Windows 10 for ARM - Details and Limitations Revealed

[GoodBytes]

16 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

So the OS is 64 bit but it can only run 32 bit apps? lol that's useful /s

No. You can run ARM64 programs just fine (this include UWP apps which are compiled for ARM64 and x86-64 at the same time). You can't run Win32 x86 64-bit apps though.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Therre's a reason you pretty much need a 64 bit OS these days, >4 GB of RAM or not.  More and more programs are just not even offering a 64 bit version.

Most programs that you use, including Steam, are in 32-bit. Games are more and more becoming 64-bit not because they need the processing power, but rather because they want to use more RAM. But those games are unlikely to run on such system to begin with, even if it was native ARM64 compiled game. GPU inside isn't powerful, and is limited.

[GoldenLag]

So it does everything the majority of the userbase does. ARM is gonna be my next uni-machine while my old laptop with a miere 3-4 hours max batterylife is going to turn into a hometheathre pc

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

No. You can run ARM64 programs just fine (this include UWP apps which are compiled for ARM64 and x86-64 at the same time). You can't run Win32 x86 64-bit apps though.

But again the whole point of Windows is win32 apps so that is an unfortunate limitation

7 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Most programs that you use, including Steam, are in 32-bit. Games are more and more becoming 64-bit not because they need the processing power, but rather because they want to use more RAM. But those games are unlikely to run on such system to begin with, even if it was native ARM64 compiled game. GPU inside isn't powerful, and is limited.

It's just that we've had 64 bit CPUs for over 12 years now, so any machine that literally can't run 64 bit code is simply too old to be useful, which indirectly makes 32 bit obsolete and unnecessary.  We could and should have moved on by now but for some reason we have not, and the last thing we need is more reasons to cling to it.  Devs know this and while many apps still offer a 32 bit version for some inexplicable reason, I'm sure they'd like to move on, and some have, and more will as time goes on, which is going to cause problems for this.  It just seems like an unfortunate limitation to throw on top of everything else that you'll have to deal with already with a device like this.

[Zodiark1593]

43 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

No. You can run ARM64 programs just fine (this include UWP apps which are compiled for ARM64 and x86-64 at the same time). You can't run Win32 x86 64-bit apps though.

 

 

Most programs that you use, including Steam, are in 32-bit. Games are more and more becoming 64-bit not because they need the processing power, but rather because they want to use more RAM. But those games are unlikely to run on such system to begin with, even if it was native ARM64 compiled game. GPU inside isn't powerful, and is limited.

The later Adreno GPUs are quite potent, and have features such as Compute and Geometry shaders, tesselation, and other such features. The hardware itself should be theoretically compliant with DX11 (and Vulkan for that matter), and performance should be sufficient for lighter titles with visuals more comparable to the Switch. E-sports titles would fit the gpu well enough.

 

However, drivers will be the likely bottleneck. Qualcomm isn't known for supporting their Android drivers to any reasonable degree, let alone even comparing to the sort of support AMD and Nvidia provides. I suspect this will prove to be a major limitation for gaming on this sort of platform, win32 emulation performance aside.

[ScratchCat]

2 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Considering x86 Android machines exist, and there are already plenty of apps compatible with this arrangement, emulation wouldn't even be necessary if Windows could run the .apks natively.

That would require a Wine like system call translation layer, something Microsoft probably would not do:

• This would require a noticeable amount of effort to figure out how to translate each call, especially those for closed source components.
• Google could alter the APIs at any point as any Windows on ARM devices would be stealing from the Chrome OS crowd or break compatibility at with an update.
• As with Wine, not everything would work therefore leading to an even worse user experience than what Windows 10 can provide per default.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

So the OS is 64 bit but it can only run 32 bit apps? lol that's useful /s

Therre's a reason you pretty much need a 64 bit OS these days, >4 GB of RAM or not.  More and more programs are just not even offering a 64 bit version.

As far as I can tell the 64 bit version would allow the OS to provide more than 4GB of RAM to programs in total, even if these programs do not support using more than 4GB themselves, i.e. having a web browser , text editor and a few other programs open.

 

 

Linux seems to be the better choice for this sort of device, given the limitations of the WoW emulation/translation.

