191–200 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a license is not possible.
How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.
Awesome work, I'd love to be able to dual boot Windows on my M1 machine Hopefully Microsoft just hires you and gives you the resources you need to do this properly
Haha as if microsoft couldn’t easily ship a build for apple silicon. The thing that makes this a difficult project is that MS doesn’t seem to want it to happen. I would he surprised if someone at MS didn’t have a build that runs on m1
Usually Microsoft gets the hardware manufacturer to make sure their hardware works with Windows. In this case Apple have probably decided that supporting Windows themselves is not worth the effort either.
Likely neither of them want to get into the support headache that this could turn out to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft aren't going to write drivers for the M1 - it's not their job , even if Apple provided sufficient documentation.
> Microsoft aren't going to write drivers for the M1 - it's not their job It's absolutely their job to make Excel less of a P.O.S. on Mac.
hey, OP here, figured i'd clarify some things about this project: 1) yes, I realize this is going to be way harder than it seems, but I'm actually going to do my best to hopefully get a good user experience out of this and I'm easily preparing for this to be a multi-year effort, but I'm not going to give up right at the gate 2) Custom HALs were actually an option, up until very recently, since as of Windows 10, versi…
Do you think it would eventually be possible to run amd64 programs on it (like rosetta2 but for Microsoft Windows?) The main feature of Windows is legacy compatibility and that is perhaps why arm Windows doesn't seems to gain much traction. Eventually I wonder if this project could be helpful to run wine on asahi linux, which would be awesome.
Windows on ARM supports that already[1]. The low traction is probably because of the (sorry) bad hardware. Windows branded ARM as the budget option so nobody wanted it. Then Apple came along and flipped the script. [1]: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft and Apple are traditional enemies. Microsoft has no reason to make Apple's hardware more attractive to customers. The thing I don't get is why a consumer would want this. You want an _extremely expensive_ windows laptop. I guess the hope would be that the battery life is worlds better than anything you'd get in standard windows-land. But in reality battery life optimization requires paying careful to the de…
Why would Microsoft not want this? They make money off of selling Windows licenses, not selling hardware (Yes, I'm aware the Surface exists). The more available hardware to install Windows etc on, the more $ Microsoft makes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.
You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft and Apple are traditional enemies. Microsoft has no reason to make Apple's hardware more attractive to customers. The thing I don't get is why a consumer would want this. You want an _extremely expensive_ windows laptop. I guess the hope would be that the battery life is worlds better than anything you'd get in standard windows-land. But in reality battery life optimization requires paying careful to the de…
You can't imagine why a Windows user would want to run it on better hardware? Or that there are Windows workflows that just don't work on OSX? Or want a fanless laptop with good performance?
Also you can always run windows in a VM. Even on an M1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.
You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually you might be surprised. Windows NT is _older_ than many of the "standards we take for granted in x86/PC land", and for example it does support multiple types of pre-ACPI ways of bringing up multiprocessor systems and specifically multiple types of interrupt controllers. Heck, x86 Windows even supports non-PC servers from Compaq and others; ever tried to press F5 during (old) Windows NT setup ? As the OP said…
> x86 Windows even supports non-PC servers from Compaq Were there x86 but non-IBM compatible models or did you mean the alternate instruction sets (Alpha, PPC, RISC)?