2 ms·

> I wouldn't bet against MS regarding backward compatibility. I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit

> I wouldn't bet against MS regarding backward compatibility. I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. More or less exactly the opposite of Apple in terms of legacy software. This means there are some pretty notable holes in the Windows ARM Pro software scene -> Adobe being the biggest, most obvious. The message from Apple is "Everything that runs on Catalina runs on the new Macs", but software which has been ported will run best. The messaging from Microsoft is much more nuanced. > The bigger problem for Windows-on-ARM is that non-Apple desktop-class ARM processors are right now rather weak, and that affects all applications, even ported apps. This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms.

yyyk 6y ago
>Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. It has been argued on HN that the reason was x86_64 patents that will very soon expire. Once that happens, Windows-on-ARM is very likely to have x86_64 emulation as well. Besdies, 99% of Windows software is available as 32bit. The software sectors that don't will either never port old stuff (games) or will port anyway for Mac and have an easy Windows port as a result (e.g. Adobe). >This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft is mostly a software company, rather than an hardware one. It doesn't matter to them on what processor type you run so long as it's their software. I suspect the biggest reason for focusing on ARM isn't Mac, it's Azure.
WorldMaker 6y ago
> This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft has to tap-dance because it has a very long-tail of developers that do not accept change lightly.
int_19h 6y ago
For Windows, these priorities make more sense, because most Win32 apps are still 32-bit only. There'd be a lot more holes if it could only do x84-64.

yyyk 6y ago

>Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. It has been argued on HN that the reason was x86_64 patents that will very soon expire. Once that happens, Windows-on-ARM is very likely to have x86_64 emulation as well. Besdies, 99% of Windows software is available as 32bit. The software sectors that don't will either never port old stuff (games) or will port anyway for Mac and have an easy Windows port as a result (e.g. Adobe). >This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft is mostly a software company, rather than an hardware one. It doesn't matter to them on what processor type you run so long as it's their software. I suspect the biggest reason for focusing on ARM isn't Mac, it's Azure.

WorldMaker 6y ago

> This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft has to tap-dance because it has a very long-tail of developers that do not accept change lightly.

int_19h 6y ago

For Windows, these priorities make more sense, because most Win32 apps are still 32-bit only. There'd be a lot more holes if it could only do x84-64.