[HN Gopher] Available Today: Windows Dev Kit 2023 a.k.a. Project... ___________________________________________________________________ Available Today: Windows Dev Kit 2023 a.k.a. Project Volterra Author : mpalme Score : 235 points Date : 2022-10-24 17:21 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blogs.windows.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blogs.windows.com) | thallavajhula wrote: | I saw the "Stackable" part and thought you could stack one on top | of another to have a combined compute + memory available | automatically. Now that would've been mind blowing | sithadmin wrote: | 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/ | haunter wrote: | Well I'd actually buy one of these if I could lol | haunter wrote: | Well I'd actually buy one of these if I could lol | Kukumber wrote: | At this price, with that HW, they are either delusional, or they | have to pay insane fees to Qualcomm, they should have built their | own silicon | | That's what decades are poor management gets you, you late to the | party with expired food | | Apple was smarter when they came up with their M1; with an | aggressive pricing and excellent performance/watt | smoldesu wrote: | How is Snapdragon 8cx support on Linux? I recall seeing some | basic dotfiles for the ARM Thinkpad when it hit shelves, but I | haven't seen anything else. Is there a good chance it would run | OOB on a recent kernel with this devkit? | btdmaster wrote: | Given https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-5.20-SoCs-8cx- | Gen3-Arm, it should already work if you run something rolling | release or similar that has reached 5.20. (Otherwise, waiting | for 6.1 is probably simplest.) | m000 wrote: | Would this run WSL by any chance? | Wohlf wrote: | WSL already runs on Windows 10/11 ARM in non-S mode, so no | reason to assume it won't. | fleddr wrote: | Honestly, if Apple were to care, they could undo the course of | computing history where at one point Windows became the monopoly. | | Launch a 500$ category laptop, say 3 gens old. That would soon be | M1. Won't be very profitable, but a direct competitor to the | typical crappy Windows low-end laptop. | | Yet it's so much better in performance, security, battery life, | total lifespan, etc. Double down on making it idiot-proof. | Optimize the onboarding experience for ex-Windows users, | including prominent placement of alternatives for popular W32 | software. Make sure Office works well, and so on. | | I would admit that it would take many years to make a dent, but | there's no rush to it. Windows seems a sitting duck. Nobody, | including Microsoft, seems to care about it. | | Edit: oh yes, forgot about gaming. | robertlagrant wrote: | I think the build quality of the thing might be more of the | cost than the difference in power. Could be wrong, though. | coolca wrote: | They could make a m1 SE in late 23 with a plastic case as old | MacBooks, same ports of m1 air, slightly less battery and 1080p | screen at 500$ and it will sell like crazy. | awill wrote: | The difference here is that the M1 in the M1 mac mini is faster | than Apple's phone SoC (the A16). The Qualcomm 8cx gen 3 (what a | terrible name) in this machine is NOT faster than even Qualcomm's | phone SoC (the 8 gen 1), let alone Apple's phone SoC. | | It's absurd to be selling a desktop PC that's weaker than a | phone. | chinabot wrote: | 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 | blibble wrote: | presumably they want it to be able to run Teams | geodel wrote: | Yeah, Where would computer industry be if physical | collaboration with open office setup and online | collaboration with teams/slack does not take place? | foepys wrote: | GP was a dig at Microsoft Teams being utterly bad | software that not only uses absurd amounts of memory for | a chat app but also hogs all kinds of resources while | still being generally laggy on high-end machines. | wongarsu wrote: | And just for comparison, the cheapest Mac mini with 32GB RAM | is $1699. I can forgive a slower CPU in a machine that's | about one third the price. | anaisbetts wrote: | The only dev environment that I know of where 32GB is an | entry requirement is Professional (i.e. non-trivial, non- | hobby/learner) Android development. You certainly do not need | it to develop Windows applications. | Finnucane wrote: | Being old enough to remember when 32K was generous space, | memory is an infinite resource. | geodel wrote: | Agree. Further I nowadays see crappy software developers | instead of being apologetic or at least modest, claim some | kind of moral high ground along the lines of "This software | wouldn't even exist if not for our _accomplishments_ , so be | thankful to us" | | I'd hope some one have already or will write thesis on | correlation between _Rise of Javascript stack and narcissism | in software industry_. | mtgx wrote: | GeekyBear wrote: | I think the point of this machine is to give Developers a test | bed for apps they port