6 ms·

i don't recall such support when msft was launching arm based laptops. does anyone have insight to why this is so? is it a case of apple developer relations doi

i don't recall such support when msft was launching arm based laptops. does anyone have insight to why this is so? is it a case of apple developer relations doing an outstanding job engaging with the community?

marshallofsound 6y ago
Electron maintainer here, although we _also_ support arm64 for Windows. Apple silicon support was driven from the beginning as a priority, it was obvious that it was the future of macOS and without direct support you'd be left behind. arm64 on Windows is barely supported by anything, let alone msft itself... Also Apple did a fantastic job with early engagement for Apple silicon development, even going as far as to assist with code changes / patches early on.
xuki 6y ago
Because developers use Mac, and they’re doing a complete transition. Majority of Windows installations are still on x86.
quantummkv 6y ago
It's mostly due to the fact that unlike Microsoft, Apple is doing a complete migration to ARM. The developers have to migrate to ARM because they cannot just tell users to buy x86 macs like they could do for windows
- Uehreka 6y ago
  This sounds correct to my knowledge, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s a substantive difference between the Microsoft and Apple ARM transitions that’s not obvious to me.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    Apple also already has had widely used ARM64 tooling since the iPhone 5S. Microsoft’s has only been used by people targeting Windows Phone & their half-hearted ARM laptops.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Microsoft has a tradition of backwards compatibility. It's entirely likely that ten years from now, you'll still be able to run x86 apps on your arm windows laptop. This is unlikely to be true for MacOSX - ten years ago, Macs ran PowerPC, and support for that got dropped within 2 years.
    - eecc 6y ago
      Yup, imagine a world where a Tesla would be so backwards-compatible you could shove coal into its furnace to power a steam turbine that charges its batteries to drive its motors. That’s Windows :D
  - nxc18 6y ago
    Microsoft's offering on ARM is underwhelming to say the least. Or overwhelmingly bad, depending on your perspective. The hardware on offer currently is just as expensive as the x86 alternatives, has worse performance (unlike M1, which has excellent performance), and only offers marginal battery life benefits. Microsoft is also not particularly committed to ARM or willing to competently execute that transition. For years they were trying to hobble their offerings (Windows RT, then later Windows 10S). In their first introduction of ARM, they didn't have optimized compilers, so performance was even worse than it should have been (Surface RT was a real disappointment). Microsoft has also been jerking its development community around for the last 15 years in ways that make targeting Windows unpleasant. Half of Microsoft is trying to tell everyone that UWP is the future, the other half won't even bother supporting it. You might be surprised which half is bigger. The Windows group has spent a lot of time at war with the developer tools group, and it shows. Basically it all sums up to: Apple is a serious trustworthy partner, Microsoft is not. Apple's ARM offering is actually better in several ways than the x86 alternative; Microsoft's ARM offerings offer noticeably less value. M1 is genuinely exciting, Windows on ARM is not.
    - mixmastamyk 6y ago
      The difference in execution is palpable, like comparing an A student to a C-/D+ slacker. I suspect MS exec politics is the problem however, not their engineers.
      - the_lucifer 6y ago
        I’d argue that it’s an culture problem. A complete architectural transition is fundamentally at odds with what MS stands for wrt a very long term backwards compatibility. This means that their ARM -> X86 translation should not just match Rosetta but actually exceed it by a large margin to maintain their compatibility.
