11–20 of 121 posts
The last time we had ARM Windows machines, we got the Surface RT. I still have one of these that I occasionally bring to meetings to fool around and maybe put a ticket in with. It is not a great piece of equipment...
It generally takes Microsoft 3 tries to get something right. Unfortunately their next ARM device will only be #2.
Lumia and Surface 1 and 2 were #2.
Hah!
> And even better, Microsoft has developed an emulation technology that allows Win32 applications to launch and run unmodified on ARM-based PCs. And to do so with what I am assured is excellent performance.
I don't believe it.
http://semiaccurate.com/2016/12/07/qualcomm-announces-10nm-c...
We'll see. Full Windows x86 emulation will likely be slow. It will be a harder sell the second time around, too as Windows RT burned a lot of people, and fewer trust Microsoft than before.
Well, that could be clearer.
> Perhaps Surface phone isn’t a phone in the traditional sense. Perhaps it is, instead, just a new kind of PC with a small—for PCs; I’m hearing 6-inches—screen.
This sounds a lot like what others have been doing / try to do for a while now with Android devices (albeit not hugely successfully ... yet). So it's not surprisingly that Microsoft is considering jumping on that bandwagon.
The last time we had ARM Windows machines, we got the Surface RT. I still have one of these that I occasionally bring to meetings to fool around and maybe put a ticket in with. It is not a great piece of equipment...
EXE installer 32-bit x86 64-bit x64 32-bit ARM 64-bit ARM
MSI installer 32-bit x86 64-bit x64 32-bit ARM 64-bit ARM
Portable Zip 32-bit x86 64-bit x64 32-bit ARM 64-bit ARM
Click hereThis is already a usability problem, and adding 2 more target chipsets makes it worse.
Given both bandwidth and smart programmers, couldn't Microsoft make an installer creator that works on all the above architectures and installs the right version of the program? No problem shipping 4x too much code right - most installers that are big at all, are big because of assets, not code size.
I guess politics vs the Windows Store team would prevent this from happening within Microsoft, but given how awful the Windows Store is and how it still can't be used to download and install boring oldschool desktop applications, this is a usability nightmare waiting to happen - despite the obvious benefits of not being locked into a single chipset architecture anymore.
The last time we had ARM Windows machines, we got the Surface RT. I still have one of these that I occasionally bring to meetings to fool around and maybe put a ticket in with. It is not a great piece of equipment...
Are you speaking just of the software or does the hardware have issues as well?
Of course, the software is a mess, because nobody has bothered to build versions for RT in years, and none of the regular x86/x64 Windows software is compatible with RT.