to ARM Windows. | | However, given that it took Microsoft more than a decade to | decide to port their own Visual Studio to ARM Windows, I'm not | sure why they think third parties are chomping at the bit. | | If Microsoft wants to copy Apple, they need to copy the | decision to immediately port all their first party software. | tokinonagare wrote: | > the point of this machine is to give Developers | | At 700EUR price tag what a gift! It's 3-400EUR too expensive | for a very dispensable toy, especially given that the managed | stack (.net) of Microsoft development tools can be tested on | Raspberry Pi or M1, which are both very popular with | developers. | GeekyBear wrote: | Yes, I've mentioned elsewhere that they really should have | gone all in on copying Apple and not only make the Dev kit | cheaper, but issue a credit on future hardware purchases if | the Dev returns the Dev kit when they get done porting | their software. | | It's not like you want to keep something this underwhelming | forever at that price point. | PaulWaldman wrote: | This Qualcom chip is very similar to the Microsoft SQ3 that is | available in the new Surface Pro 9. | room505 wrote: | Will this Windows Arm only get three years of updates, just | like a Qualcomm phone? | vinkelhake wrote: | Sure, Apple's got the superior ARM silicon. But an alternative | take is that this SoC is plenty fast for non-poweruser desktop | use (which should be the majority of users). | | You don't _need_ top shelf performance for browsing the web, | checking your emails or writing some docs. | [deleted] | chrisseaton wrote: | If people didn't want top-shelf performance why would they be | using a desktop, instead of a phone, tablet, or laptop? Isn't | performance the whole point of desktop? | robertlagrant wrote: | Or screen size. | [deleted] | dmitrygr wrote: | > You don't need top shelf performance for browsing the web, | checking your emails or writing some docs | | DIDN'T | | Until electron | Sakos wrote: | It's a chicken or the egg dilemma. Non-Apple ARM is too slow, | so nobody wants Windows ARM, and nobody wants Windows ARM, so | nobody is seriously working on consumer-targeted ARM. It will | probably fail because Microsoft is generally bad at managing | and marketing their hardware projects and coordinating with | manufacturers and retail partners. Also, yeah, the pricing and | performance is abysmal. But there is some sense to trying to | lay the groundwork for future ARM SoCs running Windows. | | Right now, the biggest driver for Windows ARM adoption is, | ironically, Apple's M1 and onwards because of people running it | as a guest OS through Parallels. | | Also, frankly, I'm okay with Microsoft failing at projects like | this. We don't need another Apple-like presence on the market. | bigmattystyles wrote: | >> Also, frankly, I'm okay with Microsoft failing at projects | like this. We don't need another Apple-like presence on the | market. | | Don't we? | kstrauser wrote: | I've gotta agree with you there. I love my Apple gear, but | I hear and understand the criticisms against them. The | above argument sounds to me like "you think one monopolist | is bad? Wait until there are 2 of them!" | siggen wrote: | It will be an oligopoly then. | Sakos wrote: | No, in the non-Apple world, Microsoft doesn't drive the | computing industry. It's market-driven coordination between | a multitude of manufacturers and retailers where no one | instance has control over the others. Apple is a vertically | integrated monopoly that effectively rules all its partners | (from apps to hardware) with an iron fist and can push its | decisions on users (and partners) unilaterally. | | So no, I don't want Microsoft to become another Apple. | | From my point of view, Microsoft failing to do what Apple | does is a good thing because it means there's some | semblance of a working, competitive (if imperfect) market. | They can't force other companies to dance to their tune. | indymike wrote: | > so nobody is seriously working on consumer-targeted ARM. | | Consumer targeted arm chips power most phones and tablets. | Many of them are more than a handful for i5 and i3 class | Intel chips and draw a lot less power. When you are talking | about a $599 price point, you aren't talking about top-shelf | Intel, anyway. | | > But there is some sense to trying to lay the groundwork for | future ARM SoCs running Windows | | Now that ARM has grown up to be a viable alternative to | Intel, this makes a ton of sense. | machinekob wrote: | i3/i5 12 and 13 gen? | | Outside m1/m2 there isn't any chip that can be compared to | i5 intel 13 gen especially for PC space [that is in the | same price bracket]. (maybe some arm chips can get close to | i3 12100f but you can get it for 90 usd and get good single | core performance so im not sure if in this price point is | even any arm alternative) | pge wrote: | what's the incentive for a chip manufacturer to put out a | better ARM chip (eg comparable to