61–70 of 121 posts
Download my great free Windows program now! Please choose: 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 (Download my great free macOS program now! Click here ) This is already a usability problem, and adding 2 more target chipsets makes it worse. Given both bandwidth and smart programmers, c…
You don't need to use Microsoft's installer technology either. Installers are simple programs. You can roll your own or use third-party installer technology like NSIS. I remember old versions of Chromium had a very simple "installer" which was just a dialog that ran on first launch and asked you for some basic settings.
The architecture problem is easily solvable too. Simple programs can just target the lowest common denominator (32-bit x86.) You can simulate "fat binaries" by having a 32-bit x86 wrapper program that includes builds for other architectures as data, extracts the correct one to the Temp directory and runs it (I think Bvckup 2 does this.) For large programs, you can have an online installer which picks the right version and downloads it (with options on the website to download an offline installer.) Also, the website itself can point the user to the correct download. It doesn't even need JavaScript to do this, since the user's architecture will be in their user agent string. Use this information to emphasize the correct option in the UI. Maybe even hide the other options behind an "Other downloads" link.
Download my great free Windows program now! Please choose: 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 (Download my great free macOS program now! Click here ) This is already a usability problem, and adding 2 more target chipsets makes it worse. Given both bandwidth and smart programmers, c…
macOS (nee OS X) has supported PPC (32-bit and 64-bit), x86-32, and x86-64 over the years. Furthermore there are plenty of applications that require 10.6+, 10.8+, etc. I get your point, but macOS is at least at fragmented as Windows in terms of needing multiple binaries.
I am skeptical that the emulation can achieve reasonable speeds. I would like to see first that Qualcomm’s chips are even up to par with Intel's. Secondly, can a heavy duty Win32 app like iTunes or TurboTax or Photoshop could run reasonably fast via emulation, something that has historically been a problem. I'll believe it when I see some benchmarks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
macOS (nee OS X) has supported PPC (32-bit and 64-bit), x86-32, and x86-64 over the years. Furthermore there are plenty of applications that require 10.6+, 10.8+, etc. I get your point, but macOS is at least at fragmented as Windows in terms of needing multiple binaries.
macOS can support all three of the platforms above with a single fat binary.
Interesting development. Could this be a good thing that encourages OEM to standardize on something like the IBM-like PC that we have for x86 systems so we don't have to deal with each individual boards in Android or the traditional GNU/Linuxes? Furthermore, if the x86 emulation turns out to be as fast as they promised and demo'ed, will this kind of technology be developed for desktop linux? Is it even necessary as m…
+1 A major issue with ARM boards is you can't expect [name-your-arm-os] to run on all ARM boards. Each implements it's own boot sequence and drivers aren't the best. Something like this might push for a unified spec.
Download my great free Windows program now! Please choose: 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 (Download my great free macOS program now! Click here ) This is already a usability problem, and adding 2 more target chipsets makes it worse. Given both bandwidth and smart programmers, c…
If they want the surface phone to be a slam dunk they need to give it ability to run android apps as well as UWP and emulated win32, if the could get a license from Google to merge in the android app store with the windows app store it would fill in a lot, add the ability to run win32 and the ubuntu for windows console and you have a pretty killer does everything device.
> First, Qualcomm’s System on a Chip (Soc) designs have improved so dramatically in the past four years that their performance rivals that of mainstream Intel Core chipsets for PCs. 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.
Why are you laughing? Last's year's Apple chip was as powerful as the chip in the Macbook Air: https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9x-goes-he... This year's chip is even more powerful: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12939310/iphone-7-a10-fusi... I'm also a bit skeptical about the emulation part, but if it's less than 10% overhead out of the gate, it should be okay , and I assume Microsoft could conti…
People have been speculating for the past year if Apple could switch their Macs to ARM, and keep compatibility with a emulation layer like they did during the PowerPC->Intel transition. I guess Microsoft beat them to the point... Will be interesting to see how well it performs in real life.