For Microsoft, I have to think this is good money after bad until they have a healthy app store and can actually deprecate their old architecture in favor of a platform agnostic future. If they can't do that, it's really just good money after bad - though I'm sure Quallcomm is paying for a lot of this.

I'm sure there's other ideas out there, but the most efficient path forward is to purchase or capture Valve, use Steam and slowly move those applications to packages the way that Apple did, arriving at an ARM compatible solution. But Apple only has to do the transition once, everyone expects MS to support multiple chip archs, and that might not be workable at all long term.

Quote from: kek on November 17, 2022, 16:51:13Both Intel/AMD are not staying idle, and that "AI" talk that Qualcomm mentions is rarely used by desktop apps, or any apps at all. Even on Android, you dont see most app developers taking advantage of it.

We will see what happens once Qualcomm releases the Oryon processor. App developers may not be too interested in making native ARM apps, but I am very sure that PC manufacturers are incredibly interested in getting Windows on ARM to work. Because if Qualcomm is there as an alternative, it pushes AMD and Intel to do better. Also, ARM laptops can be fanless, which is currently a pipe dream for x86 models.

Quote from: The Werewolf on November 17, 2022, 18:26:08Uhm, both of you are out of touch with history.

The first Surface tablet, released 13 years ago, was Windows on ARM. It was an unmitigated failure.

I did mention Windows RT in the text.

Windows RT was the Windows 8 era attempt at a ARM-Windows. But it is substantially different from the modern "Windows on ARM" system, because 1. Microsoft deliberately left out emulation and only allowed store apps and 2. Windows RT was not fixed to one chip manufacturer, CPUs were made by Texas Instruments, Nvidia and Qualcomm. The modern Windows on ARM is defined by the exclusivity deal of Microsoft with Qualcomm.

Quote from: The Werewolf on November 17, 2022, 18:26:08Meanwhile, Intel and AMD are upping their games mainly because of competition between themselves - look, Apple doesn't sell or license their ARM to anyone, so it's a PR threat not an existential one - so there just isn't any inherent benefit that an ARM PC has over an Intel or AMD one that a typical end user cares about.

I don't think that is true.

If Apple has processors that are more efficient than Intel and AMD, it is embarrassing for them. While Apple may not directly compete with them for their OEM customers, it undermines the notion that only x86 can deliver the performance necessary to power PCs, thus weakening the grip of Intel and AMD on the market.

And as far as the inherent benefit goes: A fanless laptop is a pretty good benefit for many casual users, who really only use their PC for office and internet. And that is a huge group of people.

"This means that the Windows on ARM platform or as Qualcomm calls it, Windows on Snapdragon, is already five years old as well."

Uhm, both of you are out of touch with history.

The first Surface tablet, released 13 years ago, was Windows on ARM. It was an unmitigated failure.

Since then several other companies have tried it including Samsung and again, total flop. Even the Surface Pro X has been a relative failure.

In fact, Windows has had support ARM for almost 20 years along with MIPS and SH3, it's just that the only market interested it in was IoT.

As always, the problem is that tech fans are pushing their tech fetishes while the tech using public just does not care. What they care about is cost and compatibility. Most people do not buy a computer for the hardware or for the OS, but because they have a task to do and they know people they can ask for help when things go off the rails.

Apple can push this agenda because they have a tightly captive audience. Mac users aren't going to jump ship, even if the experience gets a little worse, because there is no alternative. But Windows and Linux can't do that. When offered an ARM alternative, it has to work as well as the x86 version and run all the same apps or the user will return the computer and buy one "that works".

That was the exact experience with the original Surface. The only app that worked on it was.. Office. People returned them as fast as they bought them.

Running x86 or worse x64 software in emulation is always going to be slower, and transpiling (which is what Apple does) will break things. With macOS, at least, there's a motivation to port to ARM (Apple's holding a gun to the dev's head), but Microsoft has no equivalent power and there's no equivalent pressure.

Meanwhile, Intel and AMD are upping their games mainly because of competition between themselves - look, Apple doesn't sell or license their ARM to anyone, so it's a PR threat not an existential one - so there just isn't any inherent benefit that an ARM PC has over an Intel or AMD one that a typical end user cares about.

BTW, I actually own a Samsung Galaxy Go ARM laptop and literally never use it. My main PC is my desktop system with is AMD Ryzen 7, an ASUS ROG Flow Z13 which is an i9 and a Surface Pro 8 which is i5. Why? Because the ARM laptop is just too wonky. I need reliable and consistent.

If Microsoft was actually interested on this, they would have launched ARM tablets with Windows a long time ago, along with keeping the Windows Phone project alive, even if it loses money.

As how they are right now, I doubt someone will jump onto this. The idea with Windows is having that legacy support for a lot of old software, and while emulation can cover much user cases, it's far from perfect.

Both Intel/AMD are not staying idle, and that "AI" talk that Qualcomm mentions is rarely used by desktop apps, or any apps at all. Even on Android, you dont see most app developers taking advantage of it.