30 ms·
A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM
- sanxiyn 6y agoIn case you are wondering didn't they already have this: they had 32-bit emulation, not 64-bit emulation.
- sradman 6y agoAnd macOS Catalina deprecated 32-bit apps which set the stage for a pure 64-but Rosetta 2 emulator for the M1. The 32-bit deprecation makes more sense now.
- Tepix 6y agoThis makes Windows on Apple M1 devices more attractive. I wonder when Microsoft will take up Apple on their offer to create a bootable OS for their hardware.
- londons_explore 6y agoIf I was Microsoft, I would be very reluctant to support Windows on M1 Macs. The obvious disadvantage is the consumer will get Mac OSX for free with the hardware, and won't be too keen to pay much more to Microsoft. Apple will end up earning most of the revenue. The strategic disadvantage is that as windows users move to M1 based macs, sales of PC hardware will drop, since the PC ecosystem is hobbled by a lack of deep integration, lower performance CPU's, lower profit margins, less R&D, etc. If volumes of sales drop too, it could trigger a cascade effect (fewer sales causes less R&D causes less desirable products causes fewer sales). That could kill consumer PC's entirely, which would be very bad for the future of Windows.
- jborean93 6y agoWhile I can't say it would outweigh the disadvantages here the plus side would be more incentives for developers to create native ARM builds of their application for Windows making the user experience better for everyone. Having emulation is nice but having native applications is even better.
- oblio 6y ago> The strategic disadvantage is that as windows users move to M1 based macs, sales of PC hardware will drop, since the PC ecosystem is hobbled by a lack of deep integration, lower performance CPU's, lower profit margins, less R&D, etc. If volumes of sales drop too, it could trigger a cascade effect (fewer sales causes less R&D causes less desirable products causes fewer sales). That could kill consumer PC's entirely, which would be very bad for the future of Windows. For this to happen Apple would have to fill in MANY, MANY niches, especially cheaper ones. Apple does not and will not fill those. Well, "never say never", but I don't expect them to sell a $400 laptop, all accessories included (so no sneaky $400 laptop with semi-mandatory accessories which bring the price to $700).
- beagle3 6y agoI expect them to have an iPad that can fill this niche for $400 when you include a keyboard. Perhaps they already do.
- oblio 6y agoiPads are very limited, functionality wise. You barely have multiple windows. You can't really plug peripherals in. RAM is really limited. Etc. _______________________________________ Also, HA HA. I've checked and I was right. As far as I can see the cheapest one is $329, BUT with 32GB of storage, which is absolutely ridiculous in 2020. 128GB costs $449, and even that's barely enough storage. The keyboard is $159 (!). So the minimum usable laptop replacement from them costs $610, and I'm probably missing some accesories you need and which probably increase the price even further. Let alone the fact that for the rest of the world Apple products are 10-20-30% more expensive. So this combo probably costs €700 ($800+) in Europe. Bait and switch.
- beagle3 6y agoI haven't seen an $400 laptop you can upgrade the memory for. Perhaps they exist, but I've never seen one. The $250-300 chromebooks are much weaker than an iPad. I don't know if you've noticed, but Apple did release iPhone SE2 which is an almost-flagship at medium price. An iPad with a slightly different iOS and a cheaper than $129 keyboard (there are $50 bluetooh keyboards that work with the iPad, not by apple, that are comparable to the keyboards that come with $300-$400 laptops), perhaps they'll call it "iMac SE" or "iPad SE". The processor inside last years iPad is a slower, more limited version of the M1. Apple could, and I believe would, release a cheaper Mac-compatible machine, just like they did with the iPhone SE. It made no sense to do so before the real Mac switched to apple silicon (Intel's offering are both expensive and inefficient for this use). Now it makes perfect sense. It make take a year or two, but it's the logical progression. Apple are playing the very long game. Saying "you barely have multiple windows" is indication you are not looking farther than the end of 2021.
- FpUser 6y ago>"since the PC ecosystem is hobbled by a lack of deep integration, lower performance CPU's, lower profit margins, less R&D" 1) Deep integration with what? I do not feel that I am missing anything. So far can do anything I want. 2) What low performance? Depending on money spent desktops and laptops perform just fine. M1 is a good chip but new AMD is faster on single core and on multiple cores it will wipe the floor with M1. So far M1 is more power efficient. I am pretty sure given time AMD/Intel will catch up to that if there is good ROI on that particular quality.
