Windows 10 now runs on ARM, MS demos Photoshop running on Snapdragon 820

[Ethann_AKA_CPU1]

still prefer linux over win 10

I mean theres been a arm port of arch linux for a few years now

 

[ProjectBox153]

17 hours ago, RGProductions said:

More of a joke about how useless the surface RT is than anything else.

The only thing the Surface RT is still really decent at is Microsoft Office 2013. That is if you use an external monitor.

[PocketNerd]

*tests gaming by looking at the lobby for World of Tanks*

Bro, do you even game? Everyone knows performance in game lobbies proves nothing.

[ionbasa]

This is actually pretty nifty. Its more of a stopgap for our generation of instruction sets and architecture. That being said, I don't see why developers cant natively compile a ARM/ARM64 binary for their apps or bring out newer UWP apps. Its still in its infancy yes, but it'll be the only way to achieve true cross-platform compatibility. Linux already has a good chunk of ARM binaries, time for Windows to catchup too.

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

This is actually pretty nifty. Its more of a stopgap for our generation of instruction sets and architecture. That being said, I don't see why developers cant natively compile a ARM/ARM64 binary for their apps or bring out newer UWP apps. Its still in its infancy yes, but it'll be the only way to achieve true cross-platform compatibility. Linux already has a good chunk of ARM binaries, time for Windows to catchup too.

I am pretty sure the Windows APIs have not been ported to ARM, so there is nothing the developers can do in that regard. As for why they can't use UWP, that's because UWP sucks ass.

[PocketNerd]

14 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

This is actually pretty nifty. Its more of a stopgap for our generation of instruction sets and architecture. That being said, I don't see why developers cant natively compile a ARM/ARM64 binary for their apps or bring out newer UWP apps. Its still in its infancy yes, but it'll be the only way to achieve true cross-platform compatibility. Linux already has a good chunk of ARM binaries, time for Windows to catchup too.

Primarily cause M$ hasn't cared until recently, so as you said, it's in it's infancy. The other (and I'd image the bigger) reason is purely cause of market share, Linux cares since it's embraced by the open-source community which will create it itself, M$ won't do anything unless it thinks it can get more money out of it. Same goes for the major software development companies.

Cause, seriously, why would you develop an application for a platform you weren't going to use yourself or a bunch of people won't use?

[SansVarnic]

I called this about 5 years ago and my brother told me I was nuts. Hmm who's laughing now? *chuckle, chuckle*

[porina]

Maybe I'm getting too old for this sh...tuff. What would be the advantage for Win10/ARM? Lower power consumption at lower performance? Lower cost? I'm not seeing a compelling use case here. If you want to do phone/tablet stuff, you can get phones/tablets. If you need x64, you get x64. What niche is there for low power x86?

[MarieKirya]

9 minutes ago, porina said:

Maybe I'm getting too old for this sh...tuff. What would be the advantage for Win10/ARM? Lower power consumption at lower performance? Lower cost? I'm not seeing a compelling use case here. If you want to do phone/tablet stuff, you can get phones/tablets. If you need x64, you get x64. What niche is there for low power x86?

Cheaper hardware isn't useless for Windows 10 anymore, basically. For example, the lack of x86 support for the Surface RT made it an absolute flop, but now (a device similar to it with a SD821) could be a usable machine for most casual users.

Edited December 8, 2016 by MarieKirya
Specify train of thought ?

[porina]

4 minutes ago, MarieKirya said:

Cheaper hardware isn't useless for Windows 10 anymore, basically. For example, the lack of x86 support for the Surface RT made it an absolute flop, but now (a device similar to it with a SD821) could be a usable machine for most casual users.

This ARM chip only supports x86, not x64. How many Win32 apps do you want to run that you can't get already as a native app or functional equivalent? Would a mainstream user have use for this? I'm really struggling here...

[MarieKirya]

Just now, porina said:

This ARM chip only supports x86, not x64. How many Win32 apps do you want to run that you can't get already as a native app or functional equivalent? Would a mainstream user have use for this? I'm really struggling here...

