Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Feb 2018 21:37 UTC
Windows

This week, however, Microsoft finally published a more complete list of the limitations of Windows 10 on ARM. And that word - limitations - is interesting. This isn't how Windows 10 on ARM differs from Windows 10 on x86-based systems. It's how it's more limited.

None of these things really sound all that surprising to me, but you can bet these limitations - which seem technical in nature, not political - will lead to outcries among some people who buy ARM-based Windows 10 machines.

Order by: Score:
Comment by evil
by evil on Mon 19th Feb 2018 23:00 UTC
evil
Member since:
2013-05-22

"Your app uses an OpenGL version later than 1.1 or requires hardware-accelerated OpenGL.." - it's not political? OpenGL 1.1 - really?
and nothing about Vulkan, but I think they want programmers to use windows-only APIs.

They are not stupid and know that OpenGL 1.1 from 1992 lacks mipmapping/multitexturing and is literally useless, because software from those year will not likely compile in modern compiler, targeted for ARM. They would put Mesa, which supports modern OpenGL revisions, but they put this crap intentionally to complicate development environemnt setup(you have to carefully set to not link against system opengl) to confuse new developers and force them to learn DirectX(instead of OpenGL).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by evil
by viton on Mon 19th Feb 2018 23:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by evil"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

it's not political? OpenGL 1.1 - really?
and nothing about Vulkan, but I think they want programmers to use windows-only APIs.

It is technical. Nobody is interested in writing drivers for OpenGL. Maybe you will?

The one purely political limitation, is the SAME ERROR MS is making AGAIN - the lack of ARM Win32 desktop. This is the real showstopper, since a lot of apps need to be converted to UWP, and it could not be possible at all:
UWP apps can request additional capabilities to get a few more rights with permission from the user, but have limited access to the system and user data. For example, you cannot read most of the filesystem, only your installed location, an isolated application data folder, and an isolated temporary file folder.

This will limit the adoption of native apps, making the whole idea not worthy.
MS is aiming to launch doomed on arrival product again, at least for me, as early adopter.

But maybe I'm too nervous about this, and MS is clearly interested in deprecation of old APIs. Time will tell.

Anyway I don't understand why they are so surprised with a lack of Hyper-V? It is x86 virtualization that requires extemely slow full system emulation. On WoA x86 is emulated in user-level mode.

Edited 2018-02-20 00:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by evil
by Drumhellar on Tue 20th Feb 2018 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by evil"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The one purely political limitation, is the SAME ERROR MS is making AGAIN - the lack of ARM Win32 desktop. This is the real showstopper, since a lot of apps need to be converted to UWP, and it could not be possible at all:


This is wrong. The ARM Win32 SDK is coming. Win32 apps will be native on ARM

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by evil
by viton on Tue 20th Feb 2018 05:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by evil"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

This is wrong. The ARM Win32 SDK is coming. Win32 apps will be native on ARM

Ok, that's fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by evil
by Drumhellar on Tue 20th Feb 2018 02:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by evil"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I don't see that as political. Windows only supports OpenGL 1.1. This hasn't changed in 20 years.

ATI, Intel, and NVidia support modern versions of OpenGL on their own. Microsoft does not.

There is nothing stopping somebody from releasing modern OpenGL support in Windows, or stopping anybody from using it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by evil
by fmaxwell on Tue 20th Feb 2018 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by evil"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

There is nothing stopping somebody from releasing modern OpenGL support in Windows, or stopping anybody from using it.

There's nothing stopping developers all over the world from ignoring some 3rd party effort to bring modern versions of OpenGL to Windows. That's exactly what would happen.

Edited 2018-02-20 09:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by evil
by Drumhellar on Tue 20th Feb 2018 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by evil"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm saying, nothing stopping Imagination Technologies or NVidia from supporting OpenGL.

You know, the exact same situation it is for Windows on x86.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by evil
by moondevil on Tue 20th Feb 2018 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by evil"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Actually no, OpenGL is only allowed for desktop apps.

UWP only allows for DirectX, and Microsoft has provided patches to allow Angle to be used on UWP.

OpenGL only matters on the desktop thanks to Apple needing to cater to UNIX devs to take the company out of the red zone.

