to do that on M1 Macs if they follow their own established policies. They would use the "SystemReady SR" specs as a supported reference CPU architecture, and allow Apple/VMware/Parallels to build the drivers necessary to support their peripherals. If Microsoft is serious about letting system vendors openly build ARM architecture devices for Windows, they wouldn't force you to use a Qualcomm development system and list only Qualcomm CPU chips as "supported CPUs". I suspect that Microsoft is building Windows for ARM to those specs, given how easily Parallels and to a lesser extent VMware can run Windows for ARM in VMs out of the box.

In the ARM world, they have a published SystemReady SR spec for workstations and servers that accomplishes something similar.

They leave it to hardware OEMs to build drivers for the devices that are included in systems. Microsoft's policies for Windows is are to provide rminimum system reference configurations and supported chip sets along with a set of default drivers. I don't think the costs would be as high as you think. ongoing costs) their competitor's proprietary hardware? Is it that nobody wants to hold Microsoft’s feet to the fire on this because it it their refusals that’s ultimately causing this issue.Īnd please explain why they should? Why should Microsoft be expected to spend their resources to create and then Support (which ultimately costs way more, with QA and Help Desk, etc.