7 ms·

No Windows 8 ARM support for x86 apps

19 points by FrancescoRizzi 15y ago

baddox 15y ago
I've got to side with Microsoft on this one. I see no evidence that any of Microsoft's statements were misleading, not to mention that I think this break in backwards compatibility will only be a good thing for performance on ARM devices.
nextparadigms 15y ago
"One OS to rule them all" Nice try, Microsoft, misleading people into thinking that. But it's more like: 1) Windows 8 for x86 desktop systems 2) Windows 8 for ARM (no native apps, and quite different) 3) Windows Phone for mobiles (based on Windows CE) My question is why didn't they just make WP7 for tablets? I know Win8 wasn't ready, but from some videos I saw on TIMN of Win8 running on ARM tablets, it was clear that the dual core ones could barely handle it, and only the quad core Kal-el had more acceptable performance. I'm sure WP7 would've flied on those. Why did they have to port that whole 8 GB OS to ARM when it will have no legacy apps anyway?
- protomyth 15y ago
  > 2) Windows 8 for ARM (no native apps, and quite different) I think the article might of worded it badly, but their will be native ARM apps for W8 on ARM, but not x86 emulation. It pretty much is the same as Windows NT back in the day.
  - mauriciob 15y ago
    > might have > but there will FTFY. Sorry.
    - protomyth 15y ago
      thanks, I guess. I should have used correct grammar while commenting on an article being poorly written. It is a shame that you have received down votes for it (I did up vote).
kaneraz 15y ago
I'm a bit confused. People expected x86 emulation on ARM architectures? That sounds a bit backwards to me.
- kyberias 15y ago
  Yes, this article is way off target. Who exactly expected ARM Windows to run x86 applications? Show me one reference. Anyone?
  - saturdaysaint 15y ago
    When Intel trumpeted the fact that ARM Windows 8 machines wouldn't run legacy apps, MS reps called it "inaccurate and misleading". From the article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/19/microsoft_contradicts_renee_james_on_windows_8/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/19/microsoft_contradict....
    - Maakuth 15y ago
      Well, since a lot of Windows software runs on .net framework's CLR (VM with a bytecode interpreter not unlike the Java VM), a lot of legacy apps actually should run just fine on ARM.
- cube13 15y ago
  I honestly expected that they were going to try at least for the initial release. Apple did release Rosetta when they moved to Intel, which allowed PowerPC-based applications to run on x86 Macs. I'm not sure how much use that got, though, considering that Rosetta had a lot of limitations, and fairly terrible performance in a lot of areas. That's probably the main reason that MS didn't bother trying to support it.
  - 0x0x0x 15y ago
    Rosetta saw plenty of use just from Adobe apps. It took them about a year and half IIRC to release an x86 version of Photoshop.
pettazz 15y ago
So apparently when they say "ONE OS TO RULE THEM ALL" what they really mean is "ONE BRAND NAME TO RULE THEM ALL with a number of non-cross-compatible OS's which have the that brand name and a similar UI"
stonemetal 15y ago
I wonder if they will go the other way though and emulate ARM on x86.
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  Why would they? Only reason you would need emulation is for legacy apps, which Win8 will have none of from ARM.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    Development, sure it could run natively like iOS does(they just reroute the system calls), but it means you have to do more on device testing since the translation layer isn't bug for bug compatible with the device os.
schiptsov 15y ago
So, there was someone who expected that x86 win32 apps will run on ARM? ^_^ So, that rumors about miserable average level of intelligence in US aren't just rumors? ^_^
albertzeyer 15y ago
Why aren't they adding support for fat binaries (or something similar) like on MacOSX? So that developers can indeed release one single version of their app which runs on all the different architectures.
- r00fus 15y ago
  Notice there is no iOS/OSX fat binary - because the only approved apps for iOS are all from the App Store.
- MarkSweep 15y ago
  If you write your app on HTML/JavaScript or (presumably) .NET, it should run on both platforms. If you are deploying native code, I would think that creating your own "fat binary" would not be too hard to do. Either install the right binaries with a MSI file or at runtime have the startup program be a small managed app that starts the right native app for the platform.
wmf 15y ago
x86 apps on ARM is a distraction. The question is whether Win32 apps will run on ARM; MS has given conflicting information on this topic. http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/16/windows-8-arm-tablets-legacy-apps-microsoft-office/ http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/16/windows-8-arm-tablets-leg...
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  It looks to me like it's WinRT or nothing for Metro apps in general.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Could you explain what you mean? Isn't "Desktop mode" Win32?
  - wmf 15y ago
    Yes. If Win32 is not available on ARM, maybe ARM systems won't have desktop mode at all.
    - polshaw 15y ago
      I would highly doubt that. 'Desktop' can be seen as a panel on the start metro UI[0]. Remember, not all tablets will be ARM systems.. and I could see a market for ARM desktops too. IIRC MS showed the desktop running on their very first demonstrations of v. early win8 on ARM, too. 0. http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-hands-on-preview/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-han... @video.
saturdaysaint 15y ago
So in tablets, they're going to be in the same position as Windows Phone 7 - a great OS with a distinct app disadvantage and little consumer awareness. This only further raises the question of how much appetite device makers will have for a $75 (ballpark) software license, especially as these devices start to average closer to $400.
- steveb 15y ago
  If we estimate around 80MM PCs sold in a quarter, MS generates about $60 Windows revenue for every PC sold, but their costs are about $22 (from Q411 results Rev $4.7B, Profit $2.9B). It will be hard for them to the cut license fee unless they can significantly increase unit sales. This is probably why they didn't push WP7 on tablets. For almost all the OEMs, the average margin on a PC is single digits.
  - polshaw 15y ago
    Can we get some citations on these numbers please? ..we aren't even in Q4.11 yet? Another key factor to bear in mind is that, at least today, tablets are an additional computing device, and don't replace any existing PC.
    - steveb 15y ago
      Fiscal years don't always match calendar years. Microsoft's Q4 ends on June 30th. http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn... I don't think you can say that tablets are bought in addition to PCs, as we've seen PC sales flatline and contract in the U.S. and Europe since the iPad was released. Nobody really knows what the long-term impact will be.
    - saturdaysaint 15y ago
      tablets are an additional computing device Why? As of iOS5, none of the tablets require a desktop or laptop. I'd venture to say that %90 of people use their home computer for communication (social networking, e-mail, skype) and leisure (games, web-browsing). Why should someone buy something heavy and expensive when a sleek, inexpensive (and dockable) tablet meets all of those needs?
ryanhuff 15y ago
Microsoft will incentivize developers through various means to help move apps to the new WinRT platform fairly quickly, thus help seed the ecosystem with ARM compatible apps. This isn't the same Windows Phone 7 apps chicken and egg problem. Microsoft will be pushing millions of Windows 8 computers into peoples homes sometime next year, which will help the seeding process. When this happens, I suspect we will see Microsoft provide preferred Windows Store placement for Metro apps, and a "Developed for Metro" strategy that makes the legacy x86 app experience seem antiquated and clunky. This upgrade sales opportunity will incentivize developers to push out new versions, which will help seed the ARM compatible apps ecosystem.
WalterSear 15y ago
M$ is trying very messily to 'be the next Android'. So, what's new?