Now with their bank account filled up, even they are starting to ignore OpenGL, focusing on Metal instead.

So it remains to be seen how much OpenGL or Vulkan, will matter in lets say 10 years from now, specially with all major studios using middleware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by evil
by Drumhellar on Tue 20th Feb 2018 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by evil"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Actually no, OpenGL is only allowed for desktop apps.

UWP only allows for DirectX, and Microsoft has provided patches to allow Angle to be used on UWP.


Which doesn't contradict anything I said.

OpenGL is provided not by Microsoft, but by GPU vendors. This is the case on x86 desktops, this will be the same on ARM laptops.

UWP isn't mandatory on ARM laptops, either. The Win32 ARM SDK is a thing that exists

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by evil
by moondevil on Tue 20th Feb 2018 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by evil"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Windows on ARM is all about UWP and desktop bridge on Windows Store.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm

https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Ch9Live/Windows-Community-Standup/K...

Desktop bridge applications are considered just a stepping stone to port applications into the UWP, as they are not sanboxed as UWP apps are, given that they need to execute with full trust.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/appconsult/2016/10/13/desktop-bridg...

Edited 2018-02-20 21:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by evil
by Drumhellar on Wed 21st Feb 2018 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by evil"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

.....and? There's no indication that Win32 will only be allowed for desktop bridge UWP apps.

By all appearances, this is a fully-featured (minus Hyper-V), legit version of Windows.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by evil
by zima on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by evil"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows only supports OpenGL 1.1. This hasn't changed in 20 years.

Why does MS bother at all with 1.1, is it useful for anything?
(and will Qualcomm support newer OpenGL on those ARM chips?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by evil
by Drumhellar on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by evil"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

No, not really useful for anything.

But, Microsoft once supported it as an API, which means they'll support it until the heat death of the universe.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by evil
by FlyingJester on Wed 21st Feb 2018 21:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by evil"
FlyingJester Member since:
2016-05-11

It's completely false to say that OpenGL 1.1 is useless.

OpenGL 1.1 is still quite useful for prototyping, where shaders, multitexturing, mipmapping, manually managing colors and projections, and creating your own matrices from scratch is just noise.

There are also many 2D applications that use "OpenGL 2" which can actually use OpenGL 1.1

Reply Score: 4

Maybe it will end well
by Morgan on Tue 20th Feb 2018 03:38 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

The appellate court issued an emergency stay of incarceration, so at least someone on the legal ladder has some common sense and compassion. I get why the judge in the criminal case was conflicted; there was trademark infringement regarding the labeling of the discs, but IMO Lundgren's intent was clear. He wanted to give users an option of a physical restore disc where the OEMs no longer offered one for download or the user had no other way of obtaining one, and he wanted to make a few bucks on the side. He felt (and I agree) that the license was not violated because the license was tied to the hardware, not to a restore disc.

Given that the same restore disc could be used for any of the same brand/model PC, but the license key was already in possession of the user and was tied to the user's machine only, combined with his clear intent, the judge should have dismissed the case.

Then again, I'm basing all of that on the one article, so I probably don't have all the facts in the case. Still, I'm glad he has an appeal in motion, and it will be interesting to see where this goes. Given Microsoft's current "Windows as a Service" pivot, I'm surprised they are throwing so much muscle at this case. Some guy distributing restore discs for outdated and unsupported OS versions, if anything, speaks to the resilience of their OS. The users who would have benefited from Mr. Lundgren's efforts will now see Microsoft as the "big bad guy" who never really changed his bullish ways.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Maybe it will end well
by Morgan on Tue 20th Feb 2018 11:54 UTC in reply to "Maybe it will end well"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Oops...I have no idea how I posted this in the wrong discussion. Sorry!

Reply Score: 2

Just need to ask....
by leech on Tue 20th Feb 2018 04:56 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Who is this for? Is there people out there asking "Why can't I run Windows 10 on ARM?" At this stage the only real reason to use Windows is for legacy software, and ARM will have none of that.

