5 ms·

I believe the concern is around Windows x64 virtualization, not presumably Linux ARM virtualization.

by guidedlight 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago
Presumably you’d run the AArch64 Windows builds, not the AMD64 builds, if you were on an Apple Silicon machine.
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  That doesn't help you if the particular Windows software you need to run hasn't been built for ARM. People run Windows for the software library - not because they really like Windows.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I’m not sure what people can reasonably expect - you want to run one OS, virtualising another OS for a completely different architecture? You should probably just run a separate machine for a better experience at this point.
    - moondev 6y ago
      Exactly! I don't think most people understand how bad this move to ARM will be for developers. You are losing the ability to run/test/develop the vms and containers that are deployed in prod.
  - red_phone 6y ago
    Windows for ARM can already run 32-bit x86 executables. They’re working to bring similar support for 64-bit software.
    - miles 6y ago
      Thanks for posting that. It was news to me; I haven't been following Windows on ARM, but am now interested due to Apple's upcoming hardware. I was under the impression (like many others apparently) that Windows 10 ARM64 wouldn't be very useful (since so few native apps are available), but being able to run 32-bit (x86) apps is huge: Running 32-bit Applications https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/running-32-bit-applications https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/run...
- justaguy88 6y ago
  aarch64 windows isn't useful to many (most?) people
  - oneplane 6y ago
    Most people don't even know what an architecture or ISA is ;-) But in terms of usefulness people will want to be able to execute their tasks and if a program that they use doesn't work (be it because it doesn't have an AArch64 version or anything else) they will not find that very useful. I think you were mostly pointing at Windows's ARM failure so far, which is fair -- a lot of applications simply won't run unless they make an ARM specific version or have a binary that happens to be compatible with the Windows built in x86 emulator
ogre_codes 6y ago
> I believe the concern is around Windows x64 virtualization Linux support is likely much more important to Mac users, likely by a large margin. Not necessarily Linux ARM virtualization, but Linux on x86 for web developers working with Docker or Linux VMs. Nobody likes playing guessing games about whether their local setup is close enough to their production environment.
- mrpippy 6y ago
  > Linux support is likely much more important to Mac users, likely by a large margin I very much doubt that. Maybe for the HN crowd of web developers, but for normal users, embedded/desktop developers, basically everyone else, Windows is more important.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > but for normal users, embedded/desktop developers I hate to break it to you, but web developers outnumber embedded/ desktop users about 5 : 1 or more, particularly now that a huge chunk of desktop software has turned into glorified web apps.
    - mrpippy 6y ago
      Agreed. “Normal users” as a group far outnumber both though.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        How many people run Parallels outside of development circles? Most users are barely capable of running one computer, let alone a virtual environment with a whole second OS on top. People who rely on Windows software generally run Windows.
        dogma1138 6y ago
        Nearly anyone with a corporate issued Mac... And in fact probably far more corporate users run Parallels/Fusion than developers as there are far far more corporate dependencies on Windows and older Mac OSes if MacOS was always an integral part of your business pipeline than there are developers. Bespoke business software, accounting software, control software and most importantly legacy software people are still running Macromedia software and even older things to be able to pull out and open legacy projects. Sorry to break it to you but just like Linux for desktops - Linux virtualization for Mac is a rounding error. You also seem to not understand how people actually use parallels or fusion they aren’t running or managing guests directly, those are packaged and presented as apps by their IT department. Half if not more of the apps on our Corp App Store for MacOS are packaged like that. When Jane from accounting opens her managed Mac and clicks on Sage Book 2005 or some 20 years old bespoke Oracle Forms application she doesn’t know it runs in a VM likely under Windows and quite possibly even Windows XP. I think you view is really detached from reality since you seem to not know how most businesses run and managed their endpoints. There is a whole industry of abstracting “having to manage their computer” not because most people aren’t capable of doing that but because they weren’t trained to do so and even if they were/are it’s a complete waste of time and resources for them to do so.

