Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Microsoft IT Technology

Windows on ARM is About To Get Lots of Apps Thanks To New x64 Emulation (theverge.com) 65

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Microsoft is officially revealing it's working on x64 app emulation support for Windows on ARM today. From a report: Currently, Windows on ARM devices like the Surface Pro X can only run native 32- and 64-bit ARM apps, alongside 32-bit x86 apps. The vast majority of desktop apps, including Adobe's Creative Suite, have moved to 64-bit x86 and many have stopped supporting their 32-bit variants. This has left devices like the Surface Pro X unable to access certain apps, but Microsoft's new emulation support will mean any and all Windows apps will now work on Windows on ARM. The new x64 emulation support will start rolling out to Windows Insider testers in November and should arrive in a broader operating system update next year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows on ARM is About To Get Lots of Apps Thanks To New x64 Emulation More

Windows on ARM is About To Get Lots of Apps Thanks To New x64 Emulation

Comments Filter:

  • Talk about compatibility.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @12:53PM (#60557666) Homepage Journal

    Meanwhile, Mac users can't even run 32-bit Intel apps on 64-bit Intel CPUs without installing a virtualization environment. I never thought I'd be jealous of Windows users, but here I am a year later still not running Catalina because of Adobe.

    • You could stay on a 32-bit OS without resorting to a VM, though. I'm actually more concerned with the ARM transition, because I do run VM's, but for Windows. Hopefully MS will release Windows for ARM, and this emulation layer will keep my Windows stuff running. Or, I can stick to Intel Macs for a while.

    • To be fair the 32bit Intel Macs only lasted about 1 year. They went to 64bit fairly quickly.
      That said, Apple did keep compatibility for 32bit and even Power PC CPU for a while, at least enough for quite a while.

      Sun Microsystems supported both 32bit and 64bit architecture for it UltraSparc platform.

      This stuff was happening when Microsoft had trouble with going to 64bit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        To be fair the 32bit Intel Macs only lasted about 1 year. They went to 64bit fairly quickly.

        Oh, I don't care about the 32-bit hardware. IMO, Apple management were crazy to even ship those machines knowing that 64-bit chips were coming just a few months later. It reeked of desperation. I wouldn't have touched one with a ten-meter pole.

        The problem was that converting all the old apps to 64-bit too a lot longer, to such a extent that the final non-rental version of the various Adobe apps (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) won't run and/or can't be installed in Catalina.

        When Mojave stops getting security

        • There were also a few years of 64-bit processors with 32-bit EFI. That made for some odd experiences. But... This is absolutely a question of app compatibility. That they are leveraging Docker so deeply within Big Sur that they don't offer any capabilities to include old libraries for specific apps that need it is frustrating.

        • I do remember that time. I use to be a Fan of Macs. My Powerbook was getting out of date, and the Intel Macbook Pro, was an upgrade, but not much considering that Intel was releasing 64bit Core 2 Duo Chips for Laptops. That gave me Duel Core (A big deal at the time) and 64bit processing. As I was mostly at the time waiting for a G5 Powerbook, that never came out. Having still a 32bit laptop wasn't really an upgrade to me. Especially with 64bit on the way.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vlad30 ( 44644 )

          To be fair the 32bit Intel Macs only lasted about 1 year. They went to 64bit fairly quickly.

          Oh, I don't care about the 32-bit hardware. IMO, Apple management were crazy to even ship those machines knowing that 64-bit chips were coming just a few months later. It reeked of desperation..

          Development of the machines and software was going on long before the 64bit was ready and if the 64bit was delayed further it would have been worse.

          the final non-rental version of the various Adobe apps (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) won't run and/or can't be installed in Catalina.

          That is the problem Adobe wanted to force customers to the rental version and used this as a big stick. I deal with a few clients who can't use the rental versions due to the internet connection being blocked for security reasons they are actively looking for replacements

        • The benefit of ARM is that it's low-power. So now you've got an ARM CPU using lots of power to emulate an x86 CPU at a vastly lower speed than the x86 CPU. Looks like a lose/lose situation to me.

      • To be fair the 32bit Intel Macs only lasted about 1 year. They went to 64bit fairly quickly. [...] This stuff was happening when Microsoft had trouble with going to 64bit.