Granted, maybe that's just my opinion, but I see this as another Windows Phone, trying to edge into the cheap educational computer space. I think the thing they don't understand is that the reason Linux is so popular on things like the Pi is because of it's open source nature and being able to tweak every little thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just need to ask....
by viton on Tue 20th Feb 2018 05:20 UTC in reply to "Just need to ask...."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Who is this for? Is there people out there asking "Why can't I run Windows 10 on ARM?"

This is for me. I need solid performing ARM laptop with modern 3D hardware.

At this stage the only real reason to use Windows is for legacy software, and ARM will have none of that.

Sorry, the year of linux desktop is not yet come.
I run ARM/Linux on desktop (as main system) and laptop, but it has a lot of problems.

I think the thing they don't understand is that the reason Linux is so popular on things like the Pi is because of it's open source nature and being able to tweak every little thing.

It is ok for console-only or bare-metal, but full-blown Linux GUI system runs like shit on PI.

Edited 2018-02-20 05:26 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Just need to ask....
by flecht on Tue 20th Feb 2018 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Just need to ask...."
flecht Member since:
2016-12-12

It is ok for console-only or bare-metal, but full-blown Linux GUI system runs like shit on PI.


Are you trying to say Windows will run like a charm on Pi?
I heard someone managed to run Windows ARM on RPi. It was limited to 1 core, really slow and crashed after some time.
RPi can handle Linux lightweight GUIs quite well considering it's limited resources.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Just need to ask....
by moondevil on Tue 20th Feb 2018 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just need to ask...."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I wonder what they were doing there, the only supported version on the Pi is Windows IoT, and it surely does better than Android Things, for example.

In any case, it is designed for IoT deployments, not to be used as a desktop.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Just need to ask....
by viton on Tue 20th Feb 2018 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just need to ask...."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Are you trying to say Windows will run like a charm on Pi?

I trying to say Windows will work fine on Snapdragon 835.
RPi can handle Linux lightweight GUIs quite well considering it's limited resources.

Actually I tried to live on R-Pi2 exclusively for some weeks, so I know it quite well ;) There is no excuse in limited resources. There are tasks that is not suitable for given hardware.
AROS would perform great on R-PI.

Edited 2018-02-20 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Just need to ask....
by leech on Tue 20th Feb 2018 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Just need to ask...."
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

"Who is this for? Is there people out there asking "Why can't I run Windows 10 on ARM?"

This is for me. I need solid performing ARM laptop with modern 3D hardware.

At this stage the only real reason to use Windows is for legacy software, and ARM will have none of that.

Sorry, the year of linux desktop is not yet come.
I run ARM/Linux on desktop (as main system) and laptop, but it has a lot of problems.
"
I love how everyone says this, but never actually provide details. In my mind, Windows 10 has more issues than my Debian desktop with Gnome does, and I run 'unstable'.

I think the thing they don't understand is that the reason Linux is so popular on things like the Pi is because of it's open source nature and being able to tweak every little thing.

It is ok for console-only or bare-metal, but full-blown Linux GUI system runs like shit on PI. [/q]

Says who? Almost all the distributions I've seen for the Pi have GUIs. They're for tinkerers and even run emulation quite well (I've ran Playstation 1 games on my RetroPi.)

Yes, KDE and Gnome run like crap on them, but they also more or less require some nice 3D acceleration. Try XFCE and a few other lightweight ones, they work fine.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Just need to ask....
by FlyingJester on Wed 21st Feb 2018 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Just need to ask...."
FlyingJester Member since:
2016-05-11

It is ok for console-only or bare-metal, but full-blown Linux GUI system runs like shit on PI.


Maybe if you are using something like Raspbian, which is extremely poorly thought out for embedded systems, or if you are running Unity, Gnome, Plasma, etc, which can struggle to perform well on desktop machines.

I use fluxbox and icewm on my first-gen rPi just fine. I've also used LXDE without any issues.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just need to ask....
by avgalen on Tue 20th Feb 2018 06:59 UTC in reply to "Just need to ask...."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

the only real reason to use Windows is for legacy software, and ARM will have none of that.

The idea is that modern ARM processors are now powerfull enough to run legacy software in emulation mode without the user noticing at all. At the same time there should be huge battery improvements and always-on connectivity should be included. Pricing will not be the main reason to get this machine because the ARM CPU that is required isn't a cheap part.