 

Pro Linux:

• Can compile almost anything from source if available directly for ARM, using a probably more efficient compiler (updated more frequently for the new SD 835 chip) compared to translation. We have seen from benchmarks that the translation layer costs noticeable amounts of performance. This results in a cooler device and a longer battery life.
• No Windows (opinion) (Most of these count towards performance, better user experience)
  • No Windows update restarting your computer at a random time, using your CPU on 1 core due to a bug only fixable by an update you cannot install due to the bug.
  • No spyware, Ads in the start menu, forcing the use of Cortana, Edge ads etc.
  • No general Windows 10 issues : Broken start menu and Cortana, failure to install updates for no apparent reason, installation of broken drivers, bygs beyond counting.

Pro Windows:

• Programs which are not supported by Wine will mostly work. However the performance deficit may make these programs useless
• Better touch support. Windows 10 has much better touch support with UWP apps compared to using the desktop orientated Gnome/KDE etc.

 

 

 

Performance: Windows on ARM seems to perform terribly, the early Geekbench result shows a single threaded result of 818 which is on par with an Atom Z3735f, found on $100 tablets in 2015.

 

In conclusion: I doubt this will take noticeable shares of the consumer market until things improve.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

But again the whole point of Windows is win32 apps so that is an unfortunate limitation

ok I am getting confused. It does support Win32 apps. Steam, Photoshop, Chrome 32-bit, Firefox 32-bit, full Office suits with Visio, Visual Studio, CCleaner, FileZilla, Paint.net, VLC desktop app (if you don't want the UWP one), and lots more, can run on the system.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's just that we've had 64 bit CPUs for over 12 years now, so any machine that literally can't run 64 bit code is simply too old to be useful, which indirectly makes 32 bit obsolete and unnecessary. 

Well it can run 64-bit code, it just needs to be compiled for ARM64. So potentially, Firefox or a dev branch of it, same for Chrome/Chromium, can be native ARM64 compiled, which also be much better as you skip the emulation layer, and can re-optimize code for the ARM based CPU to take full performance advantage.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

We could and should have moved on by now but for some reason we have not, and the last thing we need is more reasons to cling to it. 

You want 64-bit just to have 64-bit because its new. Most program one uses doesn't need 64-bit. For software that actually truly uses the 64-bit advantages will be terrible due to the lack of performance of the system.

 

If such device type actually becomes a success, I expect many software to hit the ARM64 compile button. And as it has a nice market share I suspect they'll put effort to it. It's not going to be a day 1 thing. Sadly, Microsoft doesn't have Apple dev advantages, where devs of Apple systems have no problem jumping into new things because it is new, and not think business way. In other words they don't go... "Oh let's see the market share of the touch bar before we spend a month or so implementing and testing support for it. A business case will need to be done, of course to see if the investment cost will bring some additional revenue to ensure that we are competitive". They go: "Watching Apple press event: Touch bar?! Devices coming out later in the year! Quick! let's get started into thinking how to implement it so get support as soon as possible!!!". Hence why Apple has little to no problem when switching from IBM PowerPC to Intel CPU, killing 100% support (which also helped by its users who tend to love change, love new things, and have no problem re-buying their software again in getting the new version. There is no moaning and complaining.. mostly, it is just a tech toy that is also a system for productivity for them. Anyway, all to say, it will take time, sadly.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Devs know this and while many apps still offer a 32 bit version for some inexplicable reason, I'm sure they'd like to move on, and some have, and more will as time goes on, which is going to cause problems for this.  It just seems like an unfortunate limitation to throw on top of everything else that you'll have to deal with already with a device like this.

They like to move on to have only 1 software version to support. But they probably have telemetry data or market data that indicated that many of its users are running Windows 32-bit. Heck, I see on this forum people pop-ing up with 32-bit version of Windows.

 

[porina]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Intel CPUs are too expensive, x86 CPUs consumes too much power, and requires a "large" heatsink.

ARM based CPU are cheaper, far cheaper, your device will have a solid all day battery life, if not more.

It also opens doors to Windows powered tablets and low cost laptops.

