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

A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

blogs.windows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 418 posts

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#241

Post by fartcannon »

maccard wrote: post #212
sneak wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment didn't suggest if this future is good or bad, or if I am pleased or dismayed by the state of affairs. I stuck to the facts and my own predictions about future facts and left my emotional opinions out of it. Perhaps these sort of closed systems are crushing to you, as you have correctly assumed that they are to me. They aren't to most people: the iPhone is wildly popular. Many people will be very happy to g…

> Most people prefer the conveniences of central management To be fair, it's a pretty broad stretch to compare buying an xbox to "terrifying and violent failure modes of ubiquitous surveillance and censorship". The console experience is easy to understand for non-technical folk, is vertically integrated (you buy a headset with the correct label and you can voice chat with your friends, you know you have the prerequis…

I would prefer folks like yourself choose no device.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#242

Post by NelsonMinar »

whatever1 wrote: post #132

Now we need an ARM processor that can compete with M1. Seems that Apple caught everyone with the pants down in the PC industry. Microsoft SQ2 processor that ships in their $1400 Surface Pro X is almost 50% slower than M1.

Also you need the rest of the integrated system-on-a-chip, which no one else has designed and poses fundamental challenges to the PC hardware industry. Also you need to secure 5nm chip fabrication capabilities, which is awkward since Apple just bought all of the world's capacity.

Then you get to start working on making the software work.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#243

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

simias wrote: post #219
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern PC EUFI bootloaders are bigger and more bloated than any uboot build in existence, and things like device tree support in linux means that you can support various boards with the same kernel (including boards that don't exist yet). Sure you'll probably still need custom bootloaders for most boards, but it's not like you can swap your motherboard BIOS/UEFI chips and expect them to work either. This feels like…

I feel like we're kind of mixing up a bunch of things here, or maybe I am. The reason you don't need to mess with GRUB or you BIOS when you change your hardware is that modern hardware interfaces have built-in discovery and resource allocation features. Before that you had to deal with pesky low level details like IRQ allocations and the like (which was a thing on PC not that long ago). That's not really a feature of…

The practical upshot is: On PC, I can take a single disk with a single GRUB version and boot it on an arbitrary machine. If ARM machines can do that with their own UEFI/ACPI/ServerReady setup, then great. But if I need to alter that disk for each machine I want to use it on (inject board.dtb, add a custom u-boot, whatever), then that's not okay. I would happily accept u-boot and whatever else being on an onboard flash chip that I could update but didn't need to care about otherwise - that would get us back to "your PC boots via a UEFI system that's a whole OS unto itself, but it chainloads GRUB via standard interface so who cares".

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#244

Post by Hamuko »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #180
Hamuko wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bootcamp is not virtualization, so your point is moot.

Bootcamp doesn't run on ARM Macs so your point is moot.

That's not really because Apple hates allowing you to install Windows, but rather because you can't actually acquire a Windows for ARM license. Once again, Apple has stated that Bootcamp for Apple Silicon is "up to Microsoft". And ARM Macs are still just a minority of the computers that Apple sells. The rest have Bootcamp, which allows you to just turn your Mac into a Windows machine.

Saying that "Apple will never allow you to replace macOS" is just plain wrong when they've been allowing you to do that for the past 14 years.

You might as well argue how Bootcamp doesn't run on iPads.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#245

Post by pjmlp »

bfgoodrich wrote: post #224
pjmlp wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do travel a lot, hence why I know how little iPhones are seen around the planet. I guess Bangkok holds 28% of Thailand population then. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/thailand Also the issue being discussed here are Apple computers with M1, even less than those 28%, in case you also want numbers.

You clearly don't travel, or you're a liar, because your varied claims are uproariously disconnected reality. Further, your snarky misunderstanding of their statement is more disingenuous nonsense. If 28% of Bangkok citizens had iPhones, you will lose count because it's a large city. That would make them very common by any metric. A country where the GDP per capita is $7000 USD / capita and still the iPhone is at 28%…

Whatever, keep inside your happy bubble if it makes you happy.

Personal attacks are a sign of lack of proper arguments.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#246

Post by bfgoodrich »

pjmlp wrote: post #245
bfgoodrich wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly don't travel, or you're a liar, because your varied claims are uproariously disconnected reality. Further, your snarky misunderstanding of their statement is more disingenuous nonsense. If 28% of Bangkok citizens had iPhones, you will lose count because it's a large city. That would make them very common by any metric. A country where the GDP per capita is $7000 USD / capita and still the iPhone is at 28%…

Whatever, keep inside your happy bubble if it makes you happy. Personal attacks are a sign of lack of proper arguments.