This machine is not going to be a powerhouse either because you cannot run "amd64" software on it.
So you can run older, middle of the road x86 software on it (legacy) and you can run native ARM software (UWP/Store) on it, which means this machine will be aimed at "everyone that wouldn't otherwise buy an i5/i7/ryzen Machine.

I think the thing they don't understand is that the reason Linux is so popular on things like the Pi is because of it's open source nature and being able to tweak every little thing.

This is not going to be a cheap tinkering box. They have Windows IOT for that market, which is quite rightfully ignored by that market

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Just need to ask....
by leech on Tue 20th Feb 2018 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Just need to ask...."
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

"the only real reason to use Windows is for legacy software, and ARM will have none of that.

The idea is that modern ARM processors are now powerfull enough to run legacy software in emulation mode without the user noticing at all. At the same time there should be huge battery improvements and always-on connectivity should be included. Pricing will not be the main reason to get this machine because the ARM CPU that is required isn't a cheap part.

This machine is not going to be a powerhouse either because you cannot run "amd64" software on it.
So you can run older, middle of the road x86 software on it (legacy) and you can run native ARM software (UWP/Store) on it, which means this machine will be aimed at "everyone that wouldn't otherwise buy an i5/i7/ryzen Machine.

I think the thing they don't understand is that the reason Linux is so popular on things like the Pi is because of it's open source nature and being able to tweak every little thing.

This is not going to be a cheap tinkering box. They have Windows IOT for that market, which is quite rightfully ignored by that market
"

There's a fairly decent amount of amd64 stuff out there now, though no where near as much as there should be for Windows. So the question is then, if these are going to be beefier ARM processors, are they actually any cheaper than AMD/Intel? So I have to ask again, what market is there for these?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Just need to ask....
by avgalen on Wed 21st Feb 2018 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just need to ask...."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

There's a fairly decent amount of amd64 stuff out there now, though no where near as much as there should be for Windows. So the question is then, if these are going to be beefier ARM processors, are they actually any cheaper than AMD/Intel? So I have to ask again, what market is there for these?

You quoted everything, but then only focus on price again. How did you miss the "At the same time there should be huge battery improvements and always-on connectivity should be included."
The market that Microsoft is aiming for is "regular people" that need/want to run some Win32 programs (Office, Chrome) that they have always used while at the same time wanting a thinner/lighter/always-on/always-connected/long-battery life laptop. They will spend 400-600 Euro on that laptop just like they did on their previous one. They won't get a major speed-increase and they won't be able to run high-end games but they don't have to wait for their machines to boot, won't have to worry about bringing a charger to school/work, don't have to plugin ethernet cables or even use WiFi.
The above is the idea and it sounds like a good idea to me. Question remains if people will buy it or will just use their phone/tablet for consumption and old-fashioned laptops for "work/hobby"

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Just need to ask....
by Alfman on Wed 21st Feb 2018 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Just need to ask...."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

avgalen,

You quoted everything, but then only focus on price again. How did you miss the "At the same time there should be huge battery improvements and always-on connectivity should be included."
The market that Microsoft is aiming for is "regular people" that need/want to run some Win32 programs (Office, Chrome) that they have always used while at the same time wanting a thinner/lighter/always-on/always-connected/long-battery life laptop. They will spend 400-600 Euro on that laptop just like they did on their previous one. They won't get a major speed-increase and they won't be able to run high-end games but they don't have to wait for their machines to boot, won't have to worry about bringing a charger to school/work, don't have to plugin ethernet cables or even use WiFi.


Assuming it is the user's intention to run x86 apps, I would tend to agree with leech...it's a hard sell. The x86 on ARM performance has been benchmarked and it is so bad that my slowest dual core computer from 10 years ago matches the ARM's 8 core benchmark score and blows past the single core scores.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/14/window_on_arm_benchmarks/

https://www.slashgear.com/asus-windows-10-on-arm-device-benchmarks-a...


I'll concede it's not entirely microsoft's fault that x86 software market is so difficult to replace and it's not their fault that software emulation kills performance either. Regardless, the fact is that for x86 workloads this new offering is a major downgrade. I even have to question whether the battery performance will suffer too for workloads under x86 emulation.


