Qualcomm's Windows on Arm push would be great – if only it ran all your software Qualcomm has set its sights on Arm-based Windows laptops, which, in theory, offer notable advantages. The company's Arm-powered Snapdragon processors promise exceptional battery life that puts x86 machines to shame, fanless designs, and integrated 5G connectivity that leave Intel and AMD looking dated. By betting on a mobile and …
Yeah, there might still be some bugs to iron out though ... this PCMag Youtube from last July showed black blocks at the end of a Photoshop run on Elite X for example (at 38:15), that shouldn't be there. Comments below do suggest general satisfaction (dharmOS), except maybe for games (fb2k vs ecarlseen)(?).
Has anyone here tried Photoshop and/or AutoCAD on these systems recently (to shed additional light)?
They've said quite clearly that they think it doesn't exist, because they say "Adobe Photoshop can technically run on Arm through emulation" even though it can also technically run on ARM using the native binary. I think this author is behind the times.
The problem with that is it makes it hard to know whether the author understands what they're talking about. I don't have a clue whether Photoshop's native ARM build runs properly, and I neither have a Windows on ARM machine nor use Photoshop, so I'm not going to find out. With an author who isn't aware that it's an option that they should have included in their analysis, I also have to question whether their judgements on other aspects are correct either. So far, I have not considered a Windows on ARM machine because I don't know how good the emulation is. I have software which doesn't and isn't going to have an ARM build, so that could be a limitation if the emulation isn't good enough. I'm also hoping that Linux support will get more thorough; even if a user runs Windows most of the time, I appreciate having options.
Key word being "moved". Apple can move its devs as it makes the hardware too. Devs follow along, or leave the platform entirely.
Microsoft can offer Windows on ARM but can't make anyone care.
That said you would think it could make Microsoft staff (e.g. MS Office developers) care ...
What's the value proposition? Qualcomm clearly stands to gain from having Windows run on its platform, but Microsoft and other developers will have to put a tremendous amount of time and therefore money into porting their software to Arm for ... what? How will an Arm port allow them to make more money? What's the value proposition for the users? Will running on Arm make them more productive, or will it reduce costs, either directly or indirectly?
Figuring out what needs to happen in order to make Windows on Arm more successful is not too difficult, but why should anyone else try?
I think the main value proposition for users is better battery life, which is something people comment on quite frequently with ARM Macs. Most of the other advantages of current ARM-powered laptops are things you could get elsewhere. For instance, although they can often come with 5G support or an NPU, if you need one or both of those, you could get them on an X64 machine or add them externally. Still, some users may want an integrated unit and choose this anyway, so access to that market could be a good reason to do some level of development.
For a lot of software, it can be as simple as changing a compiler target and building two binaries. There are always exceptions and things for which ARM won't work without a lot of effort, but a lot of basic software isn't using anything complex enough that a direct cross-compile wouldn't be good enough.
I've noticed that the current crop of arm laptops all have massive batteries. If you compare battery time per Wh, it's at best an incremental improvement over x64.
It helps that all manufacturers are on board making laptops with good battery life, but once that fades and the race to bottom starts, battery life will fade away again.
On that topic, it would perhaps be a blessing if they can't run x64 well at all, it could serve as a warning to the user that they've installed some old lardware app that's going to eat battery, and serve as a push to running modern software that is typically more well behaved and battery friendly.
The fundamental value proposition problem is that the major subcription-based app makers mentioned in the article (particularly Adobe and Autodesk, but Microsoft and others as well) are completely dependent on very aged codebases which haven't been updated in years, so much as they've been filled with kludge to turn what were programs you'd purchase once and use until you had a reason to upgrade into apps that require a constant subscription filled with 'features' nobody asked for.
You're correct that the obvious solution is updating and modernizing with a leaner and faster piece of software, but good luck convincing anyone to bother when the enshittification has taken over the C-suite and they care only about short-term profits and not long-term viability. If someone comes to market with a better Photoshop or AutoCAD, they'll be swamped with patent lawsuits as well.
It's also worth remembering, especially for developers, that Microsoft has a horrible reputation when it comes to following through on commitments to new platforms. This is where it destroyed every chance it had in the mobile space: they'd rush something out that was horribly conceived (WinCE), then pull the plug and push out something else that was poorly conceived, and each time they did so they'd shamelessly knife early adopter users and supporting vendors in the back. By the time they had a decent mobile version of Windows, everyone willing to give them a chance had been burned too many times and nobody trusted them anymore. We could run down the entire list of Microsoft's bold new strategies that they quickly abandoned leaving their supporters in the lurch (Zune and Fairplay come instantly to mind), but I'd probably hit a limit for comment length.
