One of the downsides of Windows on ARM is the lack of third-party browser – Edge is one of the few choices you have. Sure, you can run x86 browsers through emulation, but preferably, you’d have native options.
One potential solution is an Arm port of Chrome, as opposed to emulating the desktop (x86) version of the browser, but is Qualcomm working on this?
“We are,” Qualcomm senior director of product management Miguel Nunes told Android Authority on the sidelines of Arm TechCon. “We’re still working with the different OEMs and designs. I expect you’ll see it probably around (the) second half of next year. Every OEM will decide whatever their launch timeline is, but we’re actively working on it.”
I hope more people start building applications for Windows on ARM. I want ARM laptops (and possibly even desktops) to offer credible competition to Intel and AMD.
See here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1480548
Hey Thom… typo in the headline, just FYI.
To be honest, I don’t get this desire of running Windows on ARM. The Windows x86 software library is pretty large, and no matter how fast the Windows ARM software library expands there will always be some Windows x86 software not having an ARM version, even if it’s just old purchased versions of Photoshop and Office (which users don’t want to buy again for ARM).
Unless the performance-per-watt and performance-per-dollar of Intel CPUs is significantly worse than ARM (it’s not), I don’t see the reason for the lateral move from Intel to ARM. I don’t want to exchange slightly better performance (noticeable only in benchmarks and such) for not having all the apps of Windows x86 in my disposal.
It’s the same reason Android x86 went nowhere, despite some inceremental improvements of x86 CPUs vs ARM in AnTuTu benchmarks back then. It’s just wasn’t worth the loss of software library that comes with the move.
Edited 2018-10-23 14:18 UTC
You wouldn’t actually get better performance but worse performance and worse software compatibility, at least in the coming years. However, you would also get a more secure system with better “mobility” (better battery life, smaller form factor, 4G/5G modem, instant-on/off, etc). For some people that might be worth it, but as you can see the market isn’t really interested in this yet
Yeah, it seems like the thing that keeps Windows relevant for the vast majority of us is also the thing holding it back. Microsoft had a chance to turn this around, but failed with the half-assed attempt that was Windows 8. Now I’m not sure there’s any hope for them.
Existing Windows x86 tablets and hybrids have those, to the degree allowed by the OS (Windows), and I don’t see how ARM would change that. Do you really think Windows would run well on a low-power MediaTek CPU?
BTW 4G moderns didn’t fly in tablets and hybrids. Most Android tablets are sold without a 4G chip, but nothing could prevent Windows x86 devices from having them. There was an Android phone with x86.
Edited 2018-10-23 18:04 UTC
You would get a more secure system because ARM (without x86 emulation) wouldn’t include the decades of intertwined applications, add-ons and plugins that are common for X86. They also wouldn’t include macro’s in Office and other “win16” legacy. The stand-alone app model with sandboxing and virtualization is far more secure than the legacy x86/win32 systems that also provide us with so much power/usability/extensibilty
(I excluded x86 emulation because we are specificaly talking about the downside of not having x86 support)
ARM is less powerful, but more mobile by design. Intel/AMD are struggling to make their chips more mobile and AMD is struggling to make their chips more powerful. Of course the world is not black-and-white and you can find some “mobile x86” and some “powerful ARM” devices, but those are the exceptions that confirm the rule.
Yes, I believe that an ARM cpu can run a modern Windows just fine.
No, I don’t believe that the lowest of the lowest mediatek ARM CPU with 512 MB RAM and 8 GB crappy storage should be running Windows 10 Enterprise
I also don’t believe an i9 can be put in a 1 kg laptop with 20 hour battery life
And a 4G chip addition to an intel-machine is often a 150 dollar increase, while it is basically part of every ARM-SOC saving space and cost while providing speed and powersaving compared to the add-ons.
It’s a shame use of the “ultrabook” name died off. You can find Windows machines with advertised 12 hour battery life if you look for a “U” at the end if the Intel processor model number. For example, an Acer Swift 3 advertises up to 12 hour battery life, while testing sites have it at 10. Asus zenbook 13″ has about 9 hours. Chromebooks seem to advertise about 9 or 10 hours. The smaller form factors and long battery life models already exist with far better specs than the ARM Chromebooks, it’s just the general public isn’t as aware of them.
You already get those features with android and chromeos, and android/arm already has a much bigger library of native software.
The key word there is “I”. My Parents don’t have any legacy x86 software. Neither do my siblings. They just need ms office, browser and thats about it. So there are no downsides in arm, but right now obviously, there aren’t any upsides yet. Maybe some of the Arm dreams will come true, maybe not. Maybe if Apple sold off parisc…
To be honest, I don’t get this desire of running Windows on ARM.
Because there are people like me who want nice and solid ARM system to write ARM software. There are a thousands of x86 laptops to choose from and nobody forces you to use ARM. Why are you so concerned?
Nobody limits you to only one computer. I have a hundred of games in Steam and a dedicated desktop PC for this.
Edited 2018-10-23 20:49 UTC
I have only 2 uses for Windows, and one is becoming less and less important. One is to run the Adobe suite. Sometimes, my clients send me files I need to open with that bloated pile of crap. This is happening less and less often. The other reason it to play games, some of them older games, that run on x86 – mostly through Steam, but also Battle.net.
My only real concern is whether I can run Steam and other games on ARM – if not, it’s a false start, and I’ll stick with x86. AMD getting some of their mojo back has already helped there – the real problem for PCs now is the idiocy of crypto-mining driving up GPU prices.
I think the crypto bubble has burst, we can now use the transistors on something more fun and/or entertaining than making digital tulips and hot air. And the new NVIDIA GPUs (the raytracing ones) are designed to be no better in mining (GPU compute in general) than the previous generation. Thank you NVIDIA.
Edited 2018-10-23 19:34 UTC
Linux already has a solid 90% of its library of application software available natively on ARM64. The missing piece is in kernelspace and firmware. Open bootloaders, open source GPU drivers, and fwupd compatibility matter far more than some niche Win32 fart button getting recompiled for ARM64.
Pity that it lacks the 90% of desktop software that really matters to the world at large.
Linux applications on the Desktop is simply not going to happen in any significant way. New development is done either on apps or on the web and legacy development is hardly ever ported to Linux.
We live in a world where Linux is the defacto choice for “background services” but “foreground applications” are running on Windows or are replaced with platform independant runtimes and distribution models like appstores and websites/cloud-apps.
All of the above has more to do with platform-inertia, legacy and netwerk-effects than with any technical reason
But doesn’t have the 10% that is the value-added stuff like Steam. Plus whatever is available as armhf is awfully packaged (via repos) and isn’t always the latest version, instead of the user being able to download the latest version of Chrome or Kodi as a Deb like you can for x86. Whatever few Linux apps are packaged properly it’s only for x86.
Edited 2018-10-24 10:20 UTC
> awfully
> via repos
Pick one.
Apple will move to ARM, Linux, then Microsoft will follow. But Microsoft may drag their feet & miss the train entirely, just as they did with phones. Tablets, like this iPad Pro, are the notebook replacement. Yup, there;ll be x86 desktops still. Nope, Microsoft won^aEURTMt “Mobilize” quickly enough.
MS already moved to ARM…