Hypothetically if this were like apple jumping all in with a new architecture, then sure I get it, the CPU emulation layer would be a temporary stepping stone to better pastures, after which users would be running natively again. However microsoft is not commiting the way apple did, and so it seems unlikely that major software vendors will commit either. And to the extent that users want to keep using their existing software, windows on ARM is likely going to remain worse for reasons that have nothing at all to do with ARM's merit as an architecture.


I actually have wanted an ARM laptop for the longest time, but for linux rather than windows because with linux we can always run natively, which obviously makes a huge difference.

Edited 2018-02-21 15:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Just need to ask....
by avgalen on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just need to ask...."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Assuming it is the user's intention to run x86 apps, I would tend to agree with leech...it's a hard sell. The x86 on ARM performance has been benchmarked and it is so bad that my slowest dual core computer from 10 years ago matches the ARM's 8 core benchmark score and blows past the single core scores.

If it is a users intention to run only x86 programs that actually require CPU-power he should probably get an x86 CPU and matching OS. But those scores, although much lower than expected, are fine for running Office, Chrome and other such programs. Here is a real life demo where you can see a lot of programs and their actual speed seems just fine for normal users: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXUDKpkbx4 (just skip ahead a few minutes. I really like the demo-er btw. He was really fair about both the benefits and limitations)
This is the demo that ran on a Snapdragon 820 where PhotoShop was demo-ed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXMxZAzmX-U. I don't like that demo much though because it is too "marketingy"

Shall we wait another month until the actual silicon and OS is released to see benchmarks. (And lets not forget that the 835 is a big.little design so as far as I know that is just a quadcore)

I actually have wanted an ARM laptop for the longest time, but for linux rather than windows because with linux we can always run natively, which obviously makes a huge difference.

Yes, this is one of the biggest benefits that Open Source has. If a new architecture comes to the market you can "just recompile" and everything runs natively. That is also why the change from x86 to amd64 went by almost unnoticed on Linux while it took ages on Windows. For newer programs that are still maintained this isn't a problem though. Windows itself and most of its core programs will run natively on ARM and so will most of the Store-Apps. So if you are interested in seeing the performanceloss of the emulation benchmarked you could just run the ARM version of the benchmark compared to the x86 version.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Just need to ask....
by Alfman on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 04:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Just need to ask...."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

avgalen,

If it is a users intention to run only x86 programs that actually require CPU-power he should probably get an x86 CPU and matching OS. But those scores, although much lower than expected, are fine for running Office, Chrome and other such programs...


That 2008 computer I compared was already too slow for me even at those tasks that you mention. Just opening up some of the modern news sites today brings it down to it's knees. The thought of using emulation that performs even slower...ugh. Of course I agree it depends on what users are running and what their performance expectations are. My point was that ARM's potential will only be reached when running native, not when emulating x86.

Shall we wait another month until the actual silicon and OS is released to see benchmarks. (And lets not forget that the 835 is a big.little design so as far as I know that is just a quadcore)


Sure we can look at it again. I wouldn't predict a significant change at this point though, do you?

Yes, this is one of the biggest benefits that Open Source has. If a new architecture comes to the market you can "just recompile" and everything runs natively. That is also why the change from x86 to amd64 went by almost unnoticed on Linux while it took ages on Windows.


Agreed.

For newer programs that are still maintained this isn't a problem though. Windows itself and most of its core programs will run natively on ARM and so will most of the Store-Apps.


I'm not sure, a lot of the commercially supported software remains x86-32 today and it's been ~15 years since the AMD64 revolution. I question whether they'll show any more eagerness towards ARM. This of course highlights one of the large benefits of having intermediate bytecode that get recompiled at the target (java, davik, .net, etc).

So if you are interested in seeing the performanceloss of the emulation benchmarked you could just run the ARM version of the benchmark compared to the x86 version.


Indeed, we have debated how well this emulation would stack up, so it will prove interesting when more numbers come out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Just need to ask....
by avgalen on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Just need to ask...."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

That 2008 computer I compared was already too slow for me even at those tasks that you mention
How much of that would be CPU related though? These ARM cpu's will have modern memory (4/8 GB DDR4) of memory and will not be running on mechanical harddisks or ancient GPU's. Again, I would recommend watching that video and seeing the real life performance.