When Apple moved MacOS to ARM, they'd already been running a stripped-down version on iPhones and iPads for well over a decade and they knew exactly what they were doing. The key parts of the software stack and APIs had been dual-architecture for a very long time and were already mature and optimized. The hardware was bulletproof. Because Apple has a long history of sticking to its guns on major evolutions, vendors knew they weren't kidding and so anyone committed to the platform knew they had to be on board. The other key thing Apple did was provide emulation that worked extremely well. Even most action games were highly playable on the new hardware. It wasn't absolutely perfect; emulation never is. But showstopping glitches and even minor annoyances were reasonably few and far between.
Microsoft will never, ever hit this level of execution without a top-to-bottom corporate overhaul that obliterates their dysfunctional culture and that will probably never, ever happen. Windows users can expect this transition to remain a trash fire, assuming Microsoft doesn't decide to abandon it and the people who bought into it as Microsoft is wont to do.
Apple have transitioned three times and they're very good at getting all the software right for a new architecture. I remember replacing my G5 iMac with a 1st gen Intel Core2Duo MacBook Pro and having no issues. I wouldn't underestimate the value of that. The software side of it is very complex and they know how to make a slick transition. But it's also much more important for Apple to make it happen as quickly and completely as possible, whereas Microsoft aren't as motivated. For Microsoft ARM is a small niche, for Apple it's their entire platform.
Speaking of MS support, downloads for Win ARM64 ISOs are now (as of today) available from the MS site.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/11/microsoft-makes-it-easier-to-do-a-clean-windows-install-on-arm-based-pcs/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11arm64
You can buy a retail version easily. It isn't distinct from X86 versions, and the license key process is basically the same. What isn't as easy is making it actually install where you want it, and that's because ARM isn't standardized in the same way X86 is. So for example, you can buy a license key and run it in a virtual machine host on an ARM Mac, and you've been able to do that for quite a long time. If you want to install it directly on the Mac concerned, it's not going to work, but you are welcome to try without any guarantee that anything will stay the same.
To add to @ecarlseen's point:
When Apple released its first M1 Macs, Autodesk didn't have an M1-native version of Fusion 360, but Autodesk themselves posted to say that Fusion 360 performance on M1 Macs under Rosetta 2 was superb.
Compare to this article's observation that "AutoCAD on [Windows on] Arm is, at best, clunky, and, at worst, unusable"
I also have to wonder a few things about that observation. The author was unaware that Adobe software had native builds, so I have to question what they actually did. I'm not sure whether they ran AutoCAD through emulation at all, let alone enough to estimate its performance. I would also note that many of the Windows on ARM machines are laptops with mid-range CPUs. The Microsoft SQ3 and Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3, for instance, benchmark about the same as the Intel Core i7-1250U or the AMD Ryzen 3 5425U. I wonder how well either of those would do against an AutoCAD system requirements page which suggests "Recommended: 3+ GHz processor (base), 4+ GHz (turbo) Basic: 2 GB GPU with 29 GB/s Bandwidth and DirectX 11 compliant
Recommended: 8 GB GPU with 106 GB/s Bandwidth and DirectX 12 compliant". Maybe this kind of software wasn't really intended for the market segment where these laptops are being sold.
I actually use a Windows ARM64 PC as a main desktop, running Win 11 Pro for ARM, and Office 365. Looking at Task Manage/Details/Architecture, all my applications are ARM64. The only exceptions are the OfficeClickToRun.exe which is x64, and Citrix which insist on having a x86(-32) of their application. I would disagree with Gavin that MS have not provided adequate support. They have and Windows 11 updates arrive at the same time on ARM64 as they do on x64. Office 365 is native ARM64, as is Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio 2022, MS Teams and PowerToys etc.
MS also supplies most of the common drivers in ARM64 when a device is plugged in, and I have had no problems. Granted I have not tried to plug in something esoteric like a Laser Printer from 2003 or a HP scanner from that era, but for common stuff like docking stations., DisplayLink for extra screens, USB DACs for high quality audio, screencams for video conferencing, keyboards, mice, USB drives etc, everything works.
Spotify, WhatsApp, Foobar2000, OpenVPN, Wireguard, PIA VPN, MS Edge, Firefox and Google Chrome, Affinity apps, Zoom all have native Win ARM64 apps. Relatively few things I need run in emulation (Citrix is one, EndNote is the other).
I also feel like this article is missing some objectivity and first hand examples.