        So it's not inability to run 32-bit apps for macOS as much as inability to run 32-bit apps for Windows in macOS 10.15 codename "Catalina Wine Killer".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by labnet ( 457441 )

        The problem was more with drivers. I had to hack a 64bit driver for our color laser printer or throw it out.

    • Out of curiosity, what Adobe stuff that you use is still back on 32-bit? The summary mentions that Creative Suite has been updated to 64-bit, though I do know that there are older, optional plugins that haven't all been updated.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        None of the versions of Creative Suite that are permanently licensed work correctly in Catalina because of required components that hadn't been updated to 64-bit when Adobe moved to a pay-per-month model. For example, for Lightroom, their installer and authorization system in CS6 were 32-bit, so if you upgrade to Catalina, Lightroom will still work, but if you ever have to reinstall or move to a new machine, you can't authorize it even if you manage to find a way to install it.

        Basically, your best bet is

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Meanwhile, Mac users can't even run 32-bit Intel apps on 64-bit Intel CPUs without installing a virtualization environment. I never thought I'd be jealous of Windows users, but here I am a year later still not running Catalina because of Adobe.

      That's an Apple decision. Apple got rid of the 32-bit libraries needed to run 32-bit applications on 64-bit. Most default amd64 installations of Linux do the same, though at least all offer a way to install 32-bit libraries for those 32-bit binaries you encounter (if

    • So who are you blaming? Adobe or Apple?

    • ...before Microsoft catches up. As a result of their approach, macOS is about to drop with a ton of native ARM apps from day 1, both from software automatically ported from iOS and from partners who were kept in the loop. While macOS is happy to disown you, Microsoft don’t seem to take responsibility for anything new in the first place.
  • Why would I want even more shovelware on my system
    Plus there isn't an ARM app that I would want to use on my PC.
    • TFA isn't about emulating ARM on PC. You should probably let your friend that modded you up know too.
      • OK. I did read that backwards.
        Wow. What is even the point? Just get an x64 proc at that point. What does ARM for Windows have that x64 doesn't?

        • Pick any:
          - Apple is switching to ARM so we have to copy them at all costs no matter what.
          - Apple's ARM laptops are going to have battery life time so much higher than ours that we don't have any choice to also switch to ARM.
          - ARM processors are 50% cheaper and 75% as good, most people only use computers for YouTube and Facebook anyway.
          - We need to switch Windows to ARM because we're going to try again to gain smartphone/tablet marketshare and we need our users to have switched to ARM before we can try that

      • I also get +2 for free for some reason.
  • Is this Microsoft just following Apple by slowly moving to ARM and dropping Intel?
    • Microsoft has been maintaining an ARM version of Windows for some time. Part of it was a means for telling Intel to get their act together. The Ryzen Surface Laptops from last year was another warning shot. Microsoft is making more serious breaks as they anticipate more need for longer operational hours away from an electrical outlet.

      • Indeed. Microsoft made a foray into ARM-based consumer Windows back in 2012 with Windows RT. It was a complete failure, but they seem to be learning from their mistakes. (Mostly that laptops that run Windows should probably actually be able to run Windows programs.)

    • Kinda, but not really. You may remember hearing about the much-derided, very limited Windows RT, which was an ARM-exclusive version of Windows that was roughly comparable to Windows 8. It never went anywhere, but it was followed up by "Windows on ARM", which is much closer to being a full-fledged version of Windows 10 running on ARM, and it's been around for several years already. So, in regards to them following Apple, no. They were on this path already.

      But with Intel's roadmap continuing to slip, it's a g

      • Will they have an installer like linux that can be used on any ARM system that is not boot loader locked?
        Will they try to push ARM systems locked to windows?

        • In an era of trusted boot, WSL2 and widevine level 1?

          Nah, yeah.

        • Windows on ARM has been out for several years now, so we already have some answers.

          No, they don't currently have an installer like Linux. Windows on ARM is only being licensed for use by OEMs right now, which is one of the reasons why it can't (currently, though negotiations are ongoing) be used on ARM-based Macs. As for locking systems to Windows, I don't know. I don't think I've heard anything about that, but I also don't follow that space much, so we're already at the limits of my knowledge.