My point was that ARM's potential will only be reached when running native, not when emulating x86.
ARM's potential is being a smaller, always-on, always connected, power-efficient SOC that should be fast enough currently to run most legacy Win32 software in emulation and modern software natively. The only doubt that I have is if the emulation would influence the powerefficiency much. Geeks like us care about "reaching ARM's full potential", but the target market for this cares about "good enough".

I wouldn't predict a significant change at this point though, do you?

I would actually expect a lot of changes in performance even after the first release in 1803, supported features (ARM64) and supported hardware (Snapdragon 845, etc). Building emulation like this requires several years to become fully baked. If the performance changes would be significant for x86 emulation is another question. I think the performance is currently "good enough" so every improvement will just result in a "okay, nice, but I still cannot run all programs (AMD64)".

I'm not sure, a lot of the commercially supported software remains x86-32 today and it's been ~15 years since the AMD64 revolution

No, that is simply not true anymore. Most of the commercially supported software is still available in 32 bit because those systems are still in use and even sold. However most of that software is also available in 64 bit versions. The big exception is "Office plugins/extensions" which are based on 16 bit functionality (yes, really) that is available in the 32 bit versions of Office but not on the 64bit versions, hence the recommendation to "run Office in 32 bit unless you require 64bit and don't depend on old plugins/extensions".
Visual Studio is the other exception (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2009/06/10/visual-studio-why-...)
If I look at all the software we run in our company the only software that is only available in 32bit is some labelwriter program that could easily be replaced if we needed to.
It is precisely those kind of labelwriter programs that x86 emulation is meant for.

Performance is not the thing that I worry about for Windows on ARM. I worry about people that try to run AMD64 programs that won't work and will confuse those users because "that computer can run some programs but not others".

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Just need to ask....
by zima on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Just need to ask...."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not sure, a lot of the commercially supported software remains x86-32 today and it's been ~15 years since the AMD64 revolution. I question whether they'll show any more eagerness towards ARM.

Because in most cases there are hardly any benefits to moving to AMD64. Not so with move to ARM.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Just need to ask....
by zima on Thu 22nd Feb 2018 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Just need to ask...."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They have Windows IOT for that market, which is quite rightfully ignored by that market

Why would you say that? ;)

Reply Score: 2

The cycle repeats
by darknexus on Tue 20th Feb 2018 14:34 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

If anyone ever doubted that Microsoft, as a whole, do not learn from past mistakes, look no further than this latest attempt to put Windows on ARM. It's the Surface RT again. I think someone at Microsoft ought to get a dictionary and look up the definition of insanity.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The cycle repeats
by leech on Tue 20th Feb 2018 16:56 UTC in reply to "The cycle repeats"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

If anyone ever doubted that Microsoft, as a whole, do not learn from past mistakes, look no further than this latest attempt to put Windows on ARM. It's the Surface RT again. I think someone at Microsoft ought to get a dictionary and look up the definition of insanity.


At least someone is on the same page with me here!

Reply Score: 0

RE: The cycle repeats
by Drumhellar on Tue 20th Feb 2018 19:05 UTC in reply to "The cycle repeats"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It's the Surface RT again


How? How is this SurfaceRT again?

Surface RT: Runs only Metro apps, at a time when there are very few if any, and no side loading

Windows 10 ARM: Runs Win32 (x86), Win32 (ARM), and UWP apps when there are tons more available. Plus, sideloading to your heart's content, and full on Entperise manage

How is this anything like it?

Edited 2018-02-20 19:05 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: The cycle repeats
by avgalen on Wed 21st Feb 2018 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: The cycle repeats"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

They see Windows, they see ARM, they write their complaints and feel good?

In addition to all the good points about Application support I would like to add:
RT ran on a much less powerful ARM-CPU
RT ran on Windows 8 which was almost Vista-level rough while Windows 10 is much more refined.

This version of Windows on ARM is explicitely NOT revolutionizing anything and it isn't breaking any frontiers. It is specifically made to be "the best compromise between all factors of computing that matter to normal people" (yes, I made that up, feel free to quote me)

Reply Score: 4