- _ph_ 6y agoI see it completely differently: if Microsoft wants Windows on Arm to have a big future, they should push for Windows on the M1 Macs. This would be a showcase, how well Windows can run on ARM, and as Apple machines gain market share push Windows developers to provide ARM-native versions of their software. Windows on ARM so far faced two obstacles, the lack of native software and the lack of great machines. Having Windows running on ARM Macs could deliver a helpful push here and also keep Windows relevant for Mac users. On the other side, there is no greater risk, as Apple isn't taking over the PC market any time soon. Apple will likely increase their market share, but even then it is just a fraction of the total market.
- Hamuko 6y agoThey don't need to "support" Windows on ARM Macs. They just need to open up the licensing model so that users can buy Windows for ARM from Microsoft and install it via Bootcamp. Apple has already stated that they "have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications".
- apetrovic 6y agoI don't think that Microsoft care that much about the one-digit percentage of their user base who will use M1 Mac. MS force is in the office (as in the place and as in the software package), and a) it's hard to fathom majority of companies all around the world ditching their PCs and buying Mac Minis and b) there is the Office package on the mac already, and Mac users are already paying for it.
- qz2 6y agoIf it does happen no one will use it. What will happen is Microsoft will introduce a shiny new Surface in a barrage of marketing which rips off most characteristics of the M1 Macbook. It will contain an SoC which is a vaguely rebranded off the shelf one. It'll be entirely held together with glue and tape and receive a 0 rating on iFixit. There will be no support network in most countries other than North America where the support will just be terrible anyway. The software situation will be a shit show universally with bugs, slowdowns and problems galore. All the app vendors will refuse to poke it with a 6 foot long shitty stick. Eventually CTOs will buy a few, they will die within 6 months and be left in a corner in the office until their spicy pillows inflate enough to cause alarm and go in the WEEE bin for recycling. Microsoft will puff up its chest like a pigeon and strut around declaring victory. The outcome of this will be all OEM vendors finding an even cheaper way to shift no brand OEM ARM laptops to the lowest bidders via the retail channel now they don't have to pay Intel any money. They will be stuffed to the brim with crappy user experiences and barely working software while microsoft takes their cut from the windows license as it always has done.
- PeterisP 6y agoAs a user, I don't need Windows on M1 directly, but I need Windows to work in a VM under OSX just as I'm running it now on pre-M1 Macbooks.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoI think it's more likely that Microsoft will offer a cloud version of Windows for Mac users. A nicely packaged app that connects to an instance on Azure.
- ogre_codes 6y agoApple pivoted a bit on the M1. With Intel based CPUs, Windows support was an important feature and selling point so Apple created Bootcamp. Windows ARM is far less appealing that its x86 counterpart was 15 years ago, so Apple didn't add Bootcamp. With their hypervisor it seems like Windows will run just fine in a VM instead. I'm not sure Microsoft is interested in selling a version of Windows that runs atop MacOS as a child OS. As things currently stand, Windows running on the Mac embarrasses the heck out of the Surface Pro X. That's without decent driver support. How would Microsoft look if the fastest way to run Windows on ARM was as a child OS on a Mac?
- mtgx 6y agoAre they doing any kind of translation, too, or just pure emulation? Because if they aren't, then Windows will continue to run significantly slower on the already significantly lower-performance third-party Arm chips compared to how macOS runs on the M1. My prediction is 50%-60% of the performance of M1 on the latest/highest-end Qualcomm laptop chip.
- dolmen 6y agoThe post says "x64 emulation for ARM64 devices" for applications. Windows itself is already native on ARM64. And some apps too: Edge, Photoshop. https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introducing-x64-emulation-in-preview-for-windows-10-on-arm-pcs-to-the-windows-insider-program/ https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
- neogodless 6y agoI think the parent comment was worded poorly but this is how I'd look at it. MacOS with M1 runs software compiled for ARM at 100%. MacOS with M1 runs translated software via Rosetta 2 at like 95%. Windows on ARM runs software compiled for ARM at 100%. Windows on ARM runs x86/x64 emulation at 60%. If Windows for ARM would replace x86/x64 emulation with binary translation, they might remove a significant barrier to ARM adoption (on Windows) by removing the harsh penalty of having to emulate legacy software until enough native/compiled for ARM software exists.