  - quantummkv 6y ago
    One more thing is that the Apple chips actually optimized for the mac and perform better or equivalent to their Intel counterparts. Microsoft just used the Snapdragon mobile chips that had bad performance even in their own categories, forget desktops
  - bengale 6y ago
    From my perspective as I weigh up whether to stop buying my staff x86 Macs and get them these new M1s, it's this rosetta layer that really appeals to me. From what I can tell so far not only are they going to be able to run any software that isn't updated for apple silicon, which a lot seems to be, they're going to be able to run it just as fast as before. The idea before that we'd immediately switch over seemed mad, but based on what I'm seeing there is a good chance that's what's going to happen.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Microsoft isn't, as far as anyone can see, transitioning to ARM. They've released one rather slow, very expensive device, plus an incremental update. And this has all happened before; they did the same in 2013 and then quietly killed it! Really, I'm not surprised that people are holding off until they show some sign that they mean it this time.
- miyuru 6y ago
  but the M1 can run x86 apps via rosseta 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Judging from history, that support will go away in a few years, like it did with PowerPC Rosetta after the switch to Intel.
    - alwillis 6y ago
      Judging from history, that support will go away in a few years, like it did with PowerPC Rosetta after the switch to Intel. Correct. Rosetta is a transitional technology to allow x86 apps to run on M-series Macs while their developers work on Universal versions that will run natively on M-series Macs in addition to Intel ones. Apple has been clear that they expect the transition to M series chips to take about 2 years… a couple of years after that, they'll stop including Rosetta with macOS and will require developers to ship native apps.
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      On the other hand, Apple supported 68k emulation for roughly 13 years, from the introduction of PowerPC Macs in 1994 to the removal of Classic mode in 2007 (after the Intel transition had already begun). The removal of Rosetta 1 is widely believed to have been rushed because it depended upon licensed technology. Since Rosetta 2 was an in-house design, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple kept it around considerably longer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gfody 6y ago
I think the significant advent is the M1 chip itself. I was never interested in Win10 ARM edition until the prospect of running it on an M1 Mac. Unfortunately it looks like Apple have taken this opportunity to drop support for alternative OSes entirely.
- alwillis 6y ago
  Unfortunately it looks like Apple have taken this opportunity to drop support for alternative OSes entirely. Turns out this isn't true. They showed Debian running in a VM on a prototype Apple Silicon Mac hardware in June at WWDC. My guess is that Apple will provide access to enough hardware features of the M1 Macs via their hypervisor framework, to enable alternative operating systems to run ok. Docker for M1 Macs is going to use Apple's hypervisor as well. Apple supports disabling their security that would allow a different operating system to be installed but there would be no driver support, so there's that.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    Apple also has XQuartz, so running a desktop environment from a virtual machine might even be feasible.
    - vkoskiv 6y ago
      Is XQuartz maintained anymore? I've had this feeling that it's basically been on life support for years now.
  - gfody 6y ago
    bootcamp is explicitly not supported on m1 macs - VMs and hypervisors are beside the point. [1] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252021896 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252021896
