
No Windows 8 ARM support for x86 apps - FrancescoRizzi
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/15/sinofsky_windows8_arm_support_x86_apps/
======
kaneraz
I'm a bit confused. People expected x86 emulation on ARM architectures? That
sounds a bit backwards to me.

~~~
cube13
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
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.

~~~
0x0x0x
edit: and didn't Office:Mac take forever too?

~~~
rhubarbquid
yeah, office 2008 was the first native x86 version, IIR (and I swear it takes
longer to start up then the PPC version of 2004 did under Rosetta, which is
just ridiculous).

------
wmf
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-
leg...](http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/16/windows-8-arm-tablets-legacy-apps-
microsoft-office/)

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Could you explain what you mean? Isn't "Desktop mode" Win32?

~~~
wmf
Yes. If Win32 is not available on ARM, maybe ARM systems won't have desktop
mode at all.

~~~
polshaw
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-
han...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-hands-on-
preview/) @video.

------
saturdaysaint
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
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
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
Fiscal years don't always match calendar years. Microsoft's Q4 ends on June
30th.

[http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn...](http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx)

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.

------
baddox
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.

------
pettazz
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"

------
ryanhuff
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.

------
albertzeyer
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.

~~~
MarkSweep
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.

------
nextparadigms
"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
> 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
> might _have_

> but _there_ will

FTFY. Sorry.

~~~
protomyth
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).

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

~~~
ConstantineXVI
Why would they? Only reason you would need emulation is for legacy apps, which
Win8 will have none of from ARM.

~~~
stonemetal
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.

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

------
schiptsov
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? ^_^