- gsnedders 6y agoSome of the perf gains on the M1 are due to hardware support for TSO (total store ordering), which doesn't exist on the latest/highest-end Qualcomm chip, hence the Windows support needs to insert many more barriers to emulate TSO. This likely has a significant impact on emulated performance. At least the x86 (32-bit) emulation relied entirely on JIT compiling its emulated code, instead of doing anything AOT. _However_, it cached the JIT'd code so in practice it was a first-run cost, similar to the situation on macOS.
- saagarjha 6y ago
- simfoo 6y agoWhat happened to the patent issues surrounding x86 emulation? For example I remember reading this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emulation-is-a-patent-minefield/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel... First Apple and now Microsoft. Do they license the patents from Intel or did they expire? Or are they working around that somehow?
- mschuster91 6y agoThe original x86 patents are expired by now, the x86-64 patents are held by AMD.
- scoopertrooper 6y agoWhile that's true, Intel has steadily extended x86 over the years and many programs depend on those extensions, which are still patent protected.
- Dylan16807 6y agoHow many programs depend on SSE3 or later? Any earlier extensions are free now.
- rasz 6y agoGames, pretty much all of the AAA ones. ~10 years ago you would read cries of AMD x64 users not able to play SSE3 games. 2-5 years ago situation was repeating with AMD Phenom I/II owners and SSSE3/SSE4.
- Joe_Cool 6y agoUsing a compiler with proper switches is hard it seems. Some also blame 3rd party libraries or DRM.
- kalleboo 6y ago
- emilsedgh 6y agoI'm wondering what's happening at Microsoft's camp regarding M1. They are in a weird situation. They depend on AMD/Intel to deliver. This is a massive dependency for Microsoft. Are there other large corporations have this big of a dependency? I understand that Microsoft's revenue is shifting towards cloud, services, etc. But I think Windows is still "the" key to a lot of those offerings. Take a massive chunk of market share from Windows and I'm pretty much sure all those services will have a hit too. What are their options?
- vbezhenar 6y agoI don't understand why do they need on AMD/Intel to deliver? Their ARM build is an insurance against this dependency.
- codeulike 6y agoBusinesses above a certain size overwhelmingly use pcs unless they are in specific arty sectors. M1 won't change that, or at least not rapidly. I think Microsoft have 5 or 6 different lines of business that bring in billions or more of revenue: windows, cloud, gaming, office/productivity and surface. They are the most diversified of the big players.
- _the_inflator 6y agoYep. Folks here don't care, if their Business Software runs whatsoever or is whatsoever faster as long as it is cheap on a per unit basis. There is no such thing as ROI in Excel tables for controllers in my company. ;)
- dolmen 6y agoDirect link to the relevant content: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introducing-x64-emulation-in-preview-for-windows-10-on-arm-pcs-to-the-windows-insider-program/ https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
- helsinkiandrew 6y agoMicrosoft are between a rock and a hard place. They've done a very good job maintaining compatibility with windows/DOS x86 programs as hardware and the OS grows, but eventually for windows to survive and be competitive they need to ditch it and do a successful port to the next generation (presumably ARM). This will be challenging and painful for many of their existing users.
- est31 6y agoThe ARM platform is currently massively held back IMO by its lack for standardization. I think there is tremendous value hidden behind a company that achieves a push for consistency. Microsoft has invested tens if not hundreds of thousands of man years in this, so who would be better qualified for this than them. RISC-V is kinda in a similar situation as ARM. If I were Microsoft, I'd be investing hard into the RISC-V platform as it still has tremendous growth left.
- gsnedders 6y ago> The ARM platform is currently massively held back IMO by its lack for standardization. Note there is progress there with things like ARM's ServerReady which standardises a lot. The Windows-on-ARM requirements also push a lot to be far more standardised (it effectively requires a subset of the ServerReady requirements AIUI).
- kzrdude 6y agoIsn't there more standardization in ARMv8?