          • do they have an restore image so say you can replace the main disk?
            I don't want to be locked into the OEM over priced SSD's

    • Microsoft realized pretty early on that they're a software company, and can afford to be hardware-agnostic. As fruitful as their partnership with Intel has been for the last 3 decades, there's no need for them to remain exclusively tied to Intel. They can afford to place their bets on two horses (Intel and ARM) and just ride with whichever one wins. Their "platform" is the Windows API, not a specific CPU architecture. That's why they developed Windows for ARM, and maintained it despite how badly critics

      • Under the hood, modern x86/64 chips are RISC as well. The x86 instruction set is implemented in microcode. So, in a way, RISC has won, it's just that x86 has such huge penetration that essentially it has become an emulation layer on top of a RISC core.

        • CISC is always microcode on top of some real hardware - but that is not RISC. The microcode is much more coupled to actual hardware than for instance ARM instructions are. The microcode is probably responsible for queuing the FPUs, memory interface and whatever. On RISC all this is handled in hardware. As with having a virtual instruction set such as Java byte code, some optimizations are theoretically possible in the microcode layer, which can't be done in the RISC camp.

          • I have a graduate degree in what is effectively computer architecture and engineering. I have read my Hennessy and Patterson and numerous texts describing RISC machines, pipelined, superscalar, and speculative execution in CPUs, cache levels and implementations, along with texts on compiler design and optimization, and I have no idea what you are even trying to describe.

            The point that the GP was trying to make is that the CISC microcode likely translates the CISC opcodes to underlying RISC operations and s

            • You all seem to be a bit off.

              Neither RISC nor CISC won. The hybrid won.

              Back in the day, the king of computation was the DEC Alpha, which bottlenecked on instruction decode bandwidth. It was its RISCy design that caused the need for so many independent instructions to be encoded in the stream, and allowed everyone else to overtake them on one metric or another. The Alpha became king of nothing when everyone else went superscaler.

              Load.
              Modify.
              Store.

              3 instructions on RISC, 1 instruction on CISC. A CIS

      • > that they're a software company, and can afford to be hardware-agnostic. As fruitful as their partnership with Intel has been for the last 3 decades, there's no need for them to remain exclusively tied to Intel. They can afford to place their bets on two horses (Intel and ARM) and just ride with whichever one wins.

        We're also seeing them do more and more Linux, for similar reasons. Recently they *got rid of Windows* and replaced it with Linux on the hypervisor system. Microsoft knows their revenue come

        • If that's true, they should release what code they have to get Proton working at a 100%.
          Until then, they care about whats running underneath.

          • How does Proton help them sell more business applications?

            • It doesn't, but if all they cared about is there business app running on as many device possible, they should release the code for the non Business stuff.

              • Why? How does spending time on that, digging through every single line of code checking for secrets, NDAs etc help them? Why should they spend their time on that instead of on producing more and better business software?

      • Funnily enough, NT has been multi-platform. Grab a NT 3.x or NT 4 disc and you'll see the install files for all kinds of architectures. (alpha, mips, powerpc) By Windows 2000, they were down to just i386 though they have since added other architectures. (ia64, amd64, arm)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      I suspect MS is just hedging their bets. If the x86 winds change downward, they wouldn't have to start at square zero. When you have deep pockets, you can do that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leptons ( 891340 )
      Microsoft had Windows on ARM long before Apple did. It's another case of Apple not leading, but following, and the reality distortion field making you assume the opposite.

  • That crap is even worse than I thought.

  • I wonder how well full x64 programs will run on their glorified cellphone SOCs; even the flagship SQ1 seems to have some gnarly bottlenecks around the GPU and memory.

    Sure it has great battery life, but who cares about that when their $1500 halo-device tablet turns out to be a slug?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      I think this might be a hint that they expect better flagship chips soon. At least I hope so. :-)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by b3e3 ( 6069888 )
        If they want ARM to work well in a desktop setting, Qualcomm/MS need to get serious about designing manycore chipsets (and ways to cleanly, efficiently distribute workloads across dozens of cores).
        The "4 fast + 4 slow" CPU model works ok on phones, but just doesn't cut the mustard when you can get an x64 system with 8c/16t (all clocked higher) for half the price.
    • x64 emulation will probably take a heavy toll on performance. But Microsoft are probably considering this as a stopgap measure. I guess they'll push major application vendors to port their software to ARM.