the Apple M1)? I don't | know that world well, so my best guess is that the | margins go to the OS manufacturers, so unless you have | guaranteed commitment from MSFT for a given volume, and | some sharing of the margin, it's too risky to invest in | the R&D to make a better ARM chip. The market for x86 | chips is large and known, so for someone like Intel, it | makes more sense to invest in the i3/i5 than in a new | line of ARM. But that's all speculation - would love to | hear the perspective of someone who understands the | industry better. | eklitzke wrote: | Long term there is a huge market for server-oriented CPUs | that can compete with Intel Xeon, which currently has a | near monopoly in the server market. Note that a lot of | companies are already working on this: Ampere (ARM), | Amazon (Graviton3, etc.), and likely Nvidia, Rivos | (RISC-V), etc. | | The best of market ARM designs don't really compete head- | to-head with Xeon right now, but there are still a ton of | server applications where they make already make sense. | As a simple example companies like Google and Facebook | have hundreds of thousands of servers that are doing | things like running memcached or running some application | like D/GFS where the server is mostly just doing a lot of | I/O and doesn't necessarily need really beefy single- | threaded CPU performance. | | Longer term obviously if there are ARM or RISC-V CPUs | that can compete head-to-head with Xeon in terms of | features and single threaded performance then that opens | up pretty much the entire enterprise/server market. | MBCook wrote: | Performance is irrelevant depending on metrics. | | If my new zCPU chip is 60% as fast as a Xeon at your | task, that's a problem. | | If it can do it at 40% of the Xeon's power, things get | interesting. | | I could use twice as many zCPUs, be 20% faster, and use | 20% less power. That also means less cooling capacity in | my DC. | | Some tasks will always need the absolute best single | threaded performance. But a lot don't. And the Xeon's | power requirements leave a large opening we're starting | to see other companies poke at with things like Graviton. | sliken wrote: | Apple has done pretty amazing things with the m1. IMO the | most unique part is scaling memory bandwidth. | | The vast majority of PCs are running 128 bit wide memory, | with workstation CPUs like the threadripper (and pro) | being the exception, but a VERY small fraction of the | market. | | The M1 has 128 bit wide 67GB/sec peak (that you'll never | see) bandwidth, like most PCs. Upgrade to the Pro and you | get 200GB/sec. Max will take you to 400GB/sec, and Ultra | takes you to 800GB/sec. | | On the Intel (i3, i5, i7, i9) or AMD (ryzen r3, r5, r7, | r9) you get ... the same memory bandwidth. Check the 8 | core vs 16 core scaling numbers and for most benchmarks | you'll see poor scaling. Sure you can increase GPU | performance by adding GPUs, which reduces (but not | removes) the need for extra memory bandwidth. Sadly iGPUs | (outside the XboxX and PS5) largely stink and are only | good enough for non-GPU intensive workloads. Apple on the | other hand does scale GPU performance, granted not to the | levels that AMD and Nvidia do. | | So why can't anyone in the PC space do more memory | bandwidth and a decent iGPU, especially when for years | the GPUs were in short supply and had exorbitant prices. | I think it does come down to OS support, volume (which | could be problematic if current GPU customers avoid you), | and potentially reducing profits for AMD (who would have | sold an expensive external GPU). Not to mention that | fast/wide ram requires soldering chips on board or | increasing size/cost with large banks of ram. Even | servers with 8 memory channels (minimum 8 dimms) only get | you to the M1 pro level (1/2 of the m1 max and 1/4th of | the m1 ultra). | | Apple can say we have X% of the market today, and all new | customers will be on our new platform with 2 years, so | the driver, OS, iGPU, memory bandwidth, etc will be | amortized over substantial volumes. Additionally Apple | gets a larger fraction of the revenue, since they aren't | paying Nvidia or AMD for a GPU. Who is going to push a | MBP or Apple studio competitor that could ship the same | volumes? | MBCook wrote: | > what's the incentive for a chip manufacturer to put out | a better ARM chip (eg comparable to the Apple M1)? | | Intel & AMD's consumer and/or server market share. | | I can't imagine going back to an Intel after an M1. The | battery life is better. It's dead silent. It doesn't get | warm. It's like a totally different kind of object. | | I know PC people (those who want Windows) aren't | interested in an M1 Mac. That's fine. | | But I see PC laptop reviews with 4 or 6 or maybe 8 hours | of battery life. They get hot but the fan isn't "too | loud". And I know the performance isn't the same. | | And I just wish reviewers would call it out. They're not | on the same level. I'm sure fanboys