I've got to side with Microsoft on this one. I see no evidence that any of Microsoft's statements were misleading, not to mention that I think this break in backwards compatibility will only be a good thing for performance on ARM devices.

nextparadigms 15y ago

"One OS to rule them all" Nice try, Microsoft, misleading people into thinking that. But it's more like: 1) Windows 8 for x86 desktop systems 2) Windows 8 for ARM (no native apps, and quite different) 3) Windows Phone for mobiles (based on Windows CE) My question is why didn't they just make WP7 for tablets? I know Win8 wasn't ready, but from some videos I saw on TIMN of Win8 running on ARM tablets, it was clear that the dual core ones could barely handle it, and only the quad core Kal-el had more acceptable performance. I'm sure WP7 would've flied on those. Why did they have to port that whole 8 GB OS to ARM when it will have no legacy apps anyway?

protomyth 15y ago
> 2) Windows 8 for ARM (no native apps, and quite different) I think the article might of worded it badly, but their will be native ARM apps for W8 on ARM, but not x86 emulation. It pretty much is the same as Windows NT back in the day.
- mauriciob 15y ago
  > might have > but there will FTFY. Sorry.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    thanks, I guess. I should have used correct grammar while commenting on an article being poorly written. It is a shame that you have received down votes for it (I did up vote).

kaneraz 15y ago

I'm a bit confused. People expected x86 emulation on ARM architectures? That sounds a bit backwards to me.

kyberias 15y ago
Yes, this article is way off target. Who exactly expected ARM Windows to run x86 applications? Show me one reference. Anyone?
- saturdaysaint 15y ago
  When Intel trumpeted the fact that ARM Windows 8 machines wouldn't run legacy apps, MS reps called it "inaccurate and misleading". From the article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/19/microsoft_contradicts_renee_james_on_windows_8/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/19/microsoft_contradict....
  - Maakuth 15y ago
    Well, since a lot of Windows software runs on .net framework's CLR (VM with a bytecode interpreter not unlike the Java VM), a lot of legacy apps actually should run just fine on ARM.
cube13 15y ago
I honestly expected that they were going to try at least for the initial release. Apple did release Rosetta when they moved to Intel, which allowed PowerPC-based applications to run on x86 Macs. I'm not sure how much use that got, though, considering that Rosetta had a lot of limitations, and fairly terrible performance in a lot of areas. That's probably the main reason that MS didn't bother trying to support it.
- 0x0x0x 15y ago
  Rosetta saw plenty of use just from Adobe apps. It took them about a year and half IIRC to release an x86 version of Photoshop.