My first hand experience of running a HP EliteBook Ultra G1q (aside the long name), is superb. Most of my work apps, work or have native versions. WSL2 works flawlessly and I use it several times a week and is my go to for quick Linux tasks. Battery life, outstanding compared to my previous AMD Ryzen Ultrabook.
Games, the ones I would try on a laptop have worked with emulation in most cases, a couple don't and that's ok and some work but have GPU artifacts which is more a driver issue than anything else. For instance, I have and can easily play EVE Online at around the 40 - 60 FPS mark on low-medium settings. Still better gaming support than other operating systems and for anything else, I have my desktop PC. This is primarily a work device.
Camera and Audio - Better than your typical Intel/AMD solution.
Wireless, works 99% without issue, sometimes it doesn't like my Home Unifi setup a quick reboot or restarting the network adapter fixes this.
My main gripes stem from lack of support for the Windows Remote Server Administration Tools the last time I checked, but I can work around this quite easily with an RDP connection. Hopefully, in time, they will release native tools.
I hear a lot of folks complain about the Adobe support and similar. Anecdotally, they work on their own terms, but Microsoft is likely their largest user base as much as Apple would like to think otherwise. Each platform has an advantage in one way or another, but I am pleased with my experience and encourage others to make the jump, especially if you have similar use cases to mine.
For my personal and professional use case, I won't be going back to an X86-64 system anytime soon (for a laptop and thin and light), it's just more convenient for me to know I can run this thing all day away from a charger and not be afraid it's going to conk out when I need it.
It also matters whether you are using Windows 10 or 11 (although I think all the shipped Surface devices cone with 11). If I understand MS's description, the new Windows 11 emulator JITs the x64/x86 code into ARM64 instructions, so the second time through it operates at native speed, at the cost of more memory of course. I find it a little bizarre that this happens even with .NET apps (why can't you just JIT the IL?) but a recent update to VS lets you build an app that runs native x64 or ARM64, depending where it finds itself. I have no idea what happens under the hood, and I don't know if it would be possible to have the app choose between x86, for the 32-bit object refs, and ARM64.
How long do we have to wait for this from MS?
{cur Sagebush blowing along Main St, Redmond.}
They (MS) should rightly be ashamed of themselves. Apple did it and how many articles have been posted here about the failures of their migration process? Very few.
As for considering Arm powered devices as 'companion devices'... WTF are you talking about. The benchmarks for the Apple M4 chips are pretty impressive and they have not yet released the top of the line one. That is what Qualcomm should be aiming at, not 'companion devices'.
As mush as it hurts me to say, Apple have shown the way with migtration away from X86. That is the benchmark to beat BUT BUT BUT, it needs MS to play ball. Will they?
I have a bridge to sell you in the meantime...
How many years did it take (or has it taken so far) to migrate from x86 to x64?
If the emulation is really good, there's very little need for end-users to re-buy their software and, consequently, little pressure on vendors (not just MS) to even offer a port. If the emulation isn't good, who's going to buy the hardware in the first place?
Adobe Photoshop can technically run on Arm through emulation
Adobe says that Photoshop & Lightroom are already native on ARM Windows, and more Creative whatever apps are coming sooner or later. And, yes, until then, use emulation.
And another thing: according to Reuters, Qualcomm has had an exclusivity deal for Windows on ARM for eight years. Strange we're only seeing somewhat good stuff from them just as the deal's ending.
/s
Webapps probably perform better than 365.
Today been working on a spreadsheet, supposedly stored on my local hard drive, only this is 365 and it’s not really my local drive. So 365 has regularly timeout the connection, so when I decide to save the spreadsheet, I discover I’ve been logged out and are thus unable to save the file to my hard drive (unless I do a save as and write to say a USB stick) without having to sign in again. Don’t get these problems with Office 2019…
Why do I feel like the author is a bit biased after reading the whole article?
I mean, seriously, Microsoft has officially stated that it has re-engineered Windows 11 OS for ARM.
Photoshop & Lightroom are already available for ARM.
Microsoft Office is almost 99% ported for ARM.
Adobe has already announced that the rest of its software is coming to ARM soon.
The addressable market for Windows on ARM is tiny.
It worked for Apple because it was a migration; developers knew there would be more no x86 Macs and OS support for those older models would one be dropped. Microsoft is not and never will migrate Windows off x86 to ARM. Supporting two platforms at once is a whole different animal, and for most developers it doesn't make sense to build/test/support for two platforms unless the installed is a lot closer to 50/50 rather than the current 99/1.
Even if they exceed all expectations and 10% of Windows PCs are ARM it would take a decade of those sales figures before the installed base reaches 90/10 - and it still probably doesn't make sense for a lot of developers if emulation handles their application well enough.
