
ARM-Based Windows 10 Portable PCs? Hell Yes - e271828
https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/86298/arm-based-windows-10-portable-pcs-hell-yes
======
skrebbel
Download my great free Windows program now! Please choose:

    
    
        EXE installer     32-bit x86   64-bit x64   32-bit ARM   64-bit ARM
        MSI installer     32-bit x86   64-bit x64   32-bit ARM   64-bit ARM
        Portable Zip      32-bit x86   64-bit x64   32-bit ARM   64-bit ARM
    
    

(Download my great free macOS program now!

    
    
         Click here

)

This is already a usability problem, and adding 2 more target chipsets makes
it worse.

Given both bandwidth and smart programmers, couldn't Microsoft make an
installer creator that works on all the above architectures and installs the
right version of the program? No problem shipping 4x too much code right -
most installers that are big at all, are big because of assets, not code size.

I guess politics vs the Windows Store team would prevent this from happening
within Microsoft, but given how awful the Windows Store is and how it still
can't be used to download and install boring oldschool desktop applications,
this is a usability nightmare waiting to happen - despite the obvious benefits
of not being locked into a single chipset architecture anymore.

~~~
dragonbonheur
It's not really different from choosing among 32 bit or 64 bit programs, or
even, for Linux software choosing the package that's best for your
distribution. It's not really a pain point. People can read. People who use
Windows and Linux know how computers work. People are smart. People should not
be babysat by their operating systems. It's gonna be OK. Don't worry.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Well, one guy I work with, I've had to install DraftSight for him on three
computers now.

In my head I think "Google _download draftsight_ , click click, how hard is
that?", then I remember some of the guys I work with csn hardly read but at
least this guy can draw rectangles in DraftSight.

I put Linux on my SOs laptop, she llove it, but I still have to remind her to
install updates occasionally.

The right balance for notifications, nagware, user interaction, download and
installing things, is hard.

------
filereaper
Here is the announcement from Microsoft:
[https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/12/07/devic...](https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/12/07/device-
innovation-opportunities-mixed-reality-gaming-cellular-pcs/)

------
dbcooper
Qualcomm also announced a 48-core ARM server SoC today, which is based on
"Falcor" cores, and is to be manufactured on a 10nm node.

[http://semiaccurate.com/2016/12/07/qualcomm-
announces-10nm-c...](http://semiaccurate.com/2016/12/07/qualcomm-
announces-10nm-centriq-2400-arm-server-soc/)

------
pwnna
Interesting development. Could this be a good thing that encourages OEM to
standardize on something like the IBM-like PC that we have for x86 systems so
we don't have to deal with each individual boards in Android or the
traditional GNU/Linuxes?

Furthermore, if the x86 emulation turns out to be as fast as they promised and
demo'ed, will this kind of technology be developed for desktop linux? Is it
even necessary as most apps tend to be open source and can recompile already?

~~~
mirasmithy
+1 A major issue with ARM boards is you can't expect [name-your-arm-os] to run
on all ARM boards. Each implements it's own boot sequence and drivers aren't
the best. Something like this might push for a unified spec.

~~~
mrpippy
UEFI is the boot environment for Windows on ARM

------
Jedd
> ... as such, it will be late 2017 or sometime next year ...

Well, that could be clearer.

> Perhaps Surface phone isn’t a phone in the traditional sense. Perhaps it is,
> instead, just a new kind of PC with a small—for PCs; I’m hearing
> 6-inches—screen.

This sounds a lot like what others have been doing / try to do for a while now
with Android devices (albeit not hugely successfully ... yet). So it's not
surprisingly that Microsoft is considering jumping on that bandwagon.

------
RandomOpinion
Interesting. I must say that I'm surprised that MS didn't give up on Continuum
after Intel hosed them by cancelling their Broxton smartphone x86 chip. MS
might just be throwing good money after bad.

The two keys will be performance and compatibility for the x86 emulation. If
they can get it to the point where it's effectively as fast as Intel's low
power Atoms while still keeping broad Win32 app compatibility, then
Microsoft's Continuum concept is back on track to become a game changer.

~~~
scholia
_> I must say that I'm surprised that MS didn't give up on Continuum after
Intel hosed them by cancelling their Broxton smartphone x86 chip. MS might
just be throwing good money after bad._

Intel didn't hose Microsoft, it hosed Intel.

Microsoft was already developing for ARM so nothing changed for Microsoft.
Intel stopped developing for smartphones and tablets so something changed for
Intel.