- adrian_b 6y agoIt would be very nice if an open CPU ISA, which can be implemented by everyone, like RISC-V, would be more widespread. Sadly, RISC-V is not a good candidate for that. It is an excellent ISA for student implementation projects, but not for real work. RISC-V is praised only by people who have very little or no experience with different CPU ISAs and with the history of their evolution. RISC-V sucks more than even the ugliest ISA, x86. At least from the huge x86 ISA it is possible to extract a subset composed mostly of more recently introduced instructions, which can be considered as a decent ISA, except for the weird encoding, with many prefix bytes, which is needed for backward compatibility. The 64-bit ARMv8 ISA is an example of a good ISA, but its future is clouded by the NVIDIA acquisition.
- whereistimbo 6y agoI love you Microsoft, thanks a lot for this.
- lars-b2018 6y agoI think the bigger story here is that computing based on ARM64 has been, and continues to, surround the traditional x86-64 territory. ARM dominates phones, and is popping up in server environments as well, where it is cheaper to run for many workloads than X86-64. We have migrated to ARM based Gravitron processors to deliver our services at my company, and we have been able to reduce our AWS EC2 costs by 40% or so, with almost the same performance. The M1 based Macs certainly show the potential on the desktop. Other vendors will produce better, more competitive desktop power level chips, too, that are completely adequate for desktop computing experiences. We are seeing the classic Innovator's Dilemma pattern whereby the lesser technology slowly overtakes the more brittle incumbent tech. x86 did the same with minicomputers, and then mainframe type workloads.
- rusticpenn 6y agoI do not understand why ARM is considered lesser technology. RISC was always considered to be better then CISC in many academic circles.
- oblio 6y agoWell, two main reasons: 1. Innovator's dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma ARM in this case is the underdog, attacking the incumbent x86. It is the lesser tech because it started from "below" (lower value niches not taken by the incumbent which prefers higher profit margins). 2. RISC vs CISC has never been settled. Until Apple (and Amazon super recently) produced their super recent architectures based on ARM, x86 was considered superior. Yes, RISC was theoretically better in the 80s and later 90s, but x86 has been reinvented successfully 2 times (micro-ops and x86_64) and scaled from 0.2MHz to 5Ghz. It's also a mix of CISC and RISC, it's not pure CISC now. Same for ARM, they've added various instructions which bring it closer to CISC. As far as I can see the only real difference these days is the constant length of instructions for ARM: https://erik-engheim.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fast-3262b158cba2 https://erik-engheim.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fas...
- 6y ago
- jonplackett 6y agoAnyone else thinking maybe nVidia shouldn't have been allowed to buy ARM?
- GreenHeuristics 6y agoThey (Nvidia) have not actually been given the green light to do so (buy Arm) yet.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoIt's a shame the UK government allowed it to be sold to Softbank.
- jonplackett 6y agoYeah they were trying to show how 'open for business' we were after Brexit. Open to getting screwed more like.
- p1mrx 6y agoIt seems like Apple and Microsoft are picking up the ball that Transmeta dropped >10 years ago.
- danieldk 6y agoOlder AMD CPUs, such as the K5 were RISC CPUs with an x86 decoding frontend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K5
- lxgr 6y agoIsn't that arguably true for all modern x86 CPUs, including Intel's?
- mhh__ 6y agoThat is true, although it's worth saying that (if I'm not mistaken) outside of patents we don't really know what the micro-ops do i.e. RISC possibly isn't the best descriptor. The microarchitectural classification of a modern CPU is slightly murky, i.e. a modern x86 has a pipeline a la the first one to do so, but the way the CPU actually uses it is completely different (i.e. OoO, speculative etc.)
- mhh__ 6y agoTransmeta was VLIW scheduled at runtime, though, right? It's a slightly different kettle of fish to do, although the decode itself is presumably the same.
- zymhan 6y agoFunny, I spent the last few nights reading about Transmeta's chips.
- Yuioup 6y agoSo does this mean I can run GOG games on my Raspberry PI ? (Asking a stupid question here)
- ClosedGL 6y agoIf the Raspberry Pi is running Windows and the games you want to play were compiled for x86_64 or ARM, yes. The emulation will allow software that was only compiled for x86_64 to run on ARM.