    - alwillis 6y ago
      Turns out Microsoft could have Windows running on M1 Macs if it wanted to: "Craig Federighi: Native Windows on M1 Macs is 'Really up to Microsoft'": https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/craig-federighi-on-windows-for-m1-macs/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/craig-federighi-on-wind...
fenomas 6y ago
> apple developer relations Is there such a thing? Honest question, not snark - I've never heard of them doing any. Where/who?
- tshaddox 6y ago
  Does WWDC count? Does selling a ludicrous number of devices to consumers which create a humongous market for developers count?
- alwillis 6y ago
  Is there such a thing? Of course. Who do you think runs the beta program, seeds developers with prerelease hardware so they can port their apps and all the rest? https://developer.apple.com/support/ https://developer.apple.com/support/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Veedrac 6y ago
Nobody wanted Arm-based Windows devices. The early RT devices had terrible performance and failed to compete in any meaningful way, had terrible compatibility and no (?) emulation, and since the products were mostly terrible, Microsoft never supported them well, nor pushed for a developer transition, and consequently they got abandoned quickly. The few newer devices out there, like the Surface Pro X, still don't perform competitively, cost way too much for what they are, often aren't straightforward, standard laptops, have emulation issues, and have Intel alternatives. For a transition like this, you need good products, you need good emulation, and you double-plus-emphasis need to commit. Windows cannot do that.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Oddly enough I think it might be possible now that Apple has shown the way. They'll need a good chip though.
tasogare 6y ago
The ARM machines launched by MS were (1) lacking in power and (2) tied to the Windows Store as a distribution mechanism. Issue 1 is not affected M1 machine, in fact they’re blowing current machine, which is in itself a reason for adopting. On issue 2, well the Windows App store has never been an attractive platform. MS tried multiple times to shove it down users throat, which build some antagonism. Moreover, it’s actually MS’ second iteration on this principle (Arm+forced store usage), where the first one failed spectacularly (Windows RT tablets). So, it’s crazy to expect a different results when the same parameters (store locking) are used again, and no sane company or individual would bet on this.
- my123 6y ago
  64-bit Arm Windows devices are not tied to the Microsoft Store. Secure Boot can be turned off too.
kochthesecond 6y ago
Its also been 5-6 years since. Arm support in the toolchains and libs are much better, and the chips are powerful enough to do testing on them.
floatingatoll 6y ago
Microsoft isn’t deprecating Intel support; Apple will. That alone is cause enough to port apps, but there’s also Apple’s history of warning users about end of life for their apps using OS dialogs that shame the apps that refuse to comply with ecosystem advancement.
mrpippy 6y ago
To Microsoft, ARM64 is a hobby. Windows 10 ARM64 laptops went on sale in February 2018, but Microsoft didn't release an official toolchain with ARM64 support (VS 15.9) until November 2018! Even an "early preview" didn't come out until May 2018. Combine that with the lack of 64-bit Intel emulation support (which is coming out...any day now), and it's clear this is just a hobby for Microsoft. And Qualcomm too, since they have nothing to offer besides phone SoCs that are barely competitive even in phones. Oh, you want a desktop machine to develop on, or use for CI or tests? Sorry, only laptops.
- glandium 6y ago
  Heck, Microsoft themselves didn't release a native VSCode for those machines until May... 2020. https://twitter.com/joaomoreno/status/1266005299661545474 https://twitter.com/joaomoreno/status/1266005299661545474