would complain about | the comparison in every review, but why shouldn't Windows | users have something much better? It's been proven | possible. Hold AMD/Intel/Qualcomm to the fire more. | | If Qualcomm could get a chip with reasonable performance | at a reasonable price that just doesn't get hot and waste | all its battery playing space heater, I bet they could | really get a hold on the laptop market. | [deleted] | eric-hu wrote: | Proving your point, Amazon designed graviton, an ARM | processor for their data centers. | MBCook wrote: | Data centers know power/heat is everything. I'm not | surprised they're leading the way. | | But as a consumer you're stuck. You should have a machine | with the performance of any normal/good laptop with _way_ | better thermals and battery life. | | I'm not sure what the Uber-high end laptop would look | like but surely it would do better than today. | | The scale needs adjusting. What counts as "too hot", "too | short battery life", "minimum performance." | | It all should have changed. But it didn't. The industry | acts like Macs are magic and therefor incomparable. "Of | course that Boeing goes faster, it's a jet engine plane. | You can't compare that to our cars." | | They're both computers. It can be done. So why are | Intel/AMD/Qualcomm getting off the hook to such a degree? | | I just don't understand it. It's almost like Stockholm | Syndrome or something. "Intel is nice to us, who are we | to complain?" | whywhywhywhy wrote: | >I'm okay with Microsoft failing at projects like this. We | don't need another Apple-like presence on the market. | | Personally I'm not ok with being locked out of potential | computing power by platform so I can't get excited as MS | struggles to keep up. | | It's either MS keeps up or the future ahead is dark. | derefr wrote: | > It's either MS keeps up or the future ahead is dark. | | You say that as if Apple will become some sort of PC-market | hegemon, driving consumers and professionals to use its | proprietary ARM hardware and OS despite having traditional | Windows- or Linux-based workflows, simply because Apple's | ARM is _just so much faster_. | | Here's the third option: nobody cares what Apple is doing | over in its corner of the PC market; the PC market remains | an x86 market; and it continues to be driven by the needs | of corporate buyers buying 1000+-part orders of PCs to | outfit entire (non-IT!) businesses with; where those | businesses don't care about having the fastest computer, | but simply need "a" computer, with support and parts their | internal IT department can swap out when needed; where the | biggest factor driving purchases is TCO; and where TCO is | driven down by commoditization and competition, not by | vertical integration. | kevinsundar wrote: | This still misses a large risk for Microsoft. Business | software is moving to web apps. The orders of 1000+ PCs | you've described will be soon replaced by BYO personal | devices (who's owners prefer vertical integration like | Apple for ease of consumer use) and Chromebook esque | devices which are even cheaper than traditional PCs for a | business. | | Microsoft cannot keep doing what they are doing. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> Microsoft is generally bad at managing and marketing their | hardware projects and coordinating with manufacturers and | retail partners_ | | X-Box would beg to differ since 2002. | Wohlf wrote: | Surface products as well. | Kranar wrote: | XBox is a great example of horrible mismanagement that cost | Microsoft many billions of dollars, was almost abandoned, | and went through a very rocky path to get to where it is | today which is still frankly not that great of a position | (it lags behind Switch and Playstation): | | https://www.shacknews.com/article/121384/last-one-at-the- | tab... | | Don Mattrick almost tanked that entire product and it | survives today because Phil Spencer miraculously managed to | turn it around after all of the previous leadership was | forced out of the company. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> XBox is a great example of horrible mismanagement that | cost Microsoft many billions of dollars_ | | Guess what, so was the first NES, and the first Play | Station, the first Game Boy, etc. for their respective | companies. | | Breaking into a new market, with a new product, in | uncharted waters, with no prior experience, with no | support from clueless executives who don't believe in the | new product looking for any reason to stop you from | burning cash, endless turf wars such large and expensive | projects create, makes it is hard, brutally hard, for any | company to succed on the first try. | | _> and went through a very rocky path_ | | The Xbox 360 sold 85 million units, one of the best | selling consoles of all time. | 0x457 wrote: | > The Xbox 360 sold 85 million units, one of the best | selling consoles of all time. | | Define the best? It is 10th in a list of consoles