Windows 10 is free on small screen devices so Microsoft didn't even lose any
revenue....

~~~
RandomOpinion
> _Intel didn 't hose Microsoft, it hosed Intel._

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Surely you'd agree that implementing
Continuum running x86 apps on Microsoft's rumored Surface Phone would have
been far easier if Intel hadn't cancelled Broxton and MS had been directly
able to use it as the target processor?

~~~
scholia
Not at all. The apps were being developed for Windows Runtime. You shouldn't
confuse that with the old Win32 API used by traditional Windows software.

The only advantage of having an Intel processor would be for the old-style
traditional apps, and if you allow those, you have all sorts of problems.
They're not sandboxed like runtime apps, and you can't stop them from eating
your battery. It's actually better to run them in an emulator.

~~~
RandomOpinion
>" _The only advantage of having an Intel processor would be for the old-style
traditional apps, and if you allow those, you have all sorts of problems._ "

That's precisely what MS is allowing. From Thurott's article:

" _Even better, Windows 10 on ARM will supply a long-rumored feature: The
ability to run 32-bit Win32 /x86 desktop applications—Apple iTunes, Adobe
Photoshop, Google Chrome, whatever—directly on the system, unchanged_."

I suspect that MS probably would have very much preferred not to have to use
emulation, which is always a tricky business, for Continuum on the Surface
Phone. Curbing resource intensive apps is a vastly less complex engineering
problem.

~~~
scholia
You appear to have overlooked the fact that OEMs can _already_ make Intel-
based smartphones and tablets, using Windows 10 for free. One smartphone
example is the Asus ZenPhone, and there are plenty of tablets.

How many have you bought? How many has anyone bought?

 _> The ability to run 32-bit Win32/x86 desktop applications—Apple iTunes,
Adobe Photoshop, Google Chrome, whatever—directly on the system, unchanged."_

True, but they're in an emulator. Pretty sure they don't have access to the
whole system, which they would on a standard Windows 10 device.

~~~
scholia
Extra info: there may be some confusion here because the above announcement is
about tablets/2-in-1s/laptops NOT smartphones. The headline is (with my
emphasis):

"ARM-Based Windows 10 _Portable PCs!?_ Hell Yes!"

So if you recompile Win32 programs to run on this version of Windows 10 on
ARM, they will be able to do all the (good and) bad things they can do on the
x86 version....

------
cm2187
I tried a surface pro as a replacement for an ipad, but I found it to be
extremely frustrating. Beyond the bugs and blue screens, I found the battery
life to be way shorter, and the surface to take a long time to wake up, not an
instantaneous experience like an ipad, where you can forget it in a bag for
10h and use it straight away. More like a laptop.

Would an ARM based windows device achieve an ipad style battery life and
instantaneous experience? Or is it more linked to the architecture of the
system?

~~~
dcw303
which version of Surface Pro? 2 / 3 / 4 ?

~~~
cm2187
4

~~~
dcw303
Thanks. I'm thinking of replacing my MBP for a Surface Pro 4.

I'd heard the battery life wasn't great but didn't know about it taking a long
time to wake up.

~~~
subspaceman
This is exactly what I just did and it's been great so far. The battery life
isn't spectacular for todays standards, but it lasts longer than my 2012 rMBP
15" does now. Quick, light (way lighter than the MBP) and has been fun to draw
on. Getting use to windows again takes a bit of time, but with the new Bash
integration, my workflow is just about the same.

------
spikengineer
Photoshop x86 running on Windows 10 ARM [https://www.neowin.net/news/watch-
microsoft-shows-off-photos...](https://www.neowin.net/news/watch-microsoft-
shows-off-photoshop-running-on-a-windows-10-device-with-a-snapdragon-820)

------
Eridrus
Even assuming they can hit performance targets with this, which sounds hard
but not impossible, what's the major use case?

Continuum? Windows laptops with better battery life?

Most win32 software is going to suck on a touch screen, so I'm not really
seeing this help them in mobile.

~~~
ZenoArrow
>"Windows laptops with better battery life?"

Not going to happen. There's a performance hit that almost certainly comes
along with emulation. Battery life is likely to get worse with x86 Windows
emulation on ARM.

