Available Today: Windows Dev Kit 2023 a.k.a. Project Volterra

I think Windows on ARM still faces the same problem it always has: there's little reason for most people to care and it creates a collective action problem.

With macOS on ARM, Apple said they'd stop making Intel machines and they launched a compelling new experience. If you were a developer, you knew you needed to get on board or be left behind. If you were a user, you probably wanted one of the shiny new M1 machines, but even if you didn't you were going to be moving to ARM the next time you upgraded a few years down the line. Users also knew that software would be ported to ARM because it was the only way forward for the Mac.

Microsoft isn't abandoning x86. So why should developers care about Windows on ARM? Why should users choose Windows on ARM when developer support is poor - Microsoft just got Visual Studio on ARM. Why should users choose Windows on ARM when the ARM processors being offered are way behind what Apple/Intel/AMD are offering for processors? With developers and users unenthusiastic about ARM, why should chip companies want to invest in laptop/desktop ARM chips? Why should a hardware company start making ARM machines that just incur losses for a few generations as they manufacture things users aren't interested in?

There are certainly reasons to care, but it's a lot harder to justify. Maybe Qualcomm thinks it can create a new laptop/desktop chip business to rival Intel/AMD. That's certainly a good incentive, but I'm sure they've had meetings where they've talked about Microsofts lukewarm support for ARM, how to get users to buy an inferior product in the meantime (eg. until they create better chip designs and until devs port things to ARM), how to get devs to port things to ARM despite little user demand, and how to get hardware companies to want their laptop/desktop chips despite all this.

I'm not saying that Windows on ARM won't happen. I think we're in a time when CPU-independence is a lot easier and there's a lot of money to be made. However, it won't happen nearly as quickly as Apple's transition - because people have a choice in the matter. Intel/AMD CPUs are likely to be significantly better (than non-Apple ARM CPUs) for years to come. If Intel is able to get back on track in terms of process, it'll be even harder for Qualcomm and others to match. And Microsoft is likely playing a harder game when it comes to translating x86 software. Apple mirrored Intel's memory guarantees in their ARM chips, but the ARM spec doesn't require that. That makes translating a lot easier/faster, but if Windows for ARM is going to work with weaker guarantees, that makes it a harder sell. With Intel and AMD doing decently well at the moment, there's less reason for users.

Again, I'm not saying it won't happen. Hardware manufacturers will like having additional suppliers (even if the new ARM machines are partly just to get some leverage with Intel/AMD). Microsoft will want to make sure that Windows doesn't suffer if Intel/AMD stumble in the future. It's just going to be a long slog convincing developers and users that it's worth their time and money. Over a long enough time frame, I think new apps will be ARM/x86 and users will be fine with them at the right price/performance point, but it's not going to be like Apple's transition where people were enthusiastic.

I learned this lesson the hard way during the AMD Phenom era. Core count are not a good representation of performance because the 8 "big" cores could be blazing fast or be secretly powered by a hamster on a wheel. What is the actual benchmark performance on real applications you might use? Thats what matters at the end of the day.

There's actually a small vendor that produced tiny systems that do literally stack like Lego, intended for cluster deployment in edge computing use cases like retail or restaurants. Stacking the units provides all necessary interconnects.

I can't remember their name for the life of me, but they demo'd it at VMWorld a few years back.

The economics versus boring pizzabox or compact blade systems probably never worked out in their favor, hence why I'm having so much trouble tracking them down again.

Edit: found them. I guess they're still alive. Hivecell: https://hivecell.com/

>> An ARM based Windows computer isn't a bad idea, I just question if Microsoft is able to deliver on it.

Microsoft has already executed and brutally failed with ARM in the form of the disastrous Surface RT/Windows RT.

But, and more importantly.

Two people with unlimited resources are running a race car race.

One starts a year or two before the other. Even with unlimited resources; the other racer/team has unlimited resources, too.

So let’s say they can both reach a maximum of the speed of sound.

Apple’s already been going the speed of sound for a couple years now; they also have the advantage that their vehicle in the race has software and hardware that are married.

Microsoft is not only nowhere near the speed of sound, but even though they also have unlimited resources; they are severely hampered by separate hardware and software, with the exclusion of their surface tablets, whose previous incarnation of this race car model crashed and burned on the race track.

This isn’t a race where MS can or will catch up. They’re already years behind. Not that I encourage anyone to use an OS with built-in ads anyway. Just use Linux at that point.

Prefer 32GB than a better CPU.

By the way When the fuck did 32GB become an entry requirement, I am so saddened by the crappy software and stacks that treats memory like an infinite resource