How much power will these ARM CPUs take, compared to latest gen Atom class Intel CPUs which they will be going up against? Similarly, what is their relative performance?

 

Looking up the latest "Atom" class mobile CPUs they seem rated at 6.5W TDP, but I guess it is more the idle power that is interesting. The tray price starting at $107 might be harder to swallow for ultra-low cost devices. The datasheet on the Snapdragon is not entirely clear, how much "connectivity" is included? That could be quite a saving for a mobile device, where the Intel equivalent would require more external support.

 

I think it'll be interesting once these are in the wild and the usual suspects start benching it.

 

[GoodBytes]

15 minutes ago, porina said:

How much power will these ARM CPUs take, compared to latest gen Atom class Intel CPUs which they will be going up against? Similarly, what is their relative performance?

 

Looking up the latest "Atom" class mobile CPUs they seem rated at 6.5W TDP, but I guess it is more the idle power that is interesting. The tray price starting at $107 might be harder to swallow for ultra-low cost devices. The datasheet on the Snapdragon is not entirely clear, how much "connectivity" is included? That could be quite a saving for a mobile device, where the Intel equivalent would require more external support.

 

I think it'll be interesting once these are in the wild and the usual suspects start benching it.

 

Personally I am more concern with Broadcom trying to buy Qualcomm. Broadcom has so far the reputation of buying companies, integrate with them, and then development of products goes to snail paste, trying to milk each product with minor revision improvements.If this happens to Qualcomm, Microsoft and Google would be most worried. Samsung mostly keeps its CPUs for its own phones, like Apple, and Nvidia strength isn't CPU's. It will also take a long time for them to adapt. In other words, it will be very bad news for huge number of consumers.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Hence why Apple has little to no problem when switching from IBM PowerPC to Intel CPU, killing 100% support (which also helped by its users who tend to love change, love new things, and have no problem re-buying their software again in getting the new version. There is no moaning and complaining..

You might want to research that a bit more. They most certainly did not "kill 100% support".

Apple implemented a dynamic binary translator called Rosetta in OS X when they moved from Power to x86.

 

There was also a long transitioning period where developers would package two separate version (one Power and one x86) inside the same installer. Users basically never had to worry about "will this program work on my computer" because Apple took care of that, with some help from the developers, seamlessly.

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Personally I am more concern with Broadcom trying to buy Qualcomm. Broadcom has so far the reputation of buying companies, integrate with them, and then development of products goes to snail paste, trying to milk each product with minor revision improvements.If this happens to Qualcomm, Microsoft and Google would be most worried. Samsung mostly keeps its CPUs for its own phones, like Apple, and Nvidia strength isn't CPU's. It will also take a long time for them to adapt. In other words, it will be very bad news for huge number of consumers.

To be fair, that's an issue that already exists with Qualcomm already. When was the last big product launch from Qualcomm?

 

Two years ago with the kryo launch which they immediately killed?

 

Two years ago with the Wear 2100 that they almost immediately killed support for?

 

[GoodBytes]

8 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

To be fair, that's an issue that already exists with Qualcomm already. When was the last big product launch from Qualcomm?

 

Two years ago with the kryo launch which they immediately killed?

Well the concept was to have 2 slow CPUs and 2 fast CPUs and switch between to conserve battery. I don't think this is needed anymore. Probably that is why it was killed. Not to mention that it would need complex Android modification to support it. Considering that many manufacture can't even get a launcher to run properly on their own phones..I don't see that happening. Heck the Switch is powered by a Tegra chip, where the slow cores were disabled. It just down-clocks the faster CPUs down to conserve battery.

 

8 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Two years ago with the Wear 2100 that they almost immediately killed support for?

Smartwatches isn't selling as expected?!

 

Regardless, you have a new SoC each new year about, in both high-end and low-end market, that is nicely faster each time. This will slow down a lot. Might get a 10% bump every 2-3 years, I expect.

[captain_to_fire]

I’d pick an iPad Pro 10.5” over any Windows 10 on ARM tablet because of the fact that iOS is not trying to be a wannabe half-assed Swiss army knife. 

