6 ms·

Dear Microsoft: Out of ARM and x86, choose one. Just choose one. For the love of god, choose ONE. Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing

by enko 13y ago

Dear Microsoft: Out of ARM and x86, choose one. Just choose one. For the love of god, choose ONE. Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software? It is inconceivable, and for good reason. MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!

jfoutz 13y ago
Apple actually just made each executable have the binaries for both platforms. It's a good trick.
- duaneb 13y ago
  Regardless of engineering cleverness it's a very bad decision marketing wise.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Apple didn't release both simultaneously.
- koenigdavidmj 13y ago
  Even if you do that, you still can't run your desktop apps on the ARM model. I really don't want to explain to luddite relatives why they can't run a game unless they buy the more expensive model. Either ban desktop apps on both models, or neither.
  - jfoutz 13y ago
    Rosetta worked pretty well.
    - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
      I agree with you that this is technically a solved problem. It's not difficult to develop a system that lets apps run on both architectures without users having to think about this. I'm talking about the management decision that only Metro apps can run on RT, which is such a stupid limitation that even Microsoft sees the need to bypass it to get Office on an RT tablet.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Emulating an x86 on an ARM like the Tegra 4 would probably result in a pretty unsatisfying experience. Apple was doing the opposite: Emulating a processor with worse single threaded performance and (arguably) a simpler ISA. The alternative is a full port of Win32, which I imagine Microsoft considered and rejected. Even after they incurred all the time and development cost, ISVs would still have to at least recompile.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - bcoates 13y ago
        I think it has a nearly-full port of Win32, it's apparently not hard to disable the signing requirement and run cross-compiled Win32 ARM binaries and turn the Surface RT into a useful computer. Not much commercial software but the regular open-source windows stack works.
        acqq 13y ago
        it's apparently not hard to disable the signing requirement and run cross-compiled Win32 ARM binaries Link please?
        bcoates 13y ago
        This forum http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2130 http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2130 appears to be ground zero for that sort of thing. I don't have an RT handy to test it on.
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        I don't think it's a feasibility issue, because a fair bit of Win32 had already been ported to ARM from the Windows CE days. I had .NET apps that ran on Windows XP and Windows CE from the same binary. As long as you stuck to the .NET micro framework subset, it worked great and was actually quite performant.
  - rwallace 13y ago
    While I agree with your overall sentiment, in fairness it's not hard to explain. "Well the cheap one is shite, it doesn't really work. The expensive one does work so you want to buy that if you're going to buy one at all."
MLR 13y ago
While I agree, and wish they just released a budget x86 version instead of the RT, you are exaggerating the problem somewhat.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Not really. Since both run different apps then they should be distinctly separate products, and tacking "RT" or "Pro" or any other moniker does a disservice to everybody involved -- both developers and consumers.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  You can easily get an x86-based tablet and run a more or less standard Linux environment on top of the Android kernel. If your performance requirements fit, you can do it on an ARM processor. Chances are you can add a bluetooth keyboard/cover for much less than a Surface 2.
gum_ina_package 13y ago
I used to agree with you, however their strategy makes a lot of sense when you realize that the desktop is just going to disappear from Windows all together. I think that in the future it'll literally just be treated like any other app, and you'll be able to download 'nix desktop apps alongside the Windows desktop app. Honestly with what they're doing with Hyper-V, this is becoming more and more plausible.
Metrop0218 13y ago
Or better yet, they could stay the course and realize that architectures are going to have to be abstracted over in the decades to come.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  That may be true but right now the user shouldn't have to care.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
manojlds 13y ago
> which can not run each others' software? Windows Store apps run on both of them.
- ciniglio 13y ago
  I don't believe this is true. Most windows store apps run on both of them, but I think there are some, e.g. graphics, API's that your app could access that would limit it to x86 only
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    Absolutely false.
  - ygra 13y ago
    Not that I know of. It's just that if you're going native code instead of JS or .NET you have to make sure yourself that you run on ARM. And apparently C++ is the only option that gets access to DirectX which may mean that 3D apps never get ported to ARM.
