Everyone knows the tale of Brand X getting bought out by some faceless global conglomerate and going to shit, but does the opposite ever happen?
Everyone knows the tale of Brand X getting bought out by some faceless global conglomerate and going to shit, but does the opposite ever happen?
Those have both been solved though, right?
I’ve seen Apple promotions with multiple monitors. I also remember them showing a virtualization thing in a keynote and there are still many app for running VMs. There is the ARM vs x86 issue, but from what I’ve read Rosetta handles it pretty well, an it should only be a matter of time before more operating systems and software adopt ARM. Windows has been dabbling in it for years, I’m not sure what’s taking them so long to commit to making it a normal release.
Windows 11 has 64bit ARM support with emulation for 64bit x86 apps, Windows 10 only does 32bit afaik.
They can’t take the same step as Apple of just killing off x86 because they don’t control all aspects of the devices like Apple does
Not saying I like the forceful move to ARM, I’m honestly not sure how worth it it will be in the long run, but who knows.
I’m not saying Windows needs to be ARM only, but it should at least have parity with x86. Last I saw you couldn’t just go buy the ARM version of Windows, it’s a Windows Insider preview thing. Even better would be to just buy Windows, then it checks your CPU and installs for the correct architecture.
For 3rd party developers, I’d expect Microsoft would be pushing hard for universal binaries, similar to how Apple does, so when people download an app it can run natively on x86 or ARM. Microsoft has released a couple ARM based Surface devices, but they never seemed like a good option, because of the limitations around 3rd party software.
In the long run I think it has to happen, unless Intel does something really impressive. ARM has caught up in terms of performance and its performance per watt is better. I went to a talk from a guy who ran a the high performance computing lab at a university near me several years ago, and he said it was just a matter of time before labs like his moved to ARM, as they would be able to get better performance at a much lower overall cost. On the consumer side, this should mean better battery life and better mobile devices. The battery life Apple is able to get on their new chips is pretty incredible.
They 100% have been selling ARM windows machines for years now, they just suck in comparison to x86
They did push for universal binaries, but no devs wanted to make the switch, I actually appreciate that Windows didn’t bork all prior applications unilaterally like Apple does with most of their OS releases (I work for a company that has a program with Linux/windows/macOS and I swear every single major macOS update breaks shit and Apple doesn’t give a fuck)
I don’t see the performance being comparable yet, at least in my experience the power of ARM is much more in its energy efficiency, it simply does not compete in actual real world power (at least yet)
Ultimately I think it comes down more to Apple vs Windows approaches, Apple controls every aspect of every official device running macOS, windows is much more free form with so many manufacturers and different configurations being possible.
I would never willingly purchase an Apple device for that reason, but I also like Linux, just too much of a gamer to constantly want to worry about compatability.
ARM Windows devices have been getting sold, but if you build your own ARM system, or buy an ARM system with no OS, you can’t just order a copy of Windows for it on Amazon. It makes it feel like it is very much still a beta product and those buying the ARM Windows systems are the guinea pigs.
Developers rarely listen to Microsoft when something is asked for. Microsoft has shown time and time again that their bark has no bite, so developers don’t waste their time. It’s why UWP failed and countless other things. Apple may create a lot of work for developers to keep up with wherever they’re doing, but at least the devs know if Apple says to do something, they mean it, and it doesn’t feel like a complete waste of time at the end of the day.
Can you not just install Windows 11 normally on an ARM processor? I would think it’d be included with a normal installer but idk for sure, do people even build custom ARM rigs?
Its sort of a give and take though still, you can’t really build a hackintosh without very specific parts so… The fact there is no “macOS for ARM” copy available at all makes the point somewhat moot no?
UWP still exists, Microsoft is like the only one still developing them though, there are a few others but it’s definitely not a focus for any devs outside of Microsoft that I’ve seen.
Though I do agree that Apple generally sticks to their decisions whether for better or for worse :p
This is the page for Windows on ARM. It’s locked behind the Windows Insider program.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windowsinsiderpreviewARM64
People aren’t building ARM system like they are x86 (yet), but I’ve seen people who want to put Windows on something akin to the Raspberry Pi, and they have to go this Insider route.
macOS is only licensed to run on Apple hardware, so you can’t just install it on generic hardware without a lot of hoops and extra code to support all the hardware. Windows is positioned much differently than macOS. Windows on ARM actually seems more like macOS, where it just comes with the hardware. That being said, the official release of macOS can be installed on ARM (Apple Silicon) or Intel. It’s not a lesser version of the OS.
Right gotcha, wasn’t aware there isn’t an installable windows for ARM specifically.
I know though, that’s kind of my point, the landscape and way in which windows works on way way more configurations compared to Mac (simply due to the differences we’ve both pointed out) makes it not quite a fair comparison, Apple controls all aspects of the hardware and ONLY their hardware (or choice of hardware) is made to work with it, so it’s much easier for them to develop and force people over to ARM or whatever specific system they’re pushing developers and users towards, whereas windows is much more backwards compatible and users/manufacturers/devs have a lot more options out there.
Similar to Android vs iOS, it’s a lot easier to tightly control and force certain things when you’re the arbiter of where people can install apps, what hardware it can run on, and every design aspect.
That’s fair. I guess I figured after over a decade since Windows RT first released, and with the popularity of ARM starting to ramp up, Windows would be in a better position, with hardware and chip makers working with them to ensure support. I suppose most of the ARM devices have been hobbyist devices using Linux.
With the success of Apple Silicon, it seems like a lot of companies are looking into making their own chips. If Microsoft isn’t careful they might miss this boat, the same way they missed mobile.