• Apple’s A10X and the upcoming A11X Bionic has a higher IPC and larger cache over Qualcomm’s Snapdragon. 
• The iOS App Store has way more tablet optimized apps over the Microsoft Store 
• No forced updates on iOS unlike Windows 10 which is “Grab ‘em by the PC ?”.
• Since iOS differs significantly over macOS, it’s easier to differentiate the two over Windows 10 on ARM vs Windows 10 Regular 
• iOS is still the most pick up and play/set it and forget it tablet OS out there. You can’t say the same with Windows 10. 
• iOS apps are 64-bit by default 
• Apps on the iPad run natively and no half assed emulation needed for backwards compatibility 
• Developers are way more likely to earn money from making iPad apps because it’s already an established platform. You can’t say the same with the Windows Store. 

[GoodBytes]

Just to comment on some points:

 

10 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

• No forced updates on iOS unlike Windows 10 which is “Grab ‘em by the PC ?”.

Well the OS bugs the hell out of you, but true. And you don't want to update at all, else your device will get slower.

 

Quote

• Since iOS differs significantly over macOS, it’s easier to differentiate the two over Windows 10 on ARM vs Windows 10 Regular 

I think the point for Windows 10 on ARM is be no different than Windows 10. For the average user, that is the case it seems. We will see in real world, of course, but on paper, that seems to be the case.

 

Quote

• iOS apps are 64-bit by default 

And that gives you.....

 

Quote

• Developers are way more likely to earn money from making iPad apps because it’s already an established platform. You can’t say the same with the Windows Store. 

Actually, that is not the reason. Today, despite the massively larger user base on Android, apps comes out first and the most polished on iOS. Why? Because iOS users spends more money on apps. On Android, it is very hard. New apps are quickly put 1 star due to ads if the app devs wants to make a free app, and pay, say 1$ for removing the ads. All in all, Android users are very cheap. iOS users tend to spend the most on micro transaction, buying apps, and don't mind ads. So despite the lower user base on iOS, a dev makes more money on iOS than on Android. So the general rule is to establish themselves on iOS, become popular and great reviews, market their app, build a need for Android users, then port the app on Android, and make fake 4-5 star reviews (they are agencies that handle product promotions.. you just need a handful of good reviews to kick start things, just to get some good reviews to get people to download the app), and then now the app will work, but regardless, you'll still make less money on Android.

[Zodiark1593]

54 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I’d pick an iPad Pro 10.5” over any Windows 10 on ARM tablet because of the fact that iOS is not trying to be a wannabe half-assed Swiss army knife. 

• Apps on the iPad run natively and no half assed emulation needed for backwards compatibility 
•  

Well, running non-native applications is kind of the point of emulating win32 on Windows 10 for ARM, unless you missed that.

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Well the concept was to have 2 slow CPUs and 2 fast CPUs and switch between to conserve battery. I don't think this is needed anymore. Probably that is why it was killed. Not to mention that it would need complex Android modification to support it. Considering that many manufacture can't even get a launcher to run properly on their own phones..I don't see that happening. Heck the Switch is powered by a Tegra chip, where the slow cores were disabled. It just down-clocks the faster CPUs down to conserve battery.

 

I don't think it was just the big.Little concept that saw Kryo killed. It is a larger core, and (according to Anandtech articles) actually very powerful in floating-point performance, quite more so than even the Cortex A73 designs and competitive with Apple A9, though integer performance fell closer in line with Cortex A72. Power consumption is also fairly high. For mobiles, I would suspect it simply wasn't the right architecture. Cortex A73 offers better integer performance, better power consumption, smaller die-size, with only the sacrifice of floating-point performance.

 

I wonder why Qualcomm did away with handling power delivery and clocks to each core on an individual basis as they did with later Krait chips. Was the die space cost simply no-longer acceptable on 14nm?

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

Well, running non-native applications is kind of the point of emulating win32 on Windows 10 for ARM, unless you missed that.

How can Microsoft assure that emulated Win32 applications will run just fine even not natively on an ARM SoC?

 

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

How can Microsoft assure that emulated Win32 applications will run just fine even not natively on an ARM SoC?