- Yuioup 6y agoIn theory I can play old games on it, like Daggerfall.
- terramex 6y agoDaggerfall is 32-bit app (or maybe even 16-bit?) so it could run on Windows ARM edition for a few years. There is no official support for full Windows 10 on RPi though, only stripped down IoT version or unofficial loaders: https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/01/27/windows-10-arm-on-raspberry-pi-4/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/01/27/windows-10-arm-on-r...
- WhoCaresLies 6y agowhy this late? at this point the ecosystem should have been full of ARM apps and ported programs already Apple uses emulation only just as a transition mechanism, not to depend on it This is a concerning move from Microsoft to be honest
- the-enterprise 6y agoThere is very low demand for ARM from Microsoft customers, ARM support exists for when and if such demand materialises.
- WhoCaresLies 6y agoThat doesn't mean Microsoft shouldn't be pro active That reminds me of an interview with steve jobs, the mass doesn't necessarily know any better, the role of microsoft, apple and other big companies is to show people the impossible is possible Speed, efficiency, fanless design without perf penalty, are a possibility, M1 is showing that to people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSg3fU9XWow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSg3fU9XWow
- qalmakka 6y agoI hope that the possibility of an industry-wide switch to ARM doesn't take away the flexibility we now have with the PC. Standardized parts and a well defined firmware interface (and thus "standard" bootloaders instead of a multitude like on ARM) is what makes the PC truly special. Moving to a world where you can't install Linux or where every single machine has incompatible firmware would be disastrous, IMHO. Current PCs can last for decades thanks to modern Windows and Linux being able to boot on old machines, without the need of special bootloaders or new firmware, just somewhat generic drivers (see AHCI, Intel HDA sound, etc)
- sneak 6y agoThe xbox and the iPhone are the security models I expect on almost all mainstream computing devices soon. I estimate that it will be impossible or near impossible to execute any code that was not approved by the hardware vendor, and obtained by the hardware owner IDing themselves to the code distribution/signing service ("stores"). Anonymous software publishing or use/consumption will be relegated solely to what will, by then, be ancient and slow hardware, and relatively dangerous (for non-experts) OSes. Modifying the signed apps or OS to remove their phone home and spying will be impossible, like iOS is today. There is presently very little stopping large vendors from implementing this across the board, and, indeed, consumer demand for malware-free (but not vendor spyware-free) platforms is driving this in a big way. Already every mac available for purchase, even the Intel ones, requires online activation to wipe and reinstall the storage: https://sneak.berlin/20201204/on-trusting-macintosh-hardware/ https://sneak.berlin/20201204/on-trusting-macintosh-hardware... I imagine this will happen regardless of ISA; see what happened with the intel ME and related DRM, and Pixelbooks/T2 macs. Most people buying computers don't want flexibility, they want reliability. OS alternatives, software alternatives, and privacy aren't really part of the buying decision outside of a small and mostly commercially irrelevant market segment. The e-waste will be colossal when the vendors just decide to EoL them. You won't be able to reinstall the OS on any current Apple product (phone, tablet, or computer) once Apple's activation servers for those devices go offline in 10-20 years.
- cprecioso 6y agoMaybe the iPhone model? But definitely not the Xbox one. In the newest console, every part of the console is designed not to trust each other. IIRC, even the CPU instructions are encrypted. This is in order to assure game developers that their games will not be pirated -- but I suspect it might be paying quite a large performance price. I don't think Microsoft or Apple need that much distrust of their own packages in regular computing.
- me551ah 6y agoOne really good side effect of this move is going to be that you can run Android apps with ease on Windows. I wonder if this will make people move towards apps instead of electron apps. Since android apps are made for low power devices, they would run with minimal resource consumption on laptops. They are pretty snappy too.
- lxgr 6y agoHow would an x64 emulator help with running Android applications on a Windows computer? Are you maybe mixing this up with Microsoft's recent Android on Windows efforts? These would require an ARM emulator for x86, not the other way around.
- T-A 6y agoGP is implying that PCs will move to ARM and run legacy Windows software on the x64 emulator. Android apps compiled for ARM will therefore run natively.