that | sold at least one million units. It sold less than | console release later and went through even rockier path | - PlayStation 3. | Kranar wrote: | The first NES and Playstation were MASSIVE successes for | their respective companies, as was the Gameboy. In fact, | the NES is credited with single handedly putting an end | to the video game crash of 1983. The Gameboy sold out in | a matter of weeks and Nintendo managed to sell every | single Gameboy that it produced for the course of its | first two years. | | Here's an article about how massive of a success the | original NES and Gameboy were and how it revived Nintendo | as a company: | | https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/19/18295061/game-boy- | history-... | | I have no idea where you got the idea that any of those | products were mismanaged or cost those companies enormous | amounts of cash and in fact those specific examples are | among the most successful product launches in video game | history. | | >The Xbox 360 sold 85 million units, one of the best | selling consoles of all time. | | The XBox 360 is the best selling console from Microsoft | and ranks 9th among all consoles behind the Playstation, | Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Switch, | Gameboy, and Wii. | | Read into that what you will. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> The first NES and Playstation were MASSIVE successes | for their respective companies, as was the Gameboy._ | | I never said they weren't successful, I said they were | also mismanaged during development like you said about | the xbox, because management at Nintendo did not believe | in the product. | | _> I have no idea where you got the idea that any of | those products were mismanaged _ | | Documentaries and war stories on youtube rabit holes. | | _> in fact those specific examples are among the most | successful product launches in video game history_ | | Today it's easy to say that with hindsight, but before | they were launched, during their development, many in the | company did not believe in those projects would succeed | at all, leading to many internal fights and turf wars. | | Also, Nintendo has a number of fuckups that bombed as | well. Anyone remember the Virtualboy? Or the Wii-U? | Gamecube also didn't sell too good. | | The only thing that moves Nintendo merch is their | exclusive IP (Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, etc), as their HW | products are mediocre at best both in technical | capabilities and in quality. | Kranar wrote: | Can you please link to a Youtube video or article | indicating that Nintendo management thought the Gameboy | or NES would be a failure or that Sony thought that the | Playstation would be a failure. | | I am looking at some quick sources that I can find, and | it looks like the complete opposite, that the management | at Nintendo was very eager to develop a home video game | console based on the success of their arcade games. They | believed in the NES so much that when Atari bailed on its | partnership agreement with them (due in no small part to | the video game crash of 83), they went ahead and decided | to do it alone. | | Here is an article that was posted to HN awhile back that | does a very deep dive into the development of the NES. | It's an excerpt from the book "Console Wars" and it does | not paint a picture at all like the one you're | suggesting: | | http://grantland.com/features/the-rise-of-nintendo-video- | gam... | | A relevant quote is: | | "Yamauchi wanted Nintendo to aggressively get into the | videogame business, which was really two separate | businesses: home consoles and coin-operated arcade games. | He saw the potential in these industries and took the | necessary steps for Nintendo to enter both." | | As an FYI, Yamauchi was the President of Nintendo. | wmf wrote: | The solution to chicken-or-egg problems is known: you spend | money to just overpower the problem. But MS and Qualcomm | aren't doing that; they're half-assing their ARM hardware to | save a little money. | arglebargle123 wrote: | Does Qualcomm actually need to whole-ass a solution though? | They're making gobs of money on mobile SoCs, any additional | market for these chips is just gravy. Microsoft is the | party that stands to really gain from a successful x86 | alternative here but they don't seem like they're willing | to pony up Apple or Google money to design their own chips | yet. | JAlexoid wrote: | Qualcomm's value proposition isn't the chip itself. It's | the package, that includes the baseband. | wmf wrote: | Qualcomm is fully capable of building an SoC with eight | X2 or X3 cores, for example, if MS is willing to pay for | it. I think it's on MS that they didn't set higher | performance goals for Qualcomm. Nvidia can also design | good ARM chips (see Orin) but MS went and got married to | Qualcomm (never do this!) so they can't use them. | GeekyBear wrote: | Yup. | | Compare this to Apple's $499 ARM