2 ms·

IMHO that's because Apple was the first to bother optimizing an ARM CPU for performance instead of battery life. The performance per watt in ARM exceeded x86 s

IMHO that's because Apple was the first to bother optimizing an ARM CPU for performance instead of battery life. The performance per watt in ARM exceeded x86 since long ago, but most manufacturers used that feat to create mobile CPUs instead of cranking up the power to see if it catches up to high performance x86

akmittal 4y ago
I think reason is that Qualcomm need to sell to Phone makers so they can't make their SoC very expensive. On the other hand Apple can make expensive SoC without worrying about sales
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Apple has a big advantage over Microsoft in terms of building PCs. Apple can decide that it is switching from Intel to ARM and not looking back so it not only realizes costs from investing in ARM but it ultimately will realize savings from not having to support Intel. There is no real unity behind Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo and all the other vendors, plus the motto of Windows users is "who moved my cheese?" You don't use Windows because Windows is the best operating system, you use Windows because it has the most software, and that software is written for and optimized for the x86 platform. Microsoft is always floating ARM-based systems as a hobby but it cannot make the commitment that it is going "all in" so it has to support Intel as the primary processor for the foreseeable future, so the ARM transition costs Microsoft but never saves them anything. On top of that Microsoft is dependent on vendors like NVIDIA and AMD to supply drivers for graphics cards and all the other parts for their machines and getting them all to supply good drivers for ARM is yet another big ask. Apple can say "here is the supported hardware" and not have to fight with vendors who have the power to torpedo their ambitions.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    At minimun, Microsoft could try for real. In 2019 Samsung announced the Galaxy Book S with an ARM processor. Looked like a nice compact laptop. I would have been interested in it, but it was basically never available and limited to Windows for ARM. Which isn't even officially sold by Microsoft, you can run it fine on the new Macs in a VM, but only as a part of the beta test access. Even if Microsoft cannot force the whole market to ARM - and might not even desire to do so - at least they could treat Windows 11 for ARM as a full product.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If Microsoft wanted to really try an ARM push they could do worse than releasing a Surface laptop with amazing out-of-the-box Linux support; it might not sell a ton to Windows users, but they could get something moving.
  - K0SM0S 4y ago
    Thank you for a rather enlightening perspective. That explains a lot of big tech behaviors around the x86/ARM frontier that I had failed to grasp. I find it somewhat ironic that in wanting for a few CEO's to "Embrace… Extinguish" Linux in favor of Windows, Microsoft eventually created a world where Windows is a sink on their resources they yet can't axe because though not anymore a money-maker in its own right, Windows remains the basis for pretty much all their money-makers. In becoming a "software-first" company, they pretty much followed if not provoked the very paradigm that makes Windows a non-monetizable entity next to as-good-as-embedded MacOS and ever-free Linux. Linux which, incidentally, is also THE basis for money-makers worldwide and the OSS model means nobody using it today had to fork even 1% of the real cumulative cost of that kernel + ecosystem since the 1990's. How's that for a win, Linux 1:0 Microsoft — that the winner did not even seek, busy doing its own thing, while the other pretty much dug its own commercial grave out of 'relevance debt' (not sure how to word what Windows has become)… TL;DR: it's like this big item taking all your inventory yet that you can't ditch ever because it's required to do all your quests. In games, you wish devs forgot about that crap and just made the inventory that much smaller. In real life, Microsoft can't kill Windows without closing business overnight. sad_pikachu_face.jpg [Note that IMHO, MS is incredibly strong nowadays, so they'll find a way, and this is a fantastic learning experience for the industry.]

akmittal 4y ago

I think reason is that Qualcomm need to sell to Phone makers so they can't make their SoC very expensive. On the other hand Apple can make expensive SoC without worrying about sales

PaulHoule 4y ago
Apple has a big advantage over Microsoft in terms of building PCs. Apple can decide that it is switching from Intel to ARM and not looking back so it not only realizes costs from investing in ARM but it ultimately will realize savings from not having to support Intel. There is no real unity behind Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo and all the other vendors, plus the motto of Windows users is "who moved my cheese?" You don't use Windows because Windows is the best operating system, you use Windows because it has the most software, and that software is written for and optimized for the x86 platform. Microsoft is always floating ARM-based systems as a hobby but it cannot make the commitment that it is going "all in" so it has to support Intel as the primary processor for the foreseeable future, so the ARM transition costs Microsoft but never saves them anything. On top of that Microsoft is dependent on vendors like NVIDIA and AMD to supply drivers for graphics cards and all the other parts for their machines and getting them all to supply good drivers for ARM is yet another big ask. Apple can say "here is the supported hardware" and not have to fight with vendors who have the power to torpedo their ambitions.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  At minimun, Microsoft could try for real. In 2019 Samsung announced the Galaxy Book S with an ARM processor. Looked like a nice compact laptop. I would have been interested in it, but it was basically never available and limited to Windows for ARM. Which isn't even officially sold by Microsoft, you can run it fine on the new Macs in a VM, but only as a part of the beta test access. Even if Microsoft cannot force the whole market to ARM - and might not even desire to do so - at least they could treat Windows 11 for ARM as a full product.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If Microsoft wanted to really try an ARM push they could do worse than releasing a Surface laptop with amazing out-of-the-box Linux support; it might not sell a ton to Windows users, but they could get something moving.
- K0SM0S 4y ago
  Thank you for a rather enlightening perspective. That explains a lot of big tech behaviors around the x86/ARM frontier that I had failed to grasp. I find it somewhat ironic that in wanting for a few CEO's to "Embrace… Extinguish" Linux in favor of Windows, Microsoft eventually created a world where Windows is a sink on their resources they yet can't axe because though not anymore a money-maker in its own right, Windows remains the basis for pretty much all their money-makers. In becoming a "software-first" company, they pretty much followed if not provoked the very paradigm that makes Windows a non-monetizable entity next to as-good-as-embedded MacOS and ever-free Linux. Linux which, incidentally, is also THE basis for money-makers worldwide and the OSS model means nobody using it today had to fork even 1% of the real cumulative cost of that kernel + ecosystem since the 1990's. How's that for a win, Linux 1:0 Microsoft — that the winner did not even seek, busy doing its own thing, while the other pretty much dug its own commercial grave out of 'relevance debt' (not sure how to word what Windows has become)… TL;DR: it's like this big item taking all your inventory yet that you can't ditch ever because it's required to do all your quests. In games, you wish devs forgot about that crap and just made the inventory that much smaller. In real life, Microsoft can't kill Windows without closing business overnight. sad_pikachu_face.jpg [Note that IMHO, MS is incredibly strong nowadays, so they'll find a way, and this is a fantastic learning experience for the industry.]