Todd 13y ago
Why does Apple get a pass on this? They have just taken the alternative approach of fracturing their OS and hardware. It's natural because of where they started (iPod -> iPhone -> iPad), so this isn't a criticism. As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple (even if MS is having difficulties reconciling the tablet vs. desktop experience). MS has touch on the desktop. When is Apple going to have touch on Mac Books? I know SJ said vertical touch screens don't work. They will continue to say so until they add touch. Undoubtedly, they'll do it well, and it will be well integrated with the OS. But they'll continue to say it doesn't work...until it does. Similar to the movement to flat with nary a mention of Metro. So Apple has the challenge of bringing their user-level of their OS offerings closer together (along with the hardware), whereas MS has the challenge of dealing with the Metro/Desktop schism and the x86/ARM dichotomy. Same coin, different sides.
- benihana 13y ago
  >Why does Apple get a pass on this? Here's why: Last November when the iPad Mini and the iPad 4 launched, Apple sold 3 million iPads over the weekend. Surface has sold about 1.7 million devices total since it launched. http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface-sales-2013/ http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface-sales-2013/ It's hard to argue with success. >As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple The numbers seem to disagree with you. The reason Apple doesn't put touch on their Macbooks is cause no one wants it.
  - Todd 13y ago
    That's a false argument. These are separate points of discussion. You're arguing that they're right because they were first to market in a new space and have achieved significant momentum. Momentum is just that. They've been riding on it for a while. The last significant innovation was iPad, which was just an evolution of the one real innovation: iPhone. That's only going to carry them so far. Android is eating their market share while Apple is extracting what they can from this momentum and iterating on a theme. I think Apple's products are great. Their ID is fantastic. Their developer ecosystem leaves much to be desired. The fact that I no longer buy their products due to their closed nature (and, by extension, their philosophy for the future: closed, controlled, and owned) does not take away from my admiration of the company from a product and engineering perspective.
criley2 13y ago
You've misread the problem. Apple DOES have an X86 ecosystem AND an ARM ecosystem. They do not cross streams and customers are not confused, and Apple can successfully grow application ecosystems across two very different architectures. So what is Microsoft doing wrong? It's very simple, and I cannot believe they haven't already done this. I'm thinking that the naming scheme for their ARM platform is why they're balking, since they've stupidly named their ARM ecosystem "Windows Phone". Apple succeeds by maintaining separation between the ecosystems, and that's where MS is failing. MS needs to realign: Surface means x86 tablet. Period. End of story. It's a high end tablet for those who need more than an iDevice, who want a full laptop in a tablet shell. Surface means quality. Surface means x86, and it means desktop compatible. Windows Phone, including Windows Phone Tablet (Surface RT) means ARM. Period. The WP8 ecosystem and it's tablet arm should be the branding covering the ARM ecosystem. I'm thinking that the name "Windows Phone" for the ecosystem is what dissuaded them from trying to attach the tablet to that ecosystem.
- macavity23 13y ago
  You're actually agreeing with the parent, who stated the problem as 'two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software'.
  - calvin_c 13y ago
    Yes, but the parent also said "MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!" The reply just said that two tablets as fine if they would just kill the confusing naming scheme.
- baddox 13y ago
  I would rather them invest more into ARM, and use the Surface name (a great name) for the direct iPad competitor. The Surface Pro is just a Windows laptop with decent build quality. It's the one in a boring (and shrinking!) market.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
alyx 13y ago
Relax. They have clearly made some sort of a bet on ARM, if it doesn't pan out they will drop it soon enough.
- widdershins 13y ago
  In the meantime, it's terribly confusing to consumers and could well result in a lot of ill-will.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  It's their way of telling Intel it's giving too much support to Linux and Android... "We'll support your competitor if you support ours"
rbanffy 13y ago
> Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software? Apple actually managed two very smooth transition/coexistence periods, from 68K to PPC and from PPC to x86, when it was easy to build binaries that ran on both platforms.
- untog 13y ago
  It's very easy to build binaries for Windows that run on both platforms if you're using their approved tools. It's all the legacy apps that are the problem.
cptskippy 13y ago
> which can not run each others' software? Actually Windows 8 can run anything Windows RT can run. The opposite isn't true however, since there's no way to write a desktop (x86/Win32) application for Windows RT.

