4 ms·
Boot camp is a windows problem. This can be done today on apple silicon but Microsoft dosent want to go through the effort to support it.
by vsgherzi 6mo ago
Boot camp is a windows problem. This can be done today on apple silicon but Microsoft dosent want to go through the effort to support it.
- bpoyner 6mo agoI imagine it would be a big lift. Asahi linux is managing through reverse engineering the hardware support, without any official documentation. Even with official documentation it would be a significant change from other aarch64 hardware.
- dwaite 5mo agoI'm curious why I would want to dual boot Windows when there's a perfectly good hypervisor and paravirtualization built into macOS? Arm-based windows support via Parallels does work, but AFAICT there's no official way to buy a Windows license due to a Microsoft/Qualcomm partnership.
- xnx 5mo agoNo RAM, CPU, or disk overhead.
- evancox100 5mo agoYou can buy an ARM Windows license for parallels on Mac now. It works quite well. I think WoA used to be exclusive to Qualcomm, but that hasn’t been true for at least a couple years, maybe longer.
- bigyabai 6mo agoTechnically speaking, Bootcamp is an iBoot problem. Apple stopped shipping Macs with firmware UEFI which breaks 99% of generic OS installers out of the box. Microsoft is pretty justified not wanting to support that, versus UEFI on OG Bootcamp. The majority of Linux distros don't ship image support for iBoot either.
- toast0 6mo ago> Apple stopped shipping Macs with firmware UEFI which breaks 99% of generic OS installers out of the box. Did Apple ever support UEFI? I thought it was only ever EFI; no U.
- bigyabai 6mo agoYes: https://support.apple.com/guide/security/uefi-firmware-security-in-an-intel-based-mac-seced055bcf6/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/uefi-firmware-secur... In any case, EFI is still well-supported by OS installers. iBoot is not.