3 ms·

Windows is already running on ARM and in an actual production model that's been on the market for a while. Its just that Apple does a lot better with marketing

Windows is already running on ARM and in an actual production model that's been on the market for a while. Its just that Apple does a lot better with marketing and makes a much bigger deal of these things. Microsoft on the other hand has always been really bad at marketing.

gwbas1c 6y ago
> Its just that Apple does a lot better with marketing and makes a much bigger deal of these things. Microsoft on the other hand has always been really bad at marketing. It's more complicated than that: It's all about understanding disruptive technology. Arm is disrupting x86 / x64. The thing with disruptive technology is that being ahead of the curve is just as bad as being behind the curve. Microsoft has no benefit from "pushing" Arm, all they need to do is make sure that Windows is ready to run on Arm when someone's ready to sell an Arm desktop computer. But, Apple, as a hardware company, needs to be much more proactive about where the market is going and actively switch its hardware. If this means that Microsoft's first major Arm market for Windows are VMs on Apple, so be it. The rest of the PC makers will switch or be disrupted.
wlesieutre 6y ago
Windows for ARM can't emulate Intel x64 software. Nor will games using OpenGL versions above 1.1, among other things. I disagree that Apple is only better at marketing things like this, they're much also better at doing it. And their processors are presumably going to be ahead of anyone else's ARM based computers, just like they've been with phones. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/surface-pro-arm-app-performance https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/surface-pro-arm-app...
- kyriakos 6y ago
  I didn't compare the two options just saying that apple makes a much bigger splash with their announcements than Microsoft. A lot of people here haven't noticed that a Windows version running on ARM but all know about Apple switching to ARM.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Because no one uses Windows for ARM, so there is no inTeresa in talking about it. Apple Silicon will be used by millions within months of release.
    - kyriakos 6y ago
      That is also known as good marketing.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    I guess what I really mean to highlight is that it's not just a question of Microsoft being bad at marketing - it's more like they don't have a mass-marketable product. "Some of your software will work on this" is a throwback to Windows XP 64-bit edition, people don't want to deal with that. The limited emulation support means it's more capable than Windows RT's "native ARM software only" was, sure. But it's even less straightforward to explain to a potential user whether or not they could use it.
- mappu 6y ago
  > Windows for ARM can't emulate Intel x64 software. This was confirmed coming soon, and will almost certainly be available by the time the new Apple Silicon devices are released. > Nor will games using OpenGL versions above 1.1, among other things. OpenGL is just a userspace thing that gets loaded into your address space, and the specific installed dll (ICD) will convert it into hardware ioctls. Microsoft only ever implemented GL 1.1 (as a DX wrapper) and newer versions were always provided by AMD/NVIDIA/Mesa as an ICD. If the vendor drivers didn't implement anything newer than 1.1 you can still do it yourself. What accelerated interface is available? ANGLE will give you 3.0/3.1 over DX9/DX11 (ships with Chrome and some Windows features); Zink will give you OpenGL 3.0 over Vulkan; the old QindieGL will give you GL 1.4 over DX9. And of course Mesa llvmpipe will give you 4.2 in software.
dmitshur 6y ago
A big factor is that Apple’s ARM SoCs in their phones/tablets are impressively performant and power efficient, and Apple have shown a consistent pattern of 20-50% year over year improvements in the A chips over last 5+ years. If Apple’s latest ARM CPU in 2020 was the A7 instead of A13, ARM chips in MacBooks would’ve been equally uninteresting.

gwbas1c 6y ago

> Its just that Apple does a lot better with marketing and makes a much bigger deal of these things. Microsoft on the other hand has always been really bad at marketing. It's more complicated than that: It's all about understanding disruptive technology. Arm is disrupting x86 / x64. The thing with disruptive technology is that being ahead of the curve is just as bad as being behind the curve. Microsoft has no benefit from "pushing" Arm, all they need to do is make sure that Windows is ready to run on Arm when someone's ready to sell an Arm desktop computer. But, Apple, as a hardware company, needs to be much more proactive about where the market is going and actively switch its hardware. If this means that Microsoft's first major Arm market for Windows are VMs on Apple, so be it. The rest of the PC makers will switch or be disrupted.

wlesieutre 6y ago

Windows for ARM can't emulate Intel x64 software. Nor will games using OpenGL versions above 1.1, among other things. I disagree that Apple is only better at marketing things like this, they're much also better at doing it. And their processors are presumably going to be ahead of anyone else's ARM based computers, just like they've been with phones. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/surface-pro-arm-app-performance https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/surface-pro-arm-app...

kyriakos 6y ago
I didn't compare the two options just saying that apple makes a much bigger splash with their announcements than Microsoft. A lot of people here haven't noticed that a Windows version running on ARM but all know about Apple switching to ARM.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Because no one uses Windows for ARM, so there is no inTeresa in talking about it. Apple Silicon will be used by millions within months of release.
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    That is also known as good marketing.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  I guess what I really mean to highlight is that it's not just a question of Microsoft being bad at marketing - it's more like they don't have a mass-marketable product. "Some of your software will work on this" is a throwback to Windows XP 64-bit edition, people don't want to deal with that. The limited emulation support means it's more capable than Windows RT's "native ARM software only" was, sure. But it's even less straightforward to explain to a potential user whether or not they could use it.
mappu 6y ago
> Windows for ARM can't emulate Intel x64 software. This was confirmed coming soon, and will almost certainly be available by the time the new Apple Silicon devices are released. > Nor will games using OpenGL versions above 1.1, among other things. OpenGL is just a userspace thing that gets loaded into your address space, and the specific installed dll (ICD) will convert it into hardware ioctls. Microsoft only ever implemented GL 1.1 (as a DX wrapper) and newer versions were always provided by AMD/NVIDIA/Mesa as an ICD. If the vendor drivers didn't implement anything newer than 1.1 you can still do it yourself. What accelerated interface is available? ANGLE will give you 3.0/3.1 over DX9/DX11 (ships with Chrome and some Windows features); Zink will give you OpenGL 3.0 over Vulkan; the old QindieGL will give you GL 1.4 over DX9. And of course Mesa llvmpipe will give you 4.2 in software.

dmitshur 6y ago

A big factor is that Apple’s ARM SoCs in their phones/tablets are impressively performant and power efficient, and Apple have shown a consistent pattern of 20-50% year over year improvements in the A chips over last 5+ years. If Apple’s latest ARM CPU in 2020 was the A7 instead of A13, ARM chips in MacBooks would’ve been equally uninteresting.