by enko 13y ago

jfoutz 13y ago

Apple actually just made each executable have the binaries for both platforms. It's a good trick.

duaneb 13y ago
Regardless of engineering cleverness it's a very bad decision marketing wise.
chrischen 13y ago
Apple didn't release both simultaneously.
koenigdavidmj 13y ago
Even if you do that, you still can't run your desktop apps on the ARM model. I really don't want to explain to luddite relatives why they can't run a game unless they buy the more expensive model. Either ban desktop apps on both models, or neither.
- jfoutz 13y ago
  Rosetta worked pretty well.
  - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
    I agree with you that this is technically a solved problem. It's not difficult to develop a system that lets apps run on both architectures without users having to think about this. I'm talking about the management decision that only Metro apps can run on RT, which is such a stupid limitation that even Microsoft sees the need to bypass it to get Office on an RT tablet.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Emulating an x86 on an ARM like the Tegra 4 would probably result in a pretty unsatisfying experience. Apple was doing the opposite: Emulating a processor with worse single threaded performance and (arguably) a simpler ISA. The alternative is a full port of Win32, which I imagine Microsoft considered and rejected. Even after they incurred all the time and development cost, ISVs would still have to at least recompile.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - bcoates 13y ago
      I think it has a nearly-full port of Win32, it's apparently not hard to disable the signing requirement and run cross-compiled Win32 ARM binaries and turn the Surface RT into a useful computer. Not much commercial software but the regular open-source windows stack works.
      - acqq 13y ago
        it's apparently not hard to disable the signing requirement and run cross-compiled Win32 ARM binaries Link please?
        bcoates 13y ago
        This forum http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2130 http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2130 appears to be ground zero for that sort of thing. I don't have an RT handy to test it on.
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      I don't think it's a feasibility issue, because a fair bit of Win32 had already been ported to ARM from the Windows CE days. I had .NET apps that ran on Windows XP and Windows CE from the same binary. As long as you stuck to the .NET micro framework subset, it worked great and was actually quite performant.
- rwallace 13y ago
  While I agree with your overall sentiment, in fairness it's not hard to explain. "Well the cheap one is shite, it doesn't really work. The expensive one does work so you want to buy that if you're going to buy one at all."

MLR 13y ago

While I agree, and wish they just released a budget x86 version instead of the RT, you are exaggerating the problem somewhat.

ihsw 13y ago
Not really. Since both run different apps then they should be distinctly separate products, and tacking "RT" or "Pro" or any other moniker does a disservice to everybody involved -- both developers and consumers.
rbanffy 13y ago
You can easily get an x86-based tablet and run a more or less standard Linux environment on top of the Android kernel. If your performance requirements fit, you can do it on an ARM processor. Chances are you can add a bluetooth keyboard/cover for much less than a Surface 2.

gum_ina_package 13y ago

I used to agree with you, however their strategy makes a lot of sense when you realize that the desktop is just going to disappear from Windows all together. I think that in the future it'll literally just be treated like any other app, and you'll be able to download 'nix desktop apps alongside the Windows desktop app. Honestly with what they're doing with Hyper-V, this is becoming more and more plausible.

Metrop0218 13y ago

Or better yet, they could stay the course and realize that architectures are going to have to be abstracted over in the decades to come.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
That may be true but right now the user shouldn't have to care.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

manojlds 13y ago

> which can not run each others' software? Windows Store apps run on both of them.

ciniglio 13y ago
I don't believe this is true. Most windows store apps run on both of them, but I think there are some, e.g. graphics, API's that your app could access that would limit it to x86 only
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Absolutely false.
- ygra 13y ago
  Not that I know of. It's just that if you're going native code instead of JS or .NET you have to make sure yourself that you run on ARM. And apparently C++ is the only option that gets access to DirectX which may mean that 3D apps never get ported to ARM.