 

The worst scores posted in that thread seem to be competitive, or faster than Atoms, which honestly is quite impressive given that emulation itself is a difficult task. If that score translates to real-world usage experience (which no-one here could guarantee), then lighter tasks such as word processing, Powerpoint and other such tasks should run sufficiently well, assuming emulation isn't particularly buggy. Old games will probably be feasible without recompiling (assuming the Adreno driver is worth it's bits and can do DirectX 8 and 9), though anything remotely CPU heavy (Bethesda's games) will probably require a native port. Obviously, I can't vouch for how well the emulation holds up as far as bugs, or erratic performance and other weirdness goes.

 

That said, at the projected price points being discussed, I certainly wouldn't buy one. With barely over $100, one could already have Atom performance (in fact, I did just that), and the UWP ecosystem isn't nearly robust enough for native performance to be a big factor, at the moment at least.

 

To think, it wasn't long ago that the fastest ARM chips could barely keep pace with Intel's new Silvermont (Atom) architecture. Now they've overtaken it to a point where emulated benchmarks are still faster than Atom's native performance.

[DanielMDA]

11 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

As Windows 10 for ARM is coming to an official release with devices powering it, Microsoft revealed some details to its OEM partners on what the OS can and can't do, as well as potential issues that might arise, at least early on.

 

Some details:

• Windows 10 for ARM is a 64-bit OS. Yay! So expect laptops and tablet being powered by 4GB of RAM or more.
   
• As excepted and demoed by Microsoft the past, it will feature a Win32 emulation layer, allowing the programs you love be able to run on it (well.... put a star on that, I'll get to that)

 

Limitations

• ARM64 drivers only. Being a 64-bit OS on ARM, as expected, it needs ARM64 drivers for Windows 10 to operate. This is noted to highlight the fact that the Win32 emulation layers stops at programs, and doesn't extent to drivers. So in other words, don't expect to plug your nice GeForce 1080 Ti on a ARM based CPU until Nvidia makes drivers for it.
   
• x64 apps are not supported. This is where the star from bullet point 2 above comes in. The emulation layer is currently limited to 32-bit programs. No plans mentioned if it will ever have 64-bit app support. We don't know for sure the limitation for this. But it is probably a mixture of the ARM chip limitations mixed with the emulation system implemented by Microsoft.
   
• Some games, possibly many games, won't run (keep in mind that many games, even if they could run, would probably be the PowerPoint presentation version instead, if you get what I mean). This is because, at least to my knowledge, beside Nvidia's Tegra chips of late, no ARM processors fully support the latest and greatest OpenGL, Vulkan, let alone DirectX. The Snapdragon 835, the minimum chip to run Windows 10 for ARM is limited to OpenGL ES mostly, so games that are made for OpenGL later than 1.1, will not run (I guess it would be fine if the game is a native ARM64 app, and coded in OpenGL ES). That said, Microsoft does say that x86 apps that use DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, and DirectX 12 will run. This probably because the company has been working hard with Qualcomm  on making lots of translations to make it work on the limitations of the Snapdragon 835 chip. The result is don't expect any good performance. This is like playing a game in DirectX10.1 using 10,1 features, but your GPU has DirectX 10. The game will work... but the performance on those .1 feature would be awful.
   
• No Hyper-V support. If you though you can run a virtual machine on it, due to the ARM chip limitation in supporting technologies that are now commonly found on x86 processors that some VM requires to operate like Hyper-V, (and those that don't requires but supports if is there, faces with big performance hit). This also means that any Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) software, software that uses Hypervisor-Enforced Code Integrity (HVCI)  will not work either. And that Windows Defender Credential Guard and Windows Defender Application Guard isn't available.

 

Potential issues:

• Some UWP native apps might detect the device as a phone (Windows 10 Mobile) as many apps checks if it is running on an ARM chip, and assume a phone, and the interface will assume as such. Microsoft has added a new API for developers to use to allow to know if its a ARM based laptop/tablet or a phone, and can behave accordingly. This means that at release, some native UWP apps might appear strange on your device until they are updated. This does not affect Win32 apps ported to the Store. Those will run fine (assuming they are in 32-bit)
   
• Apps that customize the Windows may not work correctly. Due to the changes of the OS core, and the fact native OS components cannot load non-native components of the OS anymore. This means beside system tweak tools, software like assistive technologies, and cloud storage apps might be affected and not operate properly or at all. They need to be adapted.
   