Not sure of the specifics of this implementation, but I believe the SD821 is an ARM64 processor. Which means it's capable of running 64bit instruction sets. Looks like you have to resort to getting 32bit versions of the applications from the way it's built now.

 

However there's not much stopping them from adding support for the 64bit instructions AFAIK. My two theories is: A) Win10 has no ARM64 build yet, or B) There are incompatibilites between ARM64 and x86_64.

 

[porina]

1 minute ago, MarieKirya said:

However there's not much stopping them from adding support for the 64bit instructions AFAIK. My two theories is: A) Win10 has no ARM64 build yet, or B) There are incompatibilites between ARM64 and x86_64.

I saw a 3rd theory elsewhere: that there is some IP limitation preventing it.

[SansVarnic]

8 minutes ago, porina said:

This ARM chip only supports x86, not x64. How many Win32 apps do you want to run that you can't get already as a native app or functional equivalent? Would a mainstream user have use for this? I'm really struggling here...

 

2 minutes ago, MarieKirya said:

Not sure of the specifics of this implementation, but I believe the SD821 is an ARM64 processor. Which means it's capable of running 64bit instruction sets. Looks like you have to resort to getting 32bit versions of the applications from the way it's built now.

<snip>

However there's not much stopping them from adding support for the 64bit instructions AFAIK. My two theories is: A) Win10 has no ARM64 build yet, or B) There are incompatibilites between ARM64 and x86_64.

 

Don't quote me but I believe because of the current version (beta) it is an emulation form of the full desktop. It is my understanding that this may or may not be coded to run without the emulation in the future but I could be completely wrong here... 

 

[MarieKirya]

5 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

 

Don't quote me but I believe because of the current version (beta) it is an emulation form of the full desktop. It is my understanding that this may or may not be coded to run without the emulation in the future but I could be completely wrong here... 

 

TL;DR, Microsoft recompiled Windows on ARM32 using the Win32 APIs. But closed off those APIs to developers making it a pain to develop for. Now they're opening up those APIs and allowing the machine to emulate x86 on the fly. That is according to this article: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/microsoft-pushes-for-a-more-modern-pc-with-vr-project-evo-and-arm-support/

 

Full Quote:

Quote

The truth is that Windows for ARM has never really gone away. The first Windows on ARM iteration was dubbed Windows RT, and it launched on the first Surface tablet. Although this system provided almost every part of Windows, just recompiled for 32-bit ARM processors, Microsoft locked it down using a certificate-based security scheme. Built-in desktop apps, such as Explorer and Calculator ran fine, as did the pre-installed version of Office, but third-party desktop apps built using the Win32 API were prohibited. The only third-party apps that were permitted were those built using the new WinRT API and distributed through the Windows Store.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by MarieKirya
Remove silly Ars formatting on quote. ?

[SansVarnic]

59 minutes ago, MarieKirya said:

TL;DR, Microsoft recompiled Windows on ARM32 using the Win32 APIs. But closed off those APIs to developers making it a pain to develop for. Now they're opening up those APIs and allowing the machine to emulate x86 on the fly. That is according to this article: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/microsoft-pushes-for-a-more-modern-pc-with-vr-project-evo-and-arm-support/

 

Full Quote:

 

That is what I thought.

Thanks  

[Sauron]

It's about time, but don't expect good performance from the emulator, ESPECIALLY in highly complex programs.

[LAwLz]

19 hours ago, porina said:

Maybe I'm getting too old for this sh...tuff. What would be the advantage for Win10/ARM? Lower power consumption at lower performance? Lower cost? I'm not seeing a compelling use case here. If you want to do phone/tablet stuff, you can get phones/tablets. If you need x64, you get x64. What niche is there for low power x86?

It will probably be used for those really cheap laptops. If you can reduce the BOM cost by 50 dollars on a 300 dollar device, then your profits skyrocket.

For someone like my grandma, the performance and functionality of this would probably be just fine. It makes sense for someone who just want a really cheap laptop.