marshallofsound 6y ago

Electron maintainer here, although we _also_ support arm64 for Windows. Apple silicon support was driven from the beginning as a priority, it was obvious that it was the future of macOS and without direct support you'd be left behind. arm64 on Windows is barely supported by anything, let alone msft itself... Also Apple did a fantastic job with early engagement for Apple silicon development, even going as far as to assist with code changes / patches early on.

xuki 6y ago

Because developers use Mac, and they’re doing a complete transition. Majority of Windows installations are still on x86.

quantummkv 6y ago

It's mostly due to the fact that unlike Microsoft, Apple is doing a complete migration to ARM. The developers have to migrate to ARM because they cannot just tell users to buy x86 macs like they could do for windows

Uehreka 6y ago
This sounds correct to my knowledge, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s a substantive difference between the Microsoft and Apple ARM transitions that’s not obvious to me.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Apple also already has had widely used ARM64 tooling since the iPhone 5S. Microsoft’s has only been used by people targeting Windows Phone & their half-hearted ARM laptops.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Microsoft has a tradition of backwards compatibility. It's entirely likely that ten years from now, you'll still be able to run x86 apps on your arm windows laptop. This is unlikely to be true for MacOSX - ten years ago, Macs ran PowerPC, and support for that got dropped within 2 years.
  - eecc 6y ago
    Yup, imagine a world where a Tesla would be so backwards-compatible you could shove coal into its furnace to power a steam turbine that charges its batteries to drive its motors. That’s Windows :D
- nxc18 6y ago
  Microsoft's offering on ARM is underwhelming to say the least. Or overwhelmingly bad, depending on your perspective. The hardware on offer currently is just as expensive as the x86 alternatives, has worse performance (unlike M1, which has excellent performance), and only offers marginal battery life benefits. Microsoft is also not particularly committed to ARM or willing to competently execute that transition. For years they were trying to hobble their offerings (Windows RT, then later Windows 10S). In their first introduction of ARM, they didn't have optimized compilers, so performance was even worse than it should have been (Surface RT was a real disappointment). Microsoft has also been jerking its development community around for the last 15 years in ways that make targeting Windows unpleasant. Half of Microsoft is trying to tell everyone that UWP is the future, the other half won't even bother supporting it. You might be surprised which half is bigger. The Windows group has spent a lot of time at war with the developer tools group, and it shows. Basically it all sums up to: Apple is a serious trustworthy partner, Microsoft is not. Apple's ARM offering is actually better in several ways than the x86 alternative; Microsoft's ARM offerings offer noticeably less value. M1 is genuinely exciting, Windows on ARM is not.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    The difference in execution is palpable, like comparing an A student to a C-/D+ slacker. I suspect MS exec politics is the problem however, not their engineers.
    - the_lucifer 6y ago
      I’d argue that it’s an culture problem. A complete architectural transition is fundamentally at odds with what MS stands for wrt a very long term backwards compatibility. This means that their ARM -> X86 translation should not just match Rosetta but actually exceed it by a large margin to maintain their compatibility.
- quantummkv 6y ago
  One more thing is that the Apple chips actually optimized for the mac and perform better or equivalent to their Intel counterparts. Microsoft just used the Snapdragon mobile chips that had bad performance even in their own categories, forget desktops
- bengale 6y ago
  From my perspective as I weigh up whether to stop buying my staff x86 Macs and get them these new M1s, it's this rosetta layer that really appeals to me. From what I can tell so far not only are they going to be able to run any software that isn't updated for apple silicon, which a lot seems to be, they're going to be able to run it just as fast as before. The idea before that we'd immediately switch over seemed mad, but based on what I'm seeing there is a good chance that's what's going to happen.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Microsoft isn't, as far as anyone can see, transitioning to ARM. They've released one rather slow, very expensive device, plus an incremental update. And this has all happened before; they did the same in 2013 and then quietly killed it! Really, I'm not surprised that people are holding off until they show some sign that they mean it this time.
miyuru 6y ago
but the M1 can run x86 apps via rosseta 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
- adrianN 6y ago
  Judging from history, that support will go away in a few years, like it did with PowerPC Rosetta after the switch to Intel.
  - alwillis 6y ago
    Judging from history, that support will go away in a few years, like it did with PowerPC Rosetta after the switch to Intel. Correct. Rosetta is a transitional technology to allow x86 apps to run on M-series Macs while their developers work on Universal versions that will run natively on M-series Macs in addition to Intel ones. Apple has been clear that they expect the transition to M series chips to take about 2 years… a couple of years after that, they'll stop including Rosetta with macOS and will require developers to ship native apps.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    On the other hand, Apple supported 68k emulation for roughly 13 years, from the introduction of PowerPC Macs in 1994 to the removal of Classic mode in 2007 (after the Intel transition had already begun). The removal of Rosetta 1 is widely believed to have been rushed because it depended upon licensed technology. Since Rosetta 2 was an in-house design, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple kept it around considerably longer.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gfody 6y ago

I think the significant advent is the M1 chip itself. I was never interested in Win10 ARM edition until the prospect of running it on an M1 Mac. Unfortunately it looks like Apple have taken this opportunity to drop support for alternative OSes entirely.

