Microsoft, Google and Qualcomm Working On Chrome For Windows On ARM (9to5google.com) 53
Microsoft and Google engineers appear to be working on a Chrome browser running on Windows on ARM. "9to5Google has spotted various commits by Microsoft engineers assisting with the development of Chrome for Windows 10 on ARM," reports The Verge. "The details follow claims by a Qualcomm executive last month that the chip maker was working on an ARM version of Chrome for Windows 10." From the report: A native ARM version of Chrome would make a lot of sense for Qualcomm, Microsoft, and Google. Chrome is one of the most popular desktop apps available on Windows 10, and without a native version for ARM it's difficult to take ARM-powered Windows 10 devices seriously for many. However, it was only last year that Microsoft pulled Google's Chrome installer from the Windows Store, because it violated store policies. Those policies restrict rival browsers to using Microsoft's own Edge rendering engine, specifically that "products that browse the web must use the appropriate HTML and JavaScript engines provided by the Windows Platform." Microsoft also blocked similar browser apps for Windows 8.
Unless Microsoft relaxes its rules then this native Chrome support for Windows on ARM won't be found in the Windows Store. Microsoft and Google's work could still help improve performance for Electron-based apps like Slack and Visual Studio Code which rely on parts of Chromium.
Unless Microsoft relaxes its rules then this native Chrome support for Windows on ARM won't be found in the Windows Store. Microsoft and Google's work could still help improve performance for Electron-based apps like Slack and Visual Studio Code which rely on parts of Chromium.
Re: Why? (Score:1)
Apparently Microsoft has been learning from Apple. I am so glad I opted to buy a retail-box copy of Windows 7 instead of using Windows 10. And so glad that SeaMonkey is in pkgsrc on NETBSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Dynamic recompiler (Score:3)
Why isn't that a case of "feed it to the right (cross) compiler toolchain and done"?
Chromium (and hence Google Chrome) includes a dynamic recompiler for JavaScript and WebAssembly code. If you have a dynamic recompiler that generates x86-64 code, recompiling it for AArch64 will generate a dynamic cross-compiler that still generates x86-64 code, which isn't quite as useful.
Re: Dynamic recompiler (Score:2)
I wouldn't have thought too much of that code was OS specific. Surely it already exists for ARM64 on Chrome OS and Android.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the OS that declared the web browser an integral part of its OS, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't have thought too much of that [dynamic recompiler] code was OS specific.
A JIT engine needs to integrate more deeply with the memory management habits of an operating system than most other code. See my other reply [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, better stick with those secure amd64 computers with speculative execution.
Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
>"[...]without a native version for ARM it's difficult to take ARM-powered Windows 10 devices seriously for many"
I would think it would be just as [if not more] difficult to take MS-Windows 10 ARM seriously without Firefox. And as far as I am aware, there is none, yet. Let's see just how serious Microsoft is about being "open"...
Re: (Score:2)
I know that I could take it seriously without Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about Firefox, but rather about how Firefox works, i.e. VERY independent of the OS. While Chrome usually shares some "features" with the OS, Firefox tries to detach itself as much as it can from the underlying OS, and where it does use OS settings or components, it asks you whether you really want that (and usually the default is 'no').
So while I don't care too much for Firefox either, it's a good indicator for whether an OS allows you to run an independent browser.
Weird (Score:1)
You can already get Chrome built for ARM64 on Linux, how hard is switching the Windows build to ARM64?
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: Nobody tried so far because ... why? Even "because we can" isn't a good enough reason this time.
ABI differs among same-ISA OSes (Score:3)
Memory protection, register use, and other application binary interface (ABI) aspects work differently in different operating systems for the same instruction set. Thus dynamic recompilation engines need to be tuned to each ABI, which in practice means each (instruction set, operating system) pair.
In addition, I suspect that ARM devices are more likely than x86-64 devices to ship in S Mode, which bans all browsers other than Edge and other EdgeHTML wrappers. Though Microsoft has since stopped enforcing a pa
Re: (Score:2)
dynamic recompilation engines need to be tuned to each ABI
Right, that affects Javascript and it's why there was no modern browser with Javascript support for OSX on PPC for quite some time. (There is now, I forget what it's called, sorry.) And I suppose that affects Webassembly the same. But it doesn't much affect anything else in the browser, so presumably the Javascript engine is where the bulk of the work is taking place.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"You can already get Chrome built for ARM64 on Linux, how hard is switching the Windows build to ARM64?"
Microsoft is not *allowing* other browsers (not based on the "edge" engine). It isn't that it can't be done. Microsoft is "managing" their additional, shiny, newest "walled garden" for the best "user experience" I suppose...
Out-of-Store applications (Score:2)
Microsoft is not *allowing* other browsers (not based on the "edge" engine).
I thought that was true only of Windows Store, and the big difference between Microsoft's strategies with Windows 10 on ARM and Windows RT (Windows 8 on ARM) was that Microsoft was allowing users to install applications from outside the Store.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I thought that was true only of Windows Store,[...]allowing users to install applications from outside the Store."
I will admit I don't know much about it, other than what little I read. Android allows installation outside the store. Do does MacOS. IOS does not. Not sure about MS-Windows 10 ARM, but the articles make it sound like it will at least be difficult?
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that was true only of Windows Store, and the big difference between Microsoft's strategies with Windows 10 on ARM and Windows RT (Windows 8 on ARM) was that Microsoft was allowing users to install applications from outside the Store.
Microsoft hasn't quite decided if they want to be Apple or Google yet, they got the store-only S versions and the open versions. Either way they know the "default store" is going to be the big one, just look at where Chrome and Firefox is on Android, everywhere and nowhere respectively. I guess we'll know more in 2020 once Win7 is out of support and Microsoft can finally start to boil the frog properly. In any case I think Windows on ARM is a dud (again), because it's still an odd side dish to a 99% Intel m
S Mode is a switch now (Score:2)
Microsoft hasn't quite decided if they want to be Apple or Google yet, they got the store-only S versions and the open versions.
Windows 10 S used to be a separate SKU, with a $50 paywall to upgrade to Windows 10 Pro. The structure has since changed to match Apple's on the Mac or Google's on Android: a PC can be put in or out of "S Mode", just as Gatekeeper on a Mac can be put in or out of "App Store only" mode or an Android phone can be put in or out of "Unknown sources off" mode.
I may not care that much to be part of the PC master race when the PS5/XB2 rolls around.
Let me know if PlayStation 5 and Xbox One's successor support community-built mods, whether for gameplay quality-of-life issues or for extending replay val
Re: (Score:2)
Chromium is just regular Chrome with more flavour, hence its name: Chrome-Yum.
Re: (Score:2)
Then should we blame Adobe? Its Flash Player and its CDM for HTML5 EME (that is, the digital restrictions management stuff) are the biggest differences that I'm aware of between Google Chrome and Chromium.