Microsoft launched its new Surface Go device earlier this month with an Intel Pentium Gold processor inside. It’s been one of the main focus points for discussions around performance and mobility for this 10-inch Surface, and lots of people have wondered why Microsoft didn’t opt for Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors and Windows on ARM. Paul Thurrott reports that Microsoft wanted to use an ARM processor for the Surface Go, but that Intel intervened.
Intel reportedly “petitioned Microsoft heavily” to use its Pentium Gold processors instead of ARM ones. It’s not clear why Microsoft didn’t push ahead with its ARM plans for Surface Go, but in my own experience the latest Snapdragon chips simply don’t have the performance and compatibility to match Intel on laptops just yet. Microsoft has been working hard to improve this though, despite Intel’s threats it would sue competitors like Qualcomm if they attempt to emulate Intel’s x86 instruction set architecture.
The chip world is in serious disarray – not only is ARM making inroads into traditional x86 strongholds, RISC-V is putting the thumb screws on ARM as well.
What we really need is for an ARM vendor besides Apple to push the envelope. If you look at benchmarks for the A11 it has better geekbench results than several Intel ultrabook variants. We just need Qualcomm or Samsung to stop exclusively targeting phones and really try to make a real laptop or desktop chip.
Wasn’t AMD going to do ARM chips for servers ?
Yes, but they put that project on the back burner to finish ryzen.
Portfolio is there. Kind of freezer, would say..
that MSFT already TRIED Windows On Arm and found out what the rest of us already knew, that nobody gives a crap about Windows if it can’t run our X86 programs?
I have Linux (specifically Zorin OS) on my netbook, I have Android on my phone, the ONLY reason win 8.1 Pro is on my desktop is I have X86 programs that are Windows only that I require, if MSFT said “Here have this new kicking desktop, BTW none of your Windows X86 programs run now” I would be hitting Google finding a walkthrough on how to wipe Windows on that sucker faster than you can say Wiki.
I mean seriously what IS the point of Windows on ARM, can you explain it to me ARM fanboys? So we can use that God Awful Windows Store? I can tell ya businesses would not touch a Windows ARM based unit with a 50 foot pole which is who I’m seing buying Surface units left and right cuz guess what? They are buying them because everything from their inventory to billing to the “fill in the blank” software my local MD uses for her insurance claims are all Windows only which would make replacing their X86 Surface units with ARM about as appealing and useful as replacing them with a Llama.
So while I have ZERO doubt MSFT said “We might do it Intel, better start to begging now” so they could get a sweetheart deal I’m sure even MSFT knows that Windows On Arm is suicide, just look at the bath they took on those the last time they tried it, they are being sold for a buck on eBay right beside all the Winphones nobody wanted.
Shouldn’t you be asking neutral folk for an answer? A fan is quite likely to be biased towards whatever/whoever they support.
Same as having linux on ARM or existence TempleOS. If someone defends either of them they need mental help. Developers (not tinfoil hat flat earth freaks) don’t care about CPUs, OSes, frameworks, etc. – they just use what they feel like.
I don’t think Linux on ARM — or any alternative architecture — is the same at all. At least 95% of available software can just be recompiled by the distro maintainers so there’s really not a drastic difference in software availability.
The BIG difference with Linux is that almost all Linux software is easily portable by anybody since you have the source, with Windows? Yeah GL with that.
The problem MSFT has is they are simultaneously blessed and cursed by the network effect, blessed in that most users that require Windows program will put up with whatever crap MSFT churns out (look at the early adoption numbers for Windows 8, that thing was a train wreck and got more users in the first 6 months than Linux got in 20 years) but they are also cursed as their entire business requires tens of thousands of developers at private corps to hop on board and if they don’t? they are royally hosed.
Lets face the fact guys, nobody LIKES Windows, nobody went out and bought Windows because they like Windows Paint and think IE is great, they buy windows because they have programs that require Windows that they need to run and all those programs? Are X86. Just look at the numbers of WinPhone or WinRT, if it can’t run Windows X86? MSFT doesn’t have a leg to stand on and this is from someone who has had a Windows desktop since 3.11.
Actually…
I know quite a few people who prefer Windows over almost anything else for reasons not at all related to what software they can run (for most of them, 95% of what they use is almost entirely cross-platform). The most common argument I hear in favor of it from people like this is actually related to the filesystem semantics (can’t delete or rename things that are in use by other programs, VFS is case-insensitive, etc), though I have to admit I really don’t agree with them (the first point is part of why it’s so hard to get rid of malware on Windows, and the second one would be valid, if things weren’t also case-preserving).
Also, Windows Phone died for multiple reasons in addition to the app selection. The biggest one is that they were trying to get into a market that was already essentially saturated with a platform that (at least originally) brought essentially nothing new to the table.
But unlike years ago with the Surface RT, shouldn’t we be asking at what point is ARM fast enough to emulate x86 windows apps ala Rosetta was for Mac OSX PowerPC apps ?
Yes, x86 emulation on ARM Windows should be good already for the types of apps bassbeast mentioned, they don’t seem like compute-bound ones.