- lionkor 6y agoor we could just, you know, write better software. I'm not going to go on a whole rant about the link between software quality and hardware speed, but I will say this: If we can write an app that does the job for a low power device, we can write the same app for a high power device and not make any compromises. I wonder why we don't do that. As in, why don't we develop software that runs as fast as it can? Some companies do, and it's really nice to see, and especially game developers are notoriously good at this. Yet, if I want a cross platform chat service, I usually have to put up with code running in a JS interpreter, through a JIT compiler, in a sandbox in a sandbox in a browser, burning CPU cycles so hard my laptop thermally throttles.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- whatever1 6y agoNow we need an ARM processor that can compete with M1. Seems that Apple caught everyone with the pants down in the PC industry. Microsoft SQ2 processor that ships in their $1400 Surface Pro X is almost 50% slower than M1.
- TheRealDunkirk 6y agoIt would be hard to argue that the PC world won't at least make some attempt at shifting to ARM. Apple has demonstrated far too large of a performance and power efficiency savings to not try. Of course, even if that becomes successful, x86 will be available for decades. Right now, ARM Macs are going to just be lost for any kind of gaming (except Catalyst versions of mobile games). This is probably ridiculous, but my dream is that the M-series chips become so compelling over the other options that the NEXT nextgen consoles would adopt it. Then we could get back to having at least a few of the biggies getting ported to Macs. But I can't even get my hands on the current new-gen PS, so this is a looong way off, even in the best case.
- xmodem 6y ago> ARM Macs are going to just be lost for any kind of gaming Every game I've tried with a Mac port runs great on the M1 under Rosetta. I've sunk many hours into Factorio and Offworld Trading Company on my M1 mini, and if I gave you the same game running side by side on an Intel mac, I'd bet you could't tell which was which without quitting and checking the system profiler. If you meant triple-A gaming, then yeah, without a sizable increase in mac marketshare, it's probably lost for the foreseeable future.
- cromwellian 6y agoMacs in general are terrible for triple-A gaming. I doubt any Mac in existence can run a Bootcamp's version of Cyberpunk 2077, except maybe a Mac Pro with a top-end GPU, or maybe an eGPU would work, assuming you could get a top-end AMD or Nvidia eGPU. On top of that, there's a lack of raw mouse which Apple hasn't fixed despite over a decade of people begging. This really fubar's FPS games where absolute control over sensitivity, acceleration curves are crucial for mechanics (e.g. countering recoil and flick shots in Counter-Strike)
- guytv 6y agoMicrosoft could manufacture their own hardware providing free Windows updates while charging for services such as Office, Drive, Store, Music, Photos - and their biggest advantage over Mac - Games.
- AlphaWeaver 6y agoPossibly switch to this URL? https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introducing-x64-emulation-in-preview-for-windows-10-on-arm-pcs-to-the-windows-insider-program/ https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
- Razengan 6y agoSo it was Apple's moves into ARM that finally prompted Microsoft to improve Windows' support for ARM, whereas Microsoft's own forays into ARM were largely ignored and forgotten, even by themselves.
- pitterpatter 6y agolol no. Windows on ARM has existed for many years now. And running x86-32 apps on ARM has also been around for a while. This is just the public announcement of also supporting x86-64 apps on ARM (AArch64 specifically). This was in the works before Apple announced its move to ARM.
- ogre_codes 6y agoMy big question about this is what performance is going to be like. On the Mac, Rosetta 2 apps seems to take about a 10% performance hit which is impressive. From what I can tell, Windows x86-32 emulation is not nearly as performant. The big performance gap between Mac and Windows Intel support seems to boil down to translation versus emulation. Since Windows 64 bit support still uses emulation, I expect performance of Intel 64 bit apps is still going to be pretty slow.
- boromi 6y agoHow does this compare to Rosetta II? What's the difference between emulation and translation. Presumably, translation will be much faster? In that case, why did MSFT decide to go about emulation. My understanding, is that this will be slower, but more compatible.
- kyberias 6y agoAre there any PC-like computers with ARM that I could install Windows on and run this emulator?
- dehrmann 6y agoAlso mentioned are the emoji changes. Watching emojis evolve is a little like watching a language evolve.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]