pettazz 15y ago

So apparently when they say "ONE OS TO RULE THEM ALL" what they really mean is "ONE BRAND NAME TO RULE THEM ALL with a number of non-cross-compatible OS's which have the that brand name and a similar UI"

stonemetal 15y ago

I wonder if they will go the other way though and emulate ARM on x86.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Why would they? Only reason you would need emulation is for legacy apps, which Win8 will have none of from ARM.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Development, sure it could run natively like iOS does(they just reroute the system calls), but it means you have to do more on device testing since the translation layer isn't bug for bug compatible with the device os.

schiptsov 15y ago

So, there was someone who expected that x86 win32 apps will run on ARM? ^_^ So, that rumors about miserable average level of intelligence in US aren't just rumors? ^_^

albertzeyer 15y ago

Why aren't they adding support for fat binaries (or something similar) like on MacOSX? So that developers can indeed release one single version of their app which runs on all the different architectures.

r00fus 15y ago
Notice there is no iOS/OSX fat binary - because the only approved apps for iOS are all from the App Store.
MarkSweep 15y ago
If you write your app on HTML/JavaScript or (presumably) .NET, it should run on both platforms. If you are deploying native code, I would think that creating your own "fat binary" would not be too hard to do. Either install the right binaries with a MSI file or at runtime have the startup program be a small managed app that starts the right native app for the platform.

wmf 15y ago

x86 apps on ARM is a distraction. The question is whether Win32 apps will run on ARM; MS has given conflicting information on this topic. http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/16/windows-8-arm-tablets-legacy-apps-microsoft-office/ http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/16/windows-8-arm-tablets-leg...

AndrewDucker 15y ago
It looks to me like it's WinRT or nothing for Metro apps in general.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Could you explain what you mean? Isn't "Desktop mode" Win32?
- wmf 15y ago
  Yes. If Win32 is not available on ARM, maybe ARM systems won't have desktop mode at all.
  - polshaw 15y ago
    I would highly doubt that. 'Desktop' can be seen as a panel on the start metro UI[0]. Remember, not all tablets will be ARM systems.. and I could see a market for ARM desktops too. IIRC MS showed the desktop running on their very first demonstrations of v. early win8 on ARM, too. 0. http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-hands-on-preview/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-han... @video.

saturdaysaint 15y ago

So in tablets, they're going to be in the same position as Windows Phone 7 - a great OS with a distinct app disadvantage and little consumer awareness. This only further raises the question of how much appetite device makers will have for a $75 (ballpark) software license, especially as these devices start to average closer to $400.

steveb 15y ago
If we estimate around 80MM PCs sold in a quarter, MS generates about $60 Windows revenue for every PC sold, but their costs are about $22 (from Q411 results Rev $4.7B, Profit $2.9B). It will be hard for them to the cut license fee unless they can significantly increase unit sales. This is probably why they didn't push WP7 on tablets. For almost all the OEMs, the average margin on a PC is single digits.
- polshaw 15y ago
  Can we get some citations on these numbers please? ..we aren't even in Q4.11 yet? Another key factor to bear in mind is that, at least today, tablets are an additional computing device, and don't replace any existing PC.
  - steveb 15y ago
    Fiscal years don't always match calendar years. Microsoft's Q4 ends on June 30th. http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn... I don't think you can say that tablets are bought in addition to PCs, as we've seen PC sales flatline and contract in the U.S. and Europe since the iPad was released. Nobody really knows what the long-term impact will be.
  - saturdaysaint 15y ago
    tablets are an additional computing device Why? As of iOS5, none of the tablets require a desktop or laptop. I'd venture to say that %90 of people use their home computer for communication (social networking, e-mail, skype) and leisure (games, web-browsing). Why should someone buy something heavy and expensive when a sleek, inexpensive (and dockable) tablet meets all of those needs?

ryanhuff 15y ago

Microsoft will incentivize developers through various means to help move apps to the new WinRT platform fairly quickly, thus help seed the ecosystem with ARM compatible apps. This isn't the same Windows Phone 7 apps chicken and egg problem. Microsoft will be pushing millions of Windows 8 computers into peoples homes sometime next year, which will help the seeding process. When this happens, I suspect we will see Microsoft provide preferred Windows Store placement for Metro apps, and a "Developed for Metro" strategy that makes the legacy x86 app experience seem antiquated and clunky. This upgrade sales opportunity will incentivize developers to push out new versions, which will help seed the ARM compatible apps ecosystem.

WalterSear 15y ago

M$ is trying very messily to 'be the next Android'. So, what's new?