 

 

19 hours ago, porina said:

This ARM chip only supports x86, not x64. How many Win32 apps do you want to run that you can't get already as a native app or functional equivalent? Would a mainstream user have use for this? I'm really struggling here...

A ton. Here are a few:

Photoshop

HexChat

NotePad++

A ton of games.

SyncPlay

Wireshark

Greenshot

Audacity

Inkscape

MKVToolNix

YouTube-dlg

Cheat Engine

Rufus

 

Just to mention a few (that I could see while scrolling though my list of installed programs).

Oh and please bear in mind that for Windows phones and tablets the app selection is about as barren as lake Karachay.

 

 

19 hours ago, MarieKirya said:

Not sure of the specifics of this implementation, but I believe the SD821 is an ARM64 processor. Which means it's capable of running 64bit instruction sets. Looks like you have to resort to getting 32bit versions of the applications from the way it's built now.

 

However there's not much stopping them from adding support for the 64bit instructions AFAIK. My two theories is: A) Win10 has no ARM64 build yet, or B) There are incompatibilites between ARM64 and x86_64.

We don't know how the emulator works, but chances are that x86 is easier to translate into ARM instruction than x86_64. It's not like they can just take the 32bit code and go "now let's put it on a 64bit ARM processor and the 64bit instructions will map 1:1 to the x86_64 instructions".

[MarieKirya]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

We don't know how the emulator works, but chances are that x86 is easier to translate into ARM instruction than x86_64. It's not like they can just take the 32bit code and go "now let's put it on a 64bit ARM processor and the 64bit instructions will map 1:1 to the x86_64 instructions".

Yea, no way I'm suggesting that emulators only need to do a find and replace on instructions and it magically works. That simply isn't possibly with a RISC architecture like ARM and the CISC architecture of x86(_64). But I wouldn't be surprised if ARM64's 64bit operations allowed for more efficient emulation of traditional (32-bit) desktop processors to the point it became a viable option for Microsoft to pursue.

[porina]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It will probably be used for those really cheap laptops. If you can reduce the BOM cost by 50 dollars on a 300 dollar device, then your profits skyrocket.

For someone like my grandma, the performance and functionality of this would probably be just fine. It makes sense for someone who just want a really cheap laptop.

There are already Windows native x86 laptops on offer new currently around US$175 inc. tax in the UK and not resorting to a chromebook. They're Atom based so no speed king, but it can't be worse than the ARM x86 will be. So, it might only make sense even lower down in price... that weird zone where it is not quite fully a tablet or laptop.

[MarieKirya]

1 minute ago, porina said:

There are already Windows native x86 laptops on offer new currently around US$175 inc. tax in the UK and not resorting to a chromebook. They're Atom based so no speed king, but it can't be worse than the ARM x86 will be. So, it might only make sense even lower down in price... that weird zone where it is not quite fully a tablet or laptop.

Atom will still be more expensive than a ARM SoC. The space savings will allow for more space in the device to be used for battery life and budget could be used for improving things like screens from hideous TN 1366x768 panels in machines like those.

[ProjectBox153]

This idea reminds me of the cheap Chromebooks out there. They are too slow for me though.

[RagnarokDel]

On 07/12/2016 at 10:51 PM, CtrlAltELITE said:

I hope so. The intel monopoly on x86 architecture needs to finally die.

Buy AMD next time you get a PC.

[CtrlAltELITE]

Just now, RagnarokDel said:

Buy AMD next time you get a PC.

Lol

[vanished]

29 minutes ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

Lol

and this is why there's a monopoly  

[CtrlAltELITE]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

and this is why there's a monopoly  

Indeed, also the fact that Intel has an iron grip on the x86 standard. AMD is the only one allowed to make use of it with a load of clauses (including losing the ability to make use of it if they go bust).

 

If intel would be forced to open the licence to x86 up then we could see the likes of ARM coming to the table with something powerful. But for obvious reasons Intel will never let that happen. Unless AMD can bring anything meaningful in the future we are going to see a serious stifling of innovation in the high end CPU market.