Dev test kit that you | could return for a $200 credit. | | If Microsoft is serious about ARM, they need a very low | barrier of entry for those willing to port their software. | [deleted] | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Apple's ace card is that they bought PA Semi and have a | competent team to pull off what Qualcomm apparently can't. | wyldfire wrote: | Well, the Nuvia acquisition seems to indicate that at | least Qualcomm _wants to_. might be some generations | before we see their designs. | mrkstu wrote: | Except for the fact ARM is suing them to prevent using | any of the Nuvia tech in their chips, since the license | terms with ARM didn't convey with the purchase. | | There is a good chance they get on the verge of shipping | and find they can't actually sell any of their new | chips... | | https://www.axios.com/2022/09/06/arm-qualcomm-nuvia-chip- | gia... | 0x457 wrote: | Lol, Qualcomm is Oracle of hardware world. Buying a | company is a no way an indicator that they want to do | anything. They haven't delivered a good SoC since Apple | released A7. | pdntspa wrote: | > . But there is some sense to trying to lay the groundwork | for future ARM SoCs running Windows. | | They've been doing exactly that since Windows 8, if not | earlier. Perhaps the Year of Windows on ARM is somewhere | around the corner from the Year of the Linux Desktop | | I think we are on the ... third? ... attention cycle for | this? Because they were trying pretty hard when W10 dropped | too | ethbr0 wrote: | The year of Linux-on-Windows-on-ARM Desktop. | Damogran6 wrote: | In a way, it's not much different than when they were porting | Windows NT to Dec ALPHA. (But I suspect ARM has legs, where | Alpha didn't) | MBCook wrote: | Didn't NT actually start on the Alpha and end up with x86 | becoming a co-platform (and later main platform) during | development? | msoad wrote: | Let's not forget that Microsoft did not put in the work to | optimize for Arm like Apple did. | neogodless wrote: | At least according to this related blog post[0] (and | submission[1]), they've put in work, albeit not as thorough | and effective as Rosetta 2. | | > To boost performance, we have added vendor-specific | optimizations so your apps run well on a variety of Arm | hardware. We have several runtime improvements to targeting | server throughput (RPS) and latency. | | Seems largely focused on .NET 7 though[2]. | | [0] https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2022/10/24/ava | ila... | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33319535 | | [2] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/arm64-performance- | impr... | bpye wrote: | Windows 11 can run AMD64 applications on ARM64 through a | JIT, similar to how Rosetta operates [0]. I don't know if | anyone has tried to compare them in benchmarks though. | | [0] - https://blogs.windows.com/windows- | insider/2020/12/10/introdu... | rr888 wrote: | Firstly its a dev kit, not a retail product. | | But most people only need a browser and maybe a few simple | products anyway. A phone SoC is probably enough. | 1123581321 wrote: | The Apple dev kit was about two thirds the speed of an Intel | Mac Mini. Microsoft or Qualcomm hasn't shown us what their | production PC Arm chip will look like. | wmf wrote: | Production ARM Surfaces have been out for a while; they have | lower specs than this dev kit. | 1123581321 wrote: | I assume this dev kit is leading up to an announcement of | significantly more performant PC hardware. If I'm mistaken, | that's disappointing. | [deleted] | kcb wrote: | 8cx gen 3 is definitely faster multicore and about the same | singlecore. The 8cx chips also have a wider memory bus and | pretty massive GPU in comparison the the mobile parts. Looks | like also far better cooling than a phone or thin and light | laptop here as well. | Spivak wrote: | Yeah I don't know what the parent is talking about Gen 3 is | lightyears ahead of Gen 1 of this line of chips. Passmark has | it at 4k for Gen 1 and 11k for Gen 3. | awill wrote: | If you're referring to my comment, I'm not comparing the | 8cx gen 3 to 8cx gen1, I'm comparing 8cx gen 3 (this | desktop/laptop chip) to 8 gen 1 (QCOMM's flagship phone | SoC). | | As I said in my comment, QCOMM's naming sucks. cx is their | desktop/laptop line. They have no designation for their | phone line, so the confusion isn't surprising. | wongarsu wrote: | A Mac mini with otherwise comparable specs (32GB RAM, 512GB | SSD) is nearly three times as expensive as this Microsoft | machine. I don't think it's fair to expect a CPU that beats the | M1 or phones that cost more than $599. | sliken wrote: | M1 has 4 high performance cores called firestorm, and 4 energy | efficient cores called icestorm. Same cores that are in the A14 | which is in the Iphone 12. | | Since then the A15 came out with some efficiency and | performance improvements, it's in the M2 IPad and M2 MBA and | presumably several future apple products. | | The