Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 212 posts

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#201

Post by jamesmcintyre »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #70
unfamiliar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they bumped the storage options, I see no reason why the phone couldn't run iOS and the plugged-in desktop-phone run macOS. Photos, email accounts, chat logs, etc could easily point to the same data on disk so you have two operating systems working off the same user data. A lot of the UI infrastructure for this is already there in the form of iCloud shared photo libraries and iCloud drive, which lets you access fi…

To build on what you say, once one plugs in their iPhone and MacOS boots and is on display, the iPhone touch screen itself could then be used for the trackpad. I could see a keyboard/dock combo where one could drop in their iPhone.

This is a very "un-Apple" approach, I'd be surprised to see a configuration like that. Instead I'd only see the potential for Apple to switch the macbook line to a specially designed ARM chip. They wouldn't say it's to make it cheaper to manufacture, instead they'd claim "now that we control the entire hardware stack we can do things we couldn't do before". They'll claim their special ARM chip gives almost 2x battery life, better security, etc. And since most Pro's aren't using macbooks there'd be less fear of incompatible pro software- as long as you have the iLife suite, ms office suite, adobe suite and browser running you'll satisfy 95% of macbook users. Apple would then use this transition to pressure Intel into much lower prices for pro-range cpu's or at least pressure them to do things with their cpu's that a next-gen ARM chip couldn't.

I don't see Apple blurring the lines of mobile/desktop UX simply because the ARM chip now enables the opportunity but I do see them moving their macbook line to ARM for cost reduction and increased leverage over Intel.

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#202

Post by maxsilver »

petra wrote: post #111
mhomde wrote: post #16

I'm more than a little confused about MS "mobile" strategy. Continuum sounds like a good idea, in theory. For enterprise I can kinda see it be attractive to just give your employees mobile phones and hook the office up with continuum docks. But it seems problematic in more than one aspect. For starters it's based on the fact that people are going to want to use a windows mobile as their primary device to start with.…

The continuum stuff is maybe the long term plan. But i think they could have a decent short term plan: What about an affordable 7"-8" tablet that can offer windows mobile gaming(with an add-on joystick) and media + serve as a computer + serve as a media center ? could be a great fit for a the gamer niche, teens , and frugal consumers. And a 7" platfrom is a great beachhead to encourage app development for 5" phones.

You mean like this? (8" Windows Tablet, $60.00)

https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/NuVisio...

Which has Bluetooth 4.0, and will natively pair with Microsoft's Xbox One Bluetooth Gamepad. It also supports Miracast, so you can send Netflix / Hulu to your TV using Microsoft's Miracast Adapter ($50)

https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Microso...

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#203

Post by int_19h »

criddell wrote: post #185
int_19h wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So a single application is going to need to cope with a 4" touchscreen display with no keyboard or mouse as well as a multi-monitor setup without touch, but with a keyboard and mouse. Only if it makes sense for that application. It doesn't mean that every desktop app would be usable on the phone. Or vice versa, for that matter; although it is much more rare for a phone app to not be useful on the desktop.

Admittedly, it is getting better on the desktop. As a desktop user, Windows 8 seemed ludicrous to me. Fire up a 4-function calculator or start the weather app and it gave me a full-screen view. Windows 10 is far better although they still show UI elements sized for touch even though I don't have a touchscreen. > It doesn't mean that every desktop app would be usable on the phone. The base computer should probably be…

I think the baseline depends on the type of app. For something like an alarm clock or calculator, yeah, it should probably be a watch. For something like maps, a phone makes more sense. For an office suite, I would expect the phone to have full viewing functionality, but editing should probably require at least a tablet (not to say disable it on the phone... just that it doesn't matter much if UI is awkward). Something like an IDE? Laptop/desktop, with mouse-centric UI.

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#204

Post by jodrellblank »

int_19h wrote: post #136
criddell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the software I run on my watch is nothing like the software I run on my desktop. To use the typical car analogy, it feels like designing a motorcycle that you can attach a second set of wheels and a cabin to turn it into a car. Or a second set of wheels and a bed to turn it into pick up truck. Or wings to become an airplane. Or a hull to become a boat.

But the reason why you run different software on your watch is because it cannot be a desktop. What if it could? All your examples sound ridiculous, because we know that there's no technological way to make it work well. But suppose there was one. Wouldn't you want a car that could turn into a monster truck, minivan, boat or airplane, if all of these actually worked well? Especially if it was all for a fraction of th…

Not really, honestly.

My car is useful. An adaptable car would take more design effort, so likely cost more. I have no use for a monster truck, a boat, I can't pilot an aeroplane, and if I did sink or crash-land my car then I'm out one car that I have use for, and need. (Wheras, if I hire and crash a boat now, my car is still fine).

And I don't want to imagine the insurance, MOT, or servicing cost for a vehicle which has to meet flight safety regulations but which is also waterproof and which has brakes able to stop a full minivan.

Minivan, might have limited use - but where would I keep the minivan part while it isn't on my car? And if I had somewhere to keep it, I may as well get a trailer or a roof-rack right now to get most of the benefit for almost none of the cost, or hire a minivan for a day if I need to carry more people instead of more stuff.