There's also the risk that ARM Inc. in trying to justify its inflated stock price raises licensing costs too much and Qualcomm & Nvidia abandon it for RISC-V. I think that's a low probability event but it is possible, and if that happens then the pressure is on Microsoft to support RISC-V. You can guarantee if they ever did that it would come at the cost of dropping support for ARM.
I am not convinced Microsoft will ever get Windows fully ported to ARM, some of the code is still from the NT days and I suspect there is no one left at MS was around when it was originally coded to know how it really works, and none are brave enough to start to clean it up for porting to another platform when they can just let emulation handle it.
As for the Adobe suite not working properly, this is often the same sort of excuses you hear about why most people can't switch from Windows to Linux as Adobe apps don't exist and won't work under WINE.
But in reality that software is only used by a small percent of Windows users. By Adobe own figures they have a total of 33 millions subscribers to their Creative cloud platform as of 2024, (of which some will be using MacOS) So lets say that 2/3rds are using Windows so around 22M. That is still just 1.5% of the estimated 1.5bn Windows PCs in active use.
I suspect there are way more PC gamers than Adobe users who will be effected by trying to use one of these ARM PCs and finding games don't run properly and there are no native ARM ports of popular games, even ones from Microsoft owned studios.
Huh? Does anyone remember Windows NT on Alpha? That was one of the things that brought DEC down. DEC's last leader, "GQ Bob" Palmer, wanted to promote Alpha chips and thought that Microsoft would support it. There was a release of NT 4.0 for Alpha but it didn't exactly set the world on fire; more of a dumpster fire.
Agreed. Many of us have old code. I am not interested in gambling that my code will not run on an ARM windows box. For windows, I will continue to use x86 boxes, but will consider Linux boxes in the future. I would consider ARM of RISCV for Linux, ARMs business model ensures its loss to an free open architecture like RISCV eventually.
Until the software vendors step up their game and ship cross-CPU compatible installers or else separate installers for various CPU architectures (not really all that different than the days of x86 and amd64 variants both being available), the Windows on Arm efforts will flail and flop.
Emulation is only for toy software that doesn't make full use of the system and can pretend to run properly only because the system hosting the software is insanely overpowered for the task.
If they really want x86/amd64 software running on Windows on Arm without such a CPU, they'll have to resort to a VM with a custom shim layer that fully emulates an amd64 host right down to the USB controllers and CUDA drivers.
After reading the first paragraph, I checked the date of the article. And I was surprised that it was dated Nov 14th 2024!!!
The author seems clueless about the launch of many thin and light laptops with GREAT battery life (most of them surpassing those containing similar screens and battery capacities on Qualcomm equipped processors). This is because they have all been launched with "Lunar Lake" Intel processors which provide FULL x86 compatability and sip power. Not only this, they contain graphics engine which far surpass that on Qualcomm chips. AND they also contain an NPU for future proofing.
The very reason for existence of Windows on Qualcomm processors is gone now for good!!!
In fact with the launch of Lunar Lake, Intel has put to rest the myth that ARM is a more efficient architecture than x86!!!
I'm just biding my time for some used ARM notebooks to show up on the used market at a good price.
I used ARM Linux like 5 years ago on a Chromebook, (model with an Nvidia Tegra K1) and had VERY few non-native apps (after all if Ubuntu didn't have some package i could install a buid for Raspberry Pi). The only thing i ran under emulation was a 'binary blob' samsung printer driver, i assume there was overhead but it could process pages faster than the printer could print them. qemu-system-x86 (and x86-64) didn't work for multithreaded apps, but apparently box86 and box64 do. and are plemty good enough you can just install steam (for x86-64) on there and play your games (probably the only thing you'd have to run under emuilation.). The Ardreno GPU on them is apparently quite good as are the Mesa 3D drivers for it.
Works a treat the only thing few things I found that don't work were forticlient vpn but you can download a basic version from Microsoft store which actually does mfa and sll so I can connect to work.
Veracrypt wouldn't install but the portable version works.
Installed the old chess program fritx 13 on it and that works. You have to be careful which uci engines you install as they tend to be designed for specific processors or graphic cards. So you just need too check the options before you download them.
Adobe stuff works. Libre office works. I don't use autocad.
My canon printer works haven't tried the scanner yet though.
I may have a laugh and try install Omnipage pro on it that should be a test.
I was surprised how fast and responsive it was. It made my mac mini 2 look like a slug in comparison.
So unless I'm gaming this is now my main computer due to the poor gpu.
The only thing against these will Microsoft lose interest at some point in the future.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
