4 ms·

Or you could go the other way around. Boot with Low power Arm, and fall back on x86 when your applications demand it. Would be the type of thing that would ena

Or you could go the other way around. Boot with Low power Arm, and fall back on x86 when your applications demand it. Would be the type of thing that would enable Microsoft to make a serious attempt to shift Windows to another ISA. Use the ARM ISA for the OS and newer applications, have an x86 fall back for legacy applications that require it, without needing an emulation layer. This would allay business concerns over compatibility in an industry wide transition.

sitkack 3y ago
Windows runs on Arm. https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-raspberry-pi https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-raspb... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
- photonbeam 3y ago
  Sure it does, but half the point of windows is backwards compatibility and moving to ARM devalues that too much
  - krylon 3y ago
    I vaguely recall reading about Microsoft's x86/amd64 emulation on ARM, that allegedly performed pretty well. So moving to ARM would not necessarily mean giving up on backwards compatibility.
  - xattt 3y ago
    I always thought that Windows ARM was locked down to run MS Store apps only.
userbinator 3y ago
IMHO x86 has better existing facilities for different operating modes and virtualisation --- going back to the 286 protected mode descriptor types --- that make it a good fit for being the "host" of an ARM or other architecture. Also, the x86/PC boot process is far better understood and open than those of the widely differing ARM SoCs.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  How do you figure that the x86 is more open? I can download and build all the code for an ARM system right now. There are even standards docs for most of the individual pieces. I can't do the same with any modern x86 systems and the one company trying (purisim) had to do some pretty serious reverse engineering of Intel's blobs to get there.
  - pipo234 3y ago
    I think what @userbinator is referring to is the opaque firmware blobs and uefi surrounding typical SoCs, not the ARM software.
- NovaDudely 3y ago
  I feel there are a lot of folks in MS that understand how important it is to have a consistent boot process. They tried to standardize this with the boot system of Windows RT by having it map closely to that of BIOS. I think they just wanted to have ARM run like x86 by having a standard interface so they aren't building multiple different binaries for different machines. Of course this was basically bolting a good idea to an cement block dropped in the ocean, it didn't help that they had locked keys on secure boot so that users couldn't fiddle with this. A good idea done poorly.
Symbiote 3y ago
29 years ago, ARM's primary customer and original parent company released the Risc PC, which used an ARM processor but could also accept a 486 processor beside it. They were on separate cards, but it meant you could run DOS/Windows programs within the Acorn RISC OS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risc_PC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risc_PC https://youtu.be/XI4pfjTCs3o?t=522 https://youtu.be/XI4pfjTCs3o?t=522
lincpa 3y ago
[dead]

sitkack 3y ago

Windows runs on Arm. https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-raspberry-pi https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-raspb... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

photonbeam 3y ago
Sure it does, but half the point of windows is backwards compatibility and moving to ARM devalues that too much
- krylon 3y ago
  I vaguely recall reading about Microsoft's x86/amd64 emulation on ARM, that allegedly performed pretty well. So moving to ARM would not necessarily mean giving up on backwards compatibility.
- xattt 3y ago
  I always thought that Windows ARM was locked down to run MS Store apps only.

userbinator 3y ago

IMHO x86 has better existing facilities for different operating modes and virtualisation --- going back to the 286 protected mode descriptor types --- that make it a good fit for being the "host" of an ARM or other architecture. Also, the x86/PC boot process is far better understood and open than those of the widely differing ARM SoCs.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
How do you figure that the x86 is more open? I can download and build all the code for an ARM system right now. There are even standards docs for most of the individual pieces. I can't do the same with any modern x86 systems and the one company trying (purisim) had to do some pretty serious reverse engineering of Intel's blobs to get there.
- pipo234 3y ago
  I think what @userbinator is referring to is the opaque firmware blobs and uefi surrounding typical SoCs, not the ARM software.
NovaDudely 3y ago
I feel there are a lot of folks in MS that understand how important it is to have a consistent boot process. They tried to standardize this with the boot system of Windows RT by having it map closely to that of BIOS. I think they just wanted to have ARM run like x86 by having a standard interface so they aren't building multiple different binaries for different machines. Of course this was basically bolting a good idea to an cement block dropped in the ocean, it didn't help that they had locked keys on secure boot so that users couldn't fiddle with this. A good idea done poorly.

Symbiote 3y ago

29 years ago, ARM's primary customer and original parent company released the Risc PC, which used an ARM processor but could also accept a 486 processor beside it. They were on separate cards, but it meant you could run DOS/Windows programs within the Acorn RISC OS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risc_PC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risc_PC https://youtu.be/XI4pfjTCs3o?t=522 https://youtu.be/XI4pfjTCs3o?t=522

lincpa 3y ago

[dead]