You disputed actual metrics around the world with your own anecdote. The only possibility is that you don't travel or are a liar. That's just reality, not an insult.

The sign of a lack of proper arguments is when you have to spin a fiction to contrive a position, which every post you've offered up to this discussion has been. The moment someone pulls the "only the US cares" (or, in your case, only HN cares apparently), it betrays that they're not arguing in good faith, hoping that everyone just nods and goes along with nonsense.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#247

Post by CyberDildonics »

pjmlp wrote: post #245
bfgoodrich wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly don't travel, or you're a liar, because your varied claims are uproariously disconnected reality. Further, your snarky misunderstanding of their statement is more disingenuous nonsense. If 28% of Bangkok citizens had iPhones, you will lose count because it's a large city. That would make them very common by any metric. A country where the GDP per capita is $7000 USD / capita and still the iPhone is at 28%…

Whatever, keep inside your happy bubble if it makes you happy. Personal attacks are a sign of lack of proper arguments.

Those were not personal attacks, they were explaining that apple stuff is desired around the world and even in countries with lower incomes, people will save up to buy apple hardware, buy it used, etc.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#248

Post by est31 »

swiley wrote: post #106
est31 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ARM platform is currently massively held back IMO by its lack for standardization. I think there is tremendous value hidden behind a company that achieves a push for consistency. Microsoft has invested tens if not hundreds of thousands of man years in this, so who would be better qualified for this than them. RISC-V is kinda in a similar situation as ARM. If I were Microsoft, I'd be investing hard into the RISC-V…

What do you mean by "standardization?" Do you mean device probing? There's a standard API implemented by Linux for the firmware to communicate this to the kernel, also PCI works on ARM just like x86. No one bothers with this because all of the popular ARM SoCs tend to come from organizations that are extremely hostile to their users though. Do you mean user space ABI? GlibC on arm7 and aarch64 has had a pretty stable…

> There's a standard API implemented by Linux for the firmware to communicate this to the kernel, also PCI works on ARM just like x86. No one bothers with this because all of the popular ARM SoCs tend to come from organizations that are extremely hostile to their users though.

That's the problem. Most SoC vendors just don't care and implement drivers in or around forks of the kernel, and also specify the hardware via device trees. IIRC having the firmware give the device tree to the kernel instead of it being baked into the kernel is a new development.

If MS came and said: we want stable interfaces, the vendors would buckle and MS would be able to ship one OS image to all devices, instead of having hw custom images.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#249

Post by Wildgoose »

bserge wrote: post #105
rusticpenn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand why ARM is considered lesser technology. RISC was always considered to be better then CISC in many academic circles.

Wasn't that simply because there was less software available for ARM? And the first ARM chips were quite anemic in performance. That's not the case anymore, but the stereotype will persist for a while.

The first ARM chips were blazingly fast and made their competitors performance look anaemic - they have been around since the mid-1980s. The real difference is they went the low-power route while retaining as much performance as possible, rather than depending on desktop power supplies and industrial cooling.

One of the reasons this new chip is so performant is the "headroom" that this approach has given them.

Re: A preview of x64 emulation on Windows for ARM

#250

Post by mmcconnell1618 »

cromwellian wrote: post #208
xmodem wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ARM Macs are going to just be lost for any kind of gaming Every game I've tried with a Mac port runs great on the M1 under Rosetta. I've sunk many hours into Factorio and Offworld Trading Company on my M1 mini, and if I gave you the same game running side by side on an Intel mac, I'd bet you could't tell which was which without quitting and checking the system profiler. If you meant triple-A gaming, then yeah, with…

Macs in general are terrible for triple-A gaming. I doubt any Mac in existence can run a Bootcamp's version of Cyberpunk 2077, except maybe a Mac Pro with a top-end GPU, or maybe an eGPU would work, assuming you could get a top-end AMD or Nvidia eGPU. On top of that, there's a lack of raw mouse which Apple hasn't fixed despite over a decade of people begging. This really fubar's FPS games where absolute control over…

While not native on M1, you can play Cyberpuck 2077 streaming over stadia on a Mac: https://stadia.google.com/game/cyberpunk2077?hl=en
Post reply on HN