Also, by the time Intel stopped pushing x86 in mobile devices they were
producing chips that were competitive with ARM chips when it came to power
draw.

~~~
xorxornop
Maybe, though their partnering with Qualcomm is suggestive: perhaps they're
doing hardware-accelerated binary translation? That _might_ be fast and power
efficient, who knows...

In any case, many users may just be wanting to run older enterprise apps, and
so even then, with the translation penalty, they'll probably be quite snappy.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "That _might_ be fast and power efficient"

My argument is that it's not going to be as power efficient as using x86
natively. There's no getting around that.

------
kalleboo
People have been speculating for the past year if Apple could switch their
Macs to ARM, and keep compatibility with a emulation layer like they did
during the PowerPC->Intel transition. I guess Microsoft beat them to the
point... Will be interesting to see how well it performs in real life.

~~~
eikenberry
I think Linux beat them both to the point... many years ago.

~~~
millstone
No way. Linux has never had any sort of cross-architecture binary
compatibility story. Certainly nothing that worked as well as Apple's Mixed
Mode Manager or Rosetta.

~~~
Jedd
> Linux has never had any sort of cross-architecture binary compatibility
> story.

You mean like qemu?

> Certainly nothing that worked as well as Apple's Mixed Mode Manager or
> Rosetta.

I think the parent was alluding to the fact that with GNU/Linux and/or free
software in general there isn't the same kinds of requirement to get binary
lumps of code running on alien architecture.

~~~
millstone
> You mean like qemu?

No.

> there isn't the same kinds of requirement to get binary lumps of code
> running on alien architecture.

Are you implying that this has something to do with the software being free?

In 2006, I used Time Machine to back up my G5, and then restore it onto my new
Intel Core Duo (both iMacs!). The migrated apps just worked, regardless of
whether they were free software or binary blobs.

This has nothing to do with software freedom. It's about having a good user
experience: when your users migrate from an old machine to a new one, it just
works, period.

Linux doesn't have this requirement because it prioritizes developers over end
users. I'm not bashing Linux here, I use it often and appreciate it for what
it is. But an honest assessment tells us it has never come close to Apple-
level smoothness in architectural transitions.

~~~
Jedd
You sure you don't mean like qemu - that lets you run different architecture
binaries.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the use of the word 'story' in your first post.

> Are you implying that this has something to do with the software being free?

No, but I am asserting that I typically don't need to run non-native code on
my computers because I can obtain or generate native code for any given
architecture [1] I happen to be using.

I expect that where people are beholden to others, say if they are using non-
free software, to create binaries that they can use on specific pieces of
hardware, then yes in that case it will have 'something to do with software
being free'.

> In 2006, I used Time Machine to back up my G5, and then restore it onto my
> new Intel Core Duo (both iMacs!). The migrated apps just worked, regardless
> of whether they were free software or binary blobs.

I'm not sure I appreciate the usefulness of this feature as much as you do --
you were obliged to run that software, in both instances, on hardware
available exclusively a single vendor. In that scenario I would have expected
to be able to run native code on both platforms.

[1] [https://www.debian.org/ports/](https://www.debian.org/ports/)

------
EvanAnderson
Presumably these will all have Secure Boot enabled with no option for the user
to disable it. >sigh<

------
btmiller
If this works out, this is the final piece of the puzzle for Apple moving to
ARM chips in their Macs. Windows emulation is too big of a feature to leave
out. Then again, who knows with Apple of late. Either way, very interesting
news!

------
douche
The last time we had ARM Windows machines, we got the Surface RT. I still have
one of these that I occasionally bring to meetings to fool around and maybe
put a ticket in with. It is not a great piece of equipment...

~~~
mark-r
It generally takes Microsoft 3 tries to get something right. Unfortunately
their next ARM device will only be #2.

~~~
quink
I'd say Windows CE on ARM devices was attempt #1.

Lumia and Surface 1 and 2 were #2.

~~~
WorldMaker
1\. Windows CE on ARM

2\. Xbox 360

3\. Windows Phone 7 (on leftover chunks of Windows CE) on ARM

4\. Windows Phone 8/Windows RT

5\. Windows 10 on ARM

So, by my count, this might be iteration 6? (Though maybe more like 5 Part 2.)

~~~
mark-r
I'm thinking specifically of the Windows desktop experience on ARM, so things
like phones and Xbox don't count. But I didn't realize the Surface went
through 2 iterations of ARM, so maybe this counts as #3? Or maybe it doesn't
count at all since it was a watered-down version of Windows that couldn't run
most apps.

------
9erdelta
For me it is more like hell no. I am having a hard time getting over stuff
like, you know, waking up one day and Chrome is no longer my default browser.

~~~
xorxornop
How the hell does this happen. Seriously, I've ran Windows for like over 10
years now. It's happened a grand total of 3 times, ever, and 2 of those were
back in the Windows 9x days, and the last one was between W8 and 8.1 (a major
service pack).

Never since then. Oh, I'm even in the fast update pool. What do you people
_do_?

