> I don't consider ARM better unless you have billions to spend on custom silicon like Apple. It's better when you need lower power utilisation and physically

> I don't consider ARM better unless you have billions to spend on custom silicon like Apple. It's better when you need lower power utilisation and physically smaller footprints. Apple isn't the only name in the ARM game, and I'm not suggesting that you should be designing and manufacturing your own ARM chipsets. > The power consumption is inline with any other ultra-low-power x86 (~15W TDP for the CPU). That's pretty comparable to a Snapdragon XR2 with ~10W TDP and worse performance. Which is all incredibly high for something that's portable. If a user is required to have the headset plugged in for continuous use, it might as well just be a regular VR headset connected to a separate PC. > Users would want to use proprietary apps that are only compiled for x86. With this argument the Simula One should be running Windows instead of SimulaOS. Most Linux based applications already work on ARM or can be recompiled for it. > Emulation for those on ARM is not particularly feasible for any acceptable performance. I'm not suggesting emulation should be used. > If you're buying a laptop now, you would not buy an ARM device. I would and have bought ARM based notebooks. MacBook Air (M1), PineBook Pro, various Chromebooks. I still don't understand the decision to stick with x86 on this.