• Microsoft says that if your x86 app does not work as expected, to try to use the comparability options or use the compatibility troubleshooting wizard.

 

 

 

All in all, if you plan to get such system in a work environment, make sure that the security software used are indeed compatible with the system. Don't assume it will work. If you are a student, or your typical "average user" than you are most likely not affected by anything. If you plan to get this system with an external GPU, well, you have the driver limitation issue, but I would still not recommend it, as not only your game would need to pass through the WIn32 emulation layer (assuming it is in 32-bit also), but also the ARM chip isn't as fast as your desktop friend. And if you do plan to play games, expect mobile games on it, or very old games. Playing modern games would probably be too taxing for the chip due to the multiple layers it needs to run on (well "layers"... I mean translation of DirectX calls and x86 emulation), and of course the lack of performance of the chip in running not only all this, but a heavy OS. If you are a student in a computer related field and needs to run a VM, this system might not be an option for you.

 

Source: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm-limitations

 

If you were interested in Windows 10 for ARM system, are you still interested? Will you be affected by these limitations?

 

So an even more cut down version of WIndows?

 

1st Place W10 Pro / Enterprise / Industry

2nd Place: W10 Home

3rd Place W10 S

4th Place: W10 ARM

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

So an even more cut down version of WIndows?

 

1st Place W10 Pro / Enterprise / Industry

2nd Place: W10 Home

3rd Place W10 S

4th Place: W10 ARM

Wrong order

1. W10 Pro
2. W10 Home
3. W10 ARM
4. W10 S

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Well the concept was to have 2 slow CPUs and 2 fast CPUs and switch between to conserve battery. I don't think this is needed anymore. Probably that is why it was killed. Not to mention that it would need complex Android modification to support it. Considering that many manufacture can't even get a launcher to run properly on their own phones..I don't see that happening. Heck the Switch is powered by a Tegra chip, where the slow cores were disabled. It just down-clocks the faster CPUs down to conserve battery.

big.LITTLE existed long before Qualcomm released the 820 and it did NOT require "complex Android modifications". Android has been big.LITTLE aware for several years already.

 

As for why the switch doesn't use the LITTLE cores, I don't know. From what I've read they are physically disabled on the chip. 

Reduce cost (can use more of the defective chips)? 

The A53 cores didn't provide a substantial performance boost and there are very few instances where they were needed? The Switch is meant for gaming after all. 

 

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Actually, that is not the reason. Today, despite the massively larger user base on Android, apps comes out first and the most polished on iOS. Why? Because iOS users spends more money on apps. On Android, it is very hard. New apps are quickly put 1 star due to ads if the app devs wants to make a free app, and pay, say 1$ for removing the ads. All in all, Android users are very cheap. iOS users tend to spend the most on micro transaction, buying apps, and don't mind ads. So despite the lower user base on iOS, a dev makes more money on iOS than on Android. So the general rule is to establish themselves on iOS, become popular and great reviews, market their app, build a need for Android users, then port the app on Android, and make fake 4-5 star reviews (they are agencies that handle product promotions.. you just need a handful of good reviews to kick start things, just to get some good reviews to get people to download the app), and then now the app will work, but regardless, you'll still make less money on Android.

That some pretty wild conspiracy theory you got there buddy. Got any peoof? There are several Android-first developers these days such as kairosoft. What you said might have been correct years ago but I am not so sure it is today. Seems like a lot of developers develop the iOS and Android app in tandem. 

[mr moose]

I don't know why some of you guys get worked up over MS operating systems.  I mean a quick look at the last two decades of MS products and it's plain to see they have a nasty habit of canning and shelving anything that doesn't sell.  Unless this turns out to be so good it unhinges ios, Android and Chrome in the domestic market, then there is no fear that this will become the only OS on the market forcing you to give up Linux. 

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't know why some of you guys get worked up over MS operating systems.  I mean a quick look at the last two decades of MS products and it's plain to see they have a nasty habit of canning and shelving anything that doesn't sell.  Unless this turns out to be so good it unhinges ios, Android and Chrome in the domestic market, then there is no fear that this will become the only OS on the market forcing you to give up Linux. 