alwillis 6y ago
Unfortunately it looks like Apple have taken this opportunity to drop support for alternative OSes entirely. Turns out this isn't true. They showed Debian running in a VM on a prototype Apple Silicon Mac hardware in June at WWDC. My guess is that Apple will provide access to enough hardware features of the M1 Macs via their hypervisor framework, to enable alternative operating systems to run ok. Docker for M1 Macs is going to use Apple's hypervisor as well. Apple supports disabling their security that would allow a different operating system to be installed but there would be no driver support, so there's that.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  Apple also has XQuartz, so running a desktop environment from a virtual machine might even be feasible.
  - vkoskiv 6y ago
    Is XQuartz maintained anymore? I've had this feeling that it's basically been on life support for years now.
- gfody 6y ago
  bootcamp is explicitly not supported on m1 macs - VMs and hypervisors are beside the point. [1] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252021896 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252021896
  - alwillis 6y ago
    Turns out Microsoft could have Windows running on M1 Macs if it wanted to: "Craig Federighi: Native Windows on M1 Macs is 'Really up to Microsoft'": https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/craig-federighi-on-windows-for-m1-macs/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/craig-federighi-on-wind...

fenomas 6y ago

> apple developer relations Is there such a thing? Honest question, not snark - I've never heard of them doing any. Where/who?

tshaddox 6y ago
Does WWDC count? Does selling a ludicrous number of devices to consumers which create a humongous market for developers count?
alwillis 6y ago
Is there such a thing? Of course. Who do you think runs the beta program, seeds developers with prerelease hardware so they can port their apps and all the rest? https://developer.apple.com/support/ https://developer.apple.com/support/

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Veedrac 6y ago

Nobody wanted Arm-based Windows devices. The early RT devices had terrible performance and failed to compete in any meaningful way, had terrible compatibility and no (?) emulation, and since the products were mostly terrible, Microsoft never supported them well, nor pushed for a developer transition, and consequently they got abandoned quickly. The few newer devices out there, like the Surface Pro X, still don't perform competitively, cost way too much for what they are, often aren't straightforward, standard laptops, have emulation issues, and have Intel alternatives. For a transition like this, you need good products, you need good emulation, and you double-plus-emphasis need to commit. Windows cannot do that.

mixmastamyk 6y ago
Oddly enough I think it might be possible now that Apple has shown the way. They'll need a good chip though.

tasogare 6y ago

The ARM machines launched by MS were (1) lacking in power and (2) tied to the Windows Store as a distribution mechanism. Issue 1 is not affected M1 machine, in fact they’re blowing current machine, which is in itself a reason for adopting. On issue 2, well the Windows App store has never been an attractive platform. MS tried multiple times to shove it down users throat, which build some antagonism. Moreover, it’s actually MS’ second iteration on this principle (Arm+forced store usage), where the first one failed spectacularly (Windows RT tablets). So, it’s crazy to expect a different results when the same parameters (store locking) are used again, and no sane company or individual would bet on this.

my123 6y ago
64-bit Arm Windows devices are not tied to the Microsoft Store. Secure Boot can be turned off too.

kochthesecond 6y ago

Its also been 5-6 years since. Arm support in the toolchains and libs are much better, and the chips are powerful enough to do testing on them.

floatingatoll 6y ago

Microsoft isn’t deprecating Intel support; Apple will. That alone is cause enough to port apps, but there’s also Apple’s history of warning users about end of life for their apps using OS dialogs that shame the apps that refuse to comply with ecosystem advancement.

mrpippy 6y ago

To Microsoft, ARM64 is a hobby. Windows 10 ARM64 laptops went on sale in February 2018, but Microsoft didn't release an official toolchain with ARM64 support (VS 15.9) until November 2018! Even an "early preview" didn't come out until May 2018. Combine that with the lack of 64-bit Intel emulation support (which is coming out...any day now), and it's clear this is just a hobby for Microsoft. And Qualcomm too, since they have nothing to offer besides phone SoCs that are barely competitive even in phones. Oh, you want a desktop machine to develop on, or use for CI or tests? Sorry, only laptops.

glandium 6y ago
Heck, Microsoft themselves didn't release a native VSCode for those machines until May... 2020. https://twitter.com/joaomoreno/status/1266005299661545474 https://twitter.com/joaomoreno/status/1266005299661545474