The Windows 10 codebase started life as Windows NT. Windows NT was cross-platform from the very first version. I think that Windows NT 3.1 ( the first version ) was available for x86, MIPS, PowerPC, and DEC Alpha. I cannot remember if it was the first version or not but by NT 3.51 or 4.0 they had seemless x86 emulation where you could launch an x86 application on ( for example ) Alpha and it would just work like any other native Windows application ( if a little slow ).
You are not going to run your high-performance apps this way but it would probably be fine for most Windows-only business apps ( like say an ERP system client ).
More and more of business is on the web though. Most of what I do at work is through a web browser. The applications that I use the most that are not browser based are from Microsoft ( like Outlook and Excel ). Microsoft could easily create native versions of those.
I think we are pretty much at the point that Windows on ARM would be quite viable for business.
IIRC there was no such emulation layer in PCC/Alpha NT4. All apps had to be compiled for that architecture. I guess that’s part of the reason none of those platforms are around today
NT4 for Alpha had FX!32 which recompiled Intel code into Alpha DLL code on the fly and stored it for subsequent running. Depending upon what you chose to run, it could be unbearably slow the first time.
Edited 2018-08-27 09:52 UTC
I’d imagine so. Alpha is so drastically different from x86 (even modern 64-bit x86) that it’s not even funny. The fact that they were even able to do recompilation so reliably is still rather impressive.
Yeah, for Win10, they fixed that with emulation: https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2017/P4171
However, given the performance deficit that existing ARM-based designs have to begin with, without even emulating…
I would say “our Desktop programs”, not necessarily x86 Desktop programs. Microsoft made a big mistake hiding the win32/win64 stack in Windows on ARM versions, effectively locking win32/win64 to a single ISA, and an ISA that is not doing great in the phone and tablet sector to boot. I mean, what would have been a simple recompile of existing win32/win64 code is now a complete rewrite for the developer (if you want to target Windows on ARM), and there is also the obligation to give Microsoft the 30% cut, which apparently they think they deserve for all new Windows apps and those pesky Desktop apps are “stealing” it from them.
Greed. That’s the word.
Apple is doing something similar with MacOS X, leaving to rot hoping they can one day replace it with iOS, as if Adobe is ever going to handle Apple 30% of their Photoshop income, and as if any serious creative professional would work on a computer without Photoshop.
Edited 2018-08-26 21:25 UTC
Well, graphic design isn’t the only creative professional out there, so yes, creative pros will work on computers without Photoshop all the time. Tying this back to the true discussion at hand though, you won’t run Photoshop on one of these hypothetical ARM-based Surface devices, so your “creative professionals” won’t buy them either.
You do realize that there are active plans at MS to have win32 emulation on ARM with Windows 10?
Also, it’s only legacy crap that’s x86 exclusive. Anything UWP (so, everything in the Windows store, as crappy as it is) will work on ARM, and most code that isn’t hanging on to the Win32 interface will trivially cross-compile for ARM. Most of the more widely used FOSS apps (VLC for example) already work and offer versions, and a lot of the bigger companies would likely not have to do much other than getting a build machine set up to handle it.
Realistically though, the primary target audience for this type of thing doesn’t care about medical office management software, or high-end CAD software (however, I’ve heard rumors that Autodesk may be adding ARM support for their main software packages), or the Adobe software suite (which is largely a business thing and nothing more). They care that they have a working web browser, cheap mobile games, and possibly an office suite. IOW, it’s not targeting businesses or developers, it’s targeting consumers who use their computer as little more than a terminal for the internet, who want cheap systems that just work.
You do realize that this “legacy cruft” is exactly what businesses are using and will buy systems for? The entire Windows app ecosystem is built on your “legacy cruft”, because there sure isn’t jack crap for productivity in the Microsoft Store that’s UWP at this point. I suppose you could be one of those who think Facebook and apps like it are the only thing anyone needs to be productive, but I get the feeling you’re smarter than that.
And you completely missed my statement that enterprise usage is not the target audience for this.
I never said this wasn’t crap for businesses (well, most of them, I do know of quite a few small businesses that handle 100% of their office needs with online stuff and use no legacy software, they’d do just fine with these). It absolutely is for most of them.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that they are targeting consumers, not businesses with this. A very large percentage of the consumer market who are not serious gamers could care less about whether their laptop will run stuff like AutoCAD or Photoshop as long as they can browse the internet, access social media, stream movies and music, get emails and possibly play some crappy mobile games. Put a bit differently, their target audience s largely similar to the original target audience for Chromebooks, namely, people who quite literally just use their computer as a terminal to access the internet.
Talking about ARM making inroads in x86 territory, VMware has now come public at its VMWorld2018 conference with its ‘ESXi on ARM’ hypervisor porting.
Obviously it’s only targeting newer 64-bit ARM chips but still, if considering to run an hypervisor is not a testimony of the computing power that current ARM chips can provide, I don’t know what is it.
That’ll be for AMD’s new ARM servers