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#205

Post by eropple »

imtringued wrote: post #171
eropple wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system doesn't, though, not really. I mean, consider something running over Thunderbolt. A device that doesn't even tell you it supports Thunderbolt (and triggers it via USB3 alternate modes) then has direct, unimpeded access to the physical memory space of the computer. PCMCIA cards, PCI cards, FireWire...USB, itself is more intermediated--but that's also why latency is higher. You can disable DMA in the BIOS, b…

>A device that doesn't even tell you it supports Thunderbolt Thunderbolt devices have to be approved before they can be used. http://dxg49ziwjgkgt.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/... http://dxg49ziwjgkgt.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/...

They don't have to; some operating systems allow you to make that call. And they can lie to you, so that approval means very little.

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#206

Post by eropple »

ralmidani wrote: post #169
eropple wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system doesn't, though, not really. I mean, consider something running over Thunderbolt. A device that doesn't even tell you it supports Thunderbolt (and triggers it via USB3 alternate modes) then has direct, unimpeded access to the physical memory space of the computer. PCMCIA cards, PCI cards, FireWire...USB, itself is more intermediated--but that's also why latency is higher. You can disable DMA in the BIOS, b…

Thanks for your insights. I believe computing freedom is a right people should assert, and I should inform them why they should assert it, but I don't go as far as saying it's unethical to use non-free devices and/or software. At least not when non-free is more readily available and, from the perspective of the average user, more "convenient" than free. Personally, I like Debian because it removes non-free blobs from…

If the monitor speaks Thunderbolt, then it can DMA your system memory and going rogue is a game-over situation.

Personally, I don't really care at all about RMS's weird definition of freedom and I use what's best for accomplishing my goals. But drawing arbitrary lines of "freedom" has always made even less sense to me.

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#207

Post by hashhar »

petra wrote: post #200
xorxornop wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maw, the emulation is for binary-only apps. .NET can already be built to ARM CLR bytecode, or to ARM native/machine code. This is for apps where you don't, and quite possibly never did, have the source.

Is the ARM CLR bytecode different from the x86 one ? Why ?

I don't think so. Because from my limited tinkering with UWP, I can build a single .appx package and deploy it both to my phone and to my laptop. Am I missing something?

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#208

Post by hashhar »

pjmlp wrote: post #157
setq wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst bitching heavily about it earlier, I've got to be honest here. If they fix the people, mail and calendar app bugs, which they are doing rapidly, it destroys Apple and Google's offerings. I've only used them with an outlook.com and office 365 account so far but it really has potential. Just please Microsoft, don't screw it all up and feature dump too hard! For reference I went on a six month long hiatus after u…

The developer experience is miles ahead of Android, even when looking at the phone/store split they had on 8.x. The only downside was having accelerated graphics only available as pure COM instead of WinRT components, but even there the situation is improving.

The best thing I love about Windows development after coming from playing with Java and Android is the power and flexibility and saneness (is that a thing?) of XAML and WPF. And even the C# language is very much compared to Java.

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#209

Post by tluyben2 »

petra wrote: post #200
xorxornop wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maw, the emulation is for binary-only apps. .NET can already be built to ARM CLR bytecode, or to ARM native/machine code. This is for apps where you don't, and quite possibly never did, have the source.

Is the ARM CLR bytecode different from the x86 one ? Why ?

No bytecode binaries run everywhere with a runtime (ms/mono) (and library support for whatever you are running).

Re: Microsoft is bringing Windows 10, with desktop app support, to ARM chipsets

#210

Post by int_19h »

jodrellblank wrote: post #204
int_19h wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the reason why you run different software on your watch is because it cannot be a desktop. What if it could? All your examples sound ridiculous, because we know that there's no technological way to make it work well. But suppose there was one. Wouldn't you want a car that could turn into a monster truck, minivan, boat or airplane, if all of these actually worked well? Especially if it was all for a fraction of th…

Not really, honestly. My car is useful. An adaptable car would take more design effort, so likely cost more. I have no use for a monster truck, a boat, I can't pilot an aeroplane, and if I did sink or crash-land my car then I'm out one car that I have use for, and need. (Wheras, if I hire and crash a boat now, my car is still fine). And I don't want to imagine the insurance, MOT, or servicing cost for a vehicle which…

I think you're stretching the analogy beyond the limit of its usefulness :)

A phone is always on you anyway, usually in your pocket. What disadvantage do you see from making it the "universal compute unit", so to speak, driving your tablet, your laptop etc - which then just become combo display/entry devices?

If you don't need a device in a particular form factor, then you just don't buy one, and the question of storage doesn't arise. People can make arrangements depending on their specific use cases - someone might do phone/tablet, another person might do phone/laptop, yet another would span the full gamut with phone/tablet/laptop/desktop etc. And if you think that you don't need something, and then later find out that you actually do, it's easy to add that capability.

Cost is not really an issue here. Phones today are already powerful enough to serve as compute devices for all desktop tasks for the majority of the users, so we're not talking about anything more expensive than usual. And those user for whom it is not the case - developers, 3D designers, hardcore gamers etc - can still have dedicated devices, where it makes sense (i.e. usually for a desktop and/or laptop).

Post reply on HN