I believe the concern is around Windows x64 virtualization, not presumably Linux ARM virtualization.

chrisseaton 6y ago

Presumably you’d run the AArch64 Windows builds, not the AMD64 builds, if you were on an Apple Silicon machine.

LeoPanthera 6y ago
That doesn't help you if the particular Windows software you need to run hasn't been built for ARM. People run Windows for the software library - not because they really like Windows.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I’m not sure what people can reasonably expect - you want to run one OS, virtualising another OS for a completely different architecture? You should probably just run a separate machine for a better experience at this point.
  - moondev 6y ago
    Exactly! I don't think most people understand how bad this move to ARM will be for developers. You are losing the ability to run/test/develop the vms and containers that are deployed in prod.
- red_phone 6y ago
  Windows for ARM can already run 32-bit x86 executables. They’re working to bring similar support for 64-bit software.
  - miles 6y ago
    Thanks for posting that. It was news to me; I haven't been following Windows on ARM, but am now interested due to Apple's upcoming hardware. I was under the impression (like many others apparently) that Windows 10 ARM64 wouldn't be very useful (since so few native apps are available), but being able to run 32-bit (x86) apps is huge: Running 32-bit Applications https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/running-32-bit-applications https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/run...
justaguy88 6y ago
aarch64 windows isn't useful to many (most?) people
- oneplane 6y ago
  Most people don't even know what an architecture or ISA is ;-) But in terms of usefulness people will want to be able to execute their tasks and if a program that they use doesn't work (be it because it doesn't have an AArch64 version or anything else) they will not find that very useful. I think you were mostly pointing at Windows's ARM failure so far, which is fair -- a lot of applications simply won't run unless they make an ARM specific version or have a binary that happens to be compatible with the Windows built in x86 emulator

ogre_codes 6y ago

> I believe the concern is around Windows x64 virtualization Linux support is likely much more important to Mac users, likely by a large margin. Not necessarily Linux ARM virtualization, but Linux on x86 for web developers working with Docker or Linux VMs. Nobody likes playing guessing games about whether their local setup is close enough to their production environment.

mrpippy 6y ago
> Linux support is likely much more important to Mac users, likely by a large margin I very much doubt that. Maybe for the HN crowd of web developers, but for normal users, embedded/desktop developers, basically everyone else, Windows is more important.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > but for normal users, embedded/desktop developers I hate to break it to you, but web developers outnumber embedded/ desktop users about 5 : 1 or more, particularly now that a huge chunk of desktop software has turned into glorified web apps.
  - mrpippy 6y ago
    Agreed. “Normal users” as a group far outnumber both though.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      How many people run Parallels outside of development circles? Most users are barely capable of running one computer, let alone a virtual environment with a whole second OS on top. People who rely on Windows software generally run Windows.
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Nearly anyone with a corporate issued Mac... And in fact probably far more corporate users run Parallels/Fusion than developers as there are far far more corporate dependencies on Windows and older Mac OSes if MacOS was always an integral part of your business pipeline than there are developers. Bespoke business software, accounting software, control software and most importantly legacy software people are still running Macromedia software and even older things to be able to pull out and open legacy projects. Sorry to break it to you but just like Linux for desktops - Linux virtualization for Mac is a rounding error. You also seem to not understand how people actually use parallels or fusion they aren’t running or managing guests directly, those are packaged and presented as apps by their IT department. Half if not more of the apps on our Corp App Store for MacOS are packaged like that. When Jane from accounting opens her managed Mac and clicks on Sage Book 2005 or some 20 years old bespoke Oracle Forms application she doesn’t know it runs in a VM likely under Windows and quite possibly even Windows XP. I think you view is really detached from reality since you seem to not know how most businesses run and managed their endpoints. There is a whole industry of abstracting “having to manage their computer” not because most people aren’t capable of doing that but because they weren’t trained to do so and even if they were/are it’s a complete waste of time and resources for them to do so.