4 ms·
>I think the problem with ARM on the Windows side is that there's no commitment. It's not that Microsoft and co don't/didn't care about ARM. A more accurate de
by vezycash 6y ago
>I think the problem with ARM on the Windows side is that there's no commitment.
It's not that Microsoft and co don't/didn't care about ARM. A more accurate description of the situation is a lack of BELIEF or conviction about PC-class ARM.
The M1 situation can be likened to smart phones before the iPhone. No one believed it was possible to make a device that could be operated entirely with the fingers - they all needed styluses.
Microsoft and the PC industry has literally spent billions of dollars on ARM. Microsoft alone lost $990 million[1] on Surface RT, their ARM version of Microsoft surface. Microsoft's next ARM device Surface Pro X has meh sales. HP, DELL lost money on their Windows RT devices[2]
In other words, ARM on Microsoft land has failed not for lack of effort, or some grand conspiracy - just lack of example.
Now that the entire industry can SEE a laptop class ARM processor that does not suck, someone will come up with an appropriate response within a few years. I doubt it'll be Qualcomm.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(2012_tablet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(2012_tablet)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- GeekyBear 6y ago>ARM on Microsoft land has failed not for lack of effort Microsoft failed to have an emulator for legacy software ready to go on day one. They also failed to produce ARM versions of their own software in a timely manner. Heck, Microsoft sold Surface RT as a tablet without producing a version of Office that had a touch based UI. If you can't be bothered to produce software that supports the features of your own OS, why should anyone else?
- JustFinishedBSG 6y ago> Microsoft failed to have an emulator for legacy software ready to go on day one. They didn't "fail", they were waiting for x64 patents to expire. Apple introducing M1 macs literally the year the relevant x64 patents expired is not a complete coincidence ;)
- WhyNotHugo 6y agoMS fails so much because they don’t commit to anything. Apple took half a decade to do this transition. First including the T1 chip, then slowly growing it, and finally upgrading that to an M1 as they dropped the Intel chip. And that’s just what we say, internally, it surely took more than that. MS does a quick and dirty attempt at thing, while they’re also trying out other directions. Nothings gonna work if you don’t have a clear direction.
- danaris 6y agoWell, see, that's the thing...there's never an example—until someone makes one. Microsoft could have been that someone, but they were too afraid of taking the risk. Exactly as mdasen said: they wouldn't commit to it. This is, of course, unsurprising, as Microsoft has a long and storied history of refusing to take real risks and only going into significant new territory when Apple has already paved the way. But that doesn't make it less of a fault in Microsoft.