Sadly, it seems like Microsoft's strategy right now is canning and then repackaging what doesn't sell (Windows RT).

They will soon release their third Windows OS that can't run win32 applications.

 

I am not worried about the mobile market. I am worried about Microsoft's constant attempts to turn the PC ecosystem into a mobile ecosystem.

Windows 10 for ARM won't compete with Android. It will compete with regular Windows 10 in the laptop market (and if prices comes waaay down, Chromebooks to some extent).

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Sadly, it seems like Microsoft's strategy right now is canning and then repackaging what doesn't sell (Windows RT).

They will soon release their third Windows OS that can't run win32 applications.

 

I am not worried about the mobile market. I am worried about Microsoft's constant attempts to turn the PC ecosystem into a mobile ecosystem.

Windows 10 for ARM won't compete with Android. It will compete with regular Windows 10 in the laptop market (and if prices comes waaay down, Chromebooks to some extent).

Sometimes when  a company gets to the position MS is in, they can afford to just through shit and see what sticks.   Although I am sure some of their shit is hand crafted and management has a plan for it,  I just get the impression they really don't care if it fails anymore. 

 

Let's be honest, OS market share graphs look like flipping train tracks and win 10 is only going to take share from 7, 8 and 8.1 (maybe some XP systems from china or something).  Their cloud service and server service is their gold pot.  All this messing about with game developers, mobile platforms and the 3 latest alternatives to conventional windows (S, the legacy free version and now this, not even mentioning RT)  are either icing for the cake or experiments to gauge domestic demand. 

[iamdarkyoshi]

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

It also opens doors to Windows powered tablets and low cost laptops.

Last time I bought a windows tablet, it was to do things my android tablet couldn't, like running X86 applications.

 

While armdows 10 can emulate them, I can't imagine it being realistically usable for that.

[Trixanity]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

big.LITTLE existed long before Qualcomm released the 820 and it did NOT require "complex Android modifications". Android has been big.LITTLE aware for several years already.

 

As for why the switch doesn't use the LITTLE cores, I don't know. From what I've read they are physically disabled on the chip. 

Reduce cost (can use more of the defective chips)? 

The A53 cores didn't provide a substantial performance boost and there are very few instances where they were needed? The Switch is meant for gaming after all. 

Indeed. Android can take advantage of as many cores as you want. I don't know where the myth came from that Android is so primitive that it doesn't know what to do when presented with more than one core. Perhaps because of many 8 core devices being laggy which is of course a product of cutting corners on software development 

 

The big.LITTLE paradigm has been a thing for so long and continues to be so with no sign of it being deprecated any time soon. Even Apple jumped on it which given the talent of their chip designers speaks volumes about the advantages of the design.

 

I think the Switch would be hard-pressed to find a use for A53 cores. I also think the interconnect can't properly take advantage of big.LITTLE similar to other early designs. I think it's either or which given the device means parking the A57 cluster is costly. You'd always want at least one or two high performance cores running to ensure performance. If I recall the A53 cluster is also controlled entirely on-die meaning no amount of clever kernel tuning can properly balance scheduling which could result in subpar performance.

 

[Trixanity]

9 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I don't think it was just the big.Little concept that saw Kryo killed. It is a larger core, and (according to Anandtech articles) actually very powerful in floating-point performance, quite more so than even the Cortex A73 designs and competitive with Apple A9, though integer performance fell closer in line with Cortex A72. Power consumption is also fairly high. For mobiles, I would suspect it simply wasn't the right architecture. Cortex A73 offers better integer performance, better power consumption, smaller die-size, with only the sacrifice of floating-point performance.

Actually Kryo was slower than A57 in integer performance. It was that bad. At the same time Qualcomm seems intent on offloading floating point to co-processors making the incredible float of Kryo irrelevant. That combined with no ambition in CPU performance means they can save some time and money by just licensing designs and focusing on other things. I wouldn't be surprised to know if they had stopped working on custom architectures entirely. ARM designs are 'good enough' and I think they're confident enough in ARM's roadmap with ARM supposedly working on something big for next year although it's too vague to get one's hopes up.