Todd 13y ago

Why does Apple get a pass on this? They have just taken the alternative approach of fracturing their OS and hardware. It's natural because of where they started (iPod -> iPhone -> iPad), so this isn't a criticism. As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple (even if MS is having difficulties reconciling the tablet vs. desktop experience). MS has touch on the desktop. When is Apple going to have touch on Mac Books? I know SJ said vertical touch screens don't work. They will continue to say so until they add touch. Undoubtedly, they'll do it well, and it will be well integrated with the OS. But they'll continue to say it doesn't work...until it does. Similar to the movement to flat with nary a mention of Metro. So Apple has the challenge of bringing their user-level of their OS offerings closer together (along with the hardware), whereas MS has the challenge of dealing with the Metro/Desktop schism and the x86/ARM dichotomy. Same coin, different sides.

benihana 13y ago
>Why does Apple get a pass on this? Here's why: Last November when the iPad Mini and the iPad 4 launched, Apple sold 3 million iPads over the weekend. Surface has sold about 1.7 million devices total since it launched. http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface-sales-2013/ http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface-sales-2013/ It's hard to argue with success. >As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple The numbers seem to disagree with you. The reason Apple doesn't put touch on their Macbooks is cause no one wants it.
- Todd 13y ago
  That's a false argument. These are separate points of discussion. You're arguing that they're right because they were first to market in a new space and have achieved significant momentum. Momentum is just that. They've been riding on it for a while. The last significant innovation was iPad, which was just an evolution of the one real innovation: iPhone. That's only going to carry them so far. Android is eating their market share while Apple is extracting what they can from this momentum and iterating on a theme. I think Apple's products are great. Their ID is fantastic. Their developer ecosystem leaves much to be desired. The fact that I no longer buy their products due to their closed nature (and, by extension, their philosophy for the future: closed, controlled, and owned) does not take away from my admiration of the company from a product and engineering perspective.

criley2 13y ago

You've misread the problem. Apple DOES have an X86 ecosystem AND an ARM ecosystem. They do not cross streams and customers are not confused, and Apple can successfully grow application ecosystems across two very different architectures. So what is Microsoft doing wrong? It's very simple, and I cannot believe they haven't already done this. I'm thinking that the naming scheme for their ARM platform is why they're balking, since they've stupidly named their ARM ecosystem "Windows Phone". Apple succeeds by maintaining separation between the ecosystems, and that's where MS is failing. MS needs to realign: Surface means x86 tablet. Period. End of story. It's a high end tablet for those who need more than an iDevice, who want a full laptop in a tablet shell. Surface means quality. Surface means x86, and it means desktop compatible. Windows Phone, including Windows Phone Tablet (Surface RT) means ARM. Period. The WP8 ecosystem and it's tablet arm should be the branding covering the ARM ecosystem. I'm thinking that the name "Windows Phone" for the ecosystem is what dissuaded them from trying to attach the tablet to that ecosystem.

macavity23 13y ago
You're actually agreeing with the parent, who stated the problem as 'two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software'.
- calvin_c 13y ago
  Yes, but the parent also said "MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!" The reply just said that two tablets as fine if they would just kill the confusing naming scheme.
baddox 13y ago
I would rather them invest more into ARM, and use the Surface name (a great name) for the direct iPad competitor. The Surface Pro is just a Windows laptop with decent build quality. It's the one in a boring (and shrinking!) market.
- dragonwriter 13y ago

alyx 13y ago

Relax. They have clearly made some sort of a bet on ARM, if it doesn't pan out they will drop it soon enough.

widdershins 13y ago
In the meantime, it's terribly confusing to consumers and could well result in a lot of ill-will.
rbanffy 13y ago
It's their way of telling Intel it's giving too much support to Linux and Android... "We'll support your competitor if you support ours"

rbanffy 13y ago

> Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software? Apple actually managed two very smooth transition/coexistence periods, from 68K to PPC and from PPC to x86, when it was easy to build binaries that ran on both platforms.

untog 13y ago
It's very easy to build binaries for Windows that run on both platforms if you're using their approved tools. It's all the legacy apps that are the problem.

cptskippy 13y ago

> which can not run each others' software? Actually Windows 8 can run anything Windows RT can run. The opposite isn't true however, since there's no way to write a desktop (x86/Win32) application for Windows RT.