~~~
9erdelta
It happens after every Windows update. I'll log in, and have a message about
the update, then see that Edge is my browser and VLC is no longer my default
music player. Maybe it is because I have so many of the "features" of Windows
10 turned off? I dunno, but some people seem to not have the same experience.

------
loeg
> First, Qualcomm’s System on a Chip (Soc) designs have improved so
> dramatically in the past four years that their performance rivals that of
> mainstream Intel Core chipsets for PCs.

Hah!

> And even better, Microsoft has developed an emulation technology that allows
> Win32 applications to launch and run unmodified on ARM-based PCs. And to do
> so with what I am assured is excellent performance.

I don't believe it.

~~~
taspeotis
> I don't believe it.

My understanding is Microsoft actually has some pretty cool and fast tech for
this already: the Xbox 360 emulation on Xbox One.

~~~
loeg
No matter how good it gets, binary recompilation will always be slower than
native code. And when the host CPU is already a very slow model like Qualcomm
ARM, those effects stack.

------
starik36
I am skeptical that the emulation can achieve reasonable speeds. I would like
to see first that Qualcomm’s chips are even up to par with Intel's. Secondly,
can a heavy duty Win32 app like iTunes or TurboTax or Photoshop could run
reasonably fast via emulation, something that has historically been a problem.

I'll believe it when I see some benchmarks.

~~~
mtgx
They are, at least with the mainstream Macbook Air-type/older Mac Pro type
chips, not the latest and most expensive Core i7's, obviously. But they don't
need to reach that high, either. Even taking over the Celeron/Pentium market
from Intel would probably make Qualcomm bigger than AMD is in the PC chip
market.

[https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9x-goes-
he...](https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9x-goes-head-to-head-
against-intels-core-m-in-arm-x86-grudge-match)

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12939310/iphone-7-a10-fusi...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12939310/iphone-7-a10-fusion-
processor-apple-intel-future)

------
setq
Call me cynical but this feels like another platform to be abandoned when no
one buys them as per the old Windows ARM tablets. Those who bought them
abandoned quickly.

There will probably be a crazy restriction like App Store only.

Oh and the whole MSI 32/64/ARM pile of crap as well.

~~~
cm2187
Well, that would be repeating the Surface RT failure. I can only assume they
are not going to make the same mistake twice, so I doubt it will be locked
down like Windows RT was.

------
RachelF
We'll see. Full Windows x86 emulation will likely be slow.

It will be a harder sell the second time around, too as Windows RT burned a
lot of people, and fewer trust Microsoft than before.

~~~
mikhailt
It's native ARM version of Windows 10 and for UWP apps, as well as any x86
apps recompiled for ARM. The rest of the classic x86 32-bit apps will run via
the emulation, like Rosetta on macOS in the past when running PPC apps on
Intel.

That means unlike WinRT, almost all of your apps will be usable, no confusion
about it like what befell the WindowsRT.

------
cm2187
I'd assume the .net framework would run natively

~~~
protomyth
Doesn't seem like any reason that it wouldn't be native.

~~~
cm2187
Agree. But it is a big deal. If the CLR is ported to ARM then any c#/vb code
will run very efficiently on ARM without even needing to be recompiled or
making use of the x86 emulation. That's a big deal for a corporate
environment.

~~~
protomyth
I just have a tough time imagining that Microsoft wouldn't (or hasn't given
RT) the CLR to ARM. It would be news if it wasn't ported.

~~~
xorxornop
It has been, I'm running one such example on my Raspberry Pi 2 right now. It's
just a DynDNS updater. Written in UWP.

I have tried it in CLR and native (machine code via .NET Native) modes. Both
work great.

I'm pretty sure my Pi runs on an ARM chip, anyway

------
dragonbonheur
An interesting development, but it is a shame that this will require a new
chip from Qualcomm, while there have been full desktop Linux distributions for
several ARM chips and boards for quite a while now. Microsoft's software is
really full of bloat.

~~~
xorxornop
It probably doesn't require the chip... I'm thinking they are using some form
of hardware accelerated binary translation.

Re: Windows on ARM, I run Windows IoT on a Raspberry Pi. Shows they have a
good lot of it running, eg the full UWP UI system, kernel etc. Imagine it's
the translation part that's deleted things.