    • The DTK is great. Iâ(TM)ve only gone back to my i7 Mac to do Photoshop work. Great CPU performance, surprisingly good GPU performance. And this is using the A chip from the iPad. The DTK never gets above room temperature no matter the work load. The biggest problem right now is with getting Big Sur Betas to install without problems. That is certainly causing trouble in with the DKT users.

    • Re:Performance? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @04:40PM (#60558436)

      I wonder how well full x64 programs will run on their glorified cellphone SOCs

      My guess is far better than even a couple of year old laptop. These "glorified cellphone SOCs" have one feature that actual cellphones don't: it's not in a damn cellphone and has an actual heatsink on it.

      One of the primary reasons your cellphone is slow is because it prioritises thermal and power management above all else. Not so much of a problem when your battery alone is 4 times the size of a large cellphone.

      Benchmarks put it in Surface Pro 5 territory. I wouldn't edit videos on it, but it certainly is more than capable for day to day PC tasks, god knows my company replaced all laptops with them. I just hope they aren't as unreliable as the SP5 has been (we have an ~30% failure rate over 3 years).

  • I wonder if the core of what Apple and Microsoft redoing is coming from a similar place, it's too much a coincidence that as Apple launches a cross-platform ARM-X86 solution, Microsoft is as well...

    • Did Apple buy Microsoft or are they merging into one mega-company or some kind of partnership?

      After all, Apple has always been great at targeting users at home and kinda failed to get any traction in the business world while Microsoft has been the other way around - except their Xbox division.

    • Yes - Intel. Intel is not keeping up. AMD and TSMC (who also makes AMD chips now) are the only ones innovating in the open-market CPU space. Microsoft doesn't want to see prices rise sky-high because that hinders the PC upgrade cycle. Apple already had the means to switch to ARM. Duopolies (or better) are important to keep the PC market moving. MS has already worked with Qualcomm to make their own ARM chip for the Surface line. This x64 emulation is probably more to sell more of their own Surfaces a

  • Will they allow us to compile win32/win64 apps on ARM? That's all that matters. Sure, they eventually decided to give us x64 emulation (after the colossal failure that was Windows RT forced their hands), but it's still a stopgap. What we know is that Windows RT and Windows 10 ARM have a secret win32/win64 Stash (so they can run the real Microsoft Office and things like Windows Media Player) and Microsoft won't let any third-party developer use it. As a result, Windows 10 ARM has all the legacy issues of win

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dteal99 ( 598040 ) *
      Microsoft Visual Studio 2017 and 2019 include the libraries to build software for ARM/ARM64. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-... [microsoft.com]

      • You can certainly cross compile using VS. We ended up cross-compiling for Windows ARM using clang-cl on Linux. Not only was it generating faster code than VS, but we can use the same assembly (neon) optimisations and tools for Mac and Windows builds. In fact weâ(TM)ve been able to mostly use the same intrinsic on both platforms anyway.

      • Is it a Metro/Windows Store thing, or you can create real win32/win64 and package them into msi or setup.exe?

  • If you have to use power sucking x86 instructions and have the cpu at 100% then you lose any power savings you gained.

    I wish Intel did not kill off their ATOM line but their m like is faster than emulation and would use less power than an ARM cpu if running emulation.

    • I wish Intel did not kill off their ATOM line but their m like is faster than emulation and would use less power than an ARM cpu if running emulation.

      Based on what. The Atom line was frigging horrible in the performance per watt department. Also emulation doesn't make the entire system consume as much power as unemulated. The two have nothing to do with each other beyond emulation requiring slightly more power than native due to having to run the emulator. The power requirements for executing the instructions is defined by the underlying architecture and in that regard ARM has shat on every x86 architecture very much including Atom . Hell every x86 proce

  • Why does it seem everyone is pushing to ARM? I am curious. I am not really seeing a reason why? Not at least on my PC.
    ARM doesn't seem to even come close to the chops needed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      ARM will probably become cheaper for commodity PC's because more companies make ARM chips, meaning more competition.

      However, x86 currently has an edge in servers due to having server-friendly instructions for a longer time.

      This suggests that desktops will end up being mostly ARM, and x86 will specialize in high end systems.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close