A16 has some efficiency and perfomance tweaks and is what's | in the recently released iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max. | | So sure, the M1 in the M1 mac mini might have more power, | cooling, and cores than the iPhone 14 pro, but the cores are | actually slower at the same clock. Sure a phone will hit | thermal limits sooner than a SFF PC. | Meph504 wrote: | It is a dev kit, for preview, I'm guessing them going with | cheaper, available, to get software builts out that perform on | shit hardware, is better than developer on better than consumer | grade equipment only to have the applications choke when | consumers have it. | | I admit I'm disappointed in the showing, and I think that | Microsoft not loosing out on this market is important to them. | I'd be willing to be bet 2nd gen of this will likely be | produced by a 3rd party vendor. | mrweasel wrote: | Exactly. Apple have the advantage of being able to tell | consumers that if they want a new Mac, then they get no choice. | They'll have to buy an M1 or M2. Despite of this Apple knew | that M-series computers needed to be better than the previous | Intel lineup, and noticeable so. | | An ARM based Windows computer isn't a bad idea, I just question | if Microsoft is able to deliver on it. Picking the same | manufacturer, who repeatably failed to deliver usable ARM | processors for desktop and laptops seem like a obvious mistake. | This isn't their first attempt either, so why would I trust | that this won't fail, like the last time? Apple had done this | before an architecture transition before, Microsoft haven't, | and I doubt they have the will to ensure that it will succeed. | They are too tied up in the x86 world, too busy with Azure and | they don't have the attention of the consumer market. | | In terms of price, it's really close to the Mac mini. Factor in | performance, then this thing is a bad deal. | | The form factor is right for many uses, but I don't get who the | potential buyers are. | lostgame wrote: | >> 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. | kstrauser wrote: | If MS showed up with a backward compatibility layer as good | as Apple's Rosetta, they'd instantly be a strong | competitor. Maybe not for gaming systems or high-end | workstations -- at least not immediately -- but in the huge | space of people who want a battery sipping laptop with | access to a vast amount of software they're already using. | csydas wrote: | I don't think MS needs to push this if they want to | succeed, they need to start making a consumer friendly | machine that Windows runs fantastically on. | | For an "acceptable" laptop, the price point is already | pretty close to $1000, and before I would have a | tentative recommendation of MacBooks/Macbook Airs because | of the learning curve of MacOS. With M1/M2 and how much | better it is than anything else on the consumer market, I | openly recommend it to anyone in the market for a new | consumer machine. Gaming isn't even that much of an issue | anymore, so for casual players it's pretty fine. | | I was discussing this with a colleague last night, but | the M1/M2 chips and complimentary hardware let Apple do | some amazing stuff out of the box without adjustment that | Windows simply has no answer for. The integration of the | complimentary hardware with the M1/M2 chips is so strong | that I stumbled onto features I completely missed | announcements on, and it legitimately "wow'd" me. | | - Live Text caught me off-guard while drag/drop-ing an | image to a chat app. I couldn't stop testing its limits | and reading the dev docs | | - I took surprise calls from really crowded + noisy | places and was in disbelief that my call partners | couldn't hear anything but my voice in crystal clear | quality | | - I ran games and software that just weren't possible on | Intel Macs through Rosetta at pretty fine FPS/quality | without incident | | - I didn't need to change a single program from my | workflow | | Microsoft can likely do the same but they need to put the | legwork in to make it happen. Personally I understand | they have no interest in this and it makes sense -- they | want you on Azure with your server workloads and this | keeps the lights on at Microsoft, and as best I know the | consumer market (not considering gaming) still favors | Windows. But I guess that's why projects like this | confuse me a lot since it must be a pretty substantial | RND and manufacturing cost, neverminding advertising, but | Microsoft doesn't seem to have their heart in it. | | It's not about backwards compatibility - consumers don't | need to keep Windows 3.0 apps running, not a | statistically significant portion anyways, they just need | modern apps to run fast and well, long battery life on | portable devices, quiet machines, and that's it, but | seems that this just isn't something Microsoft is | interested in taking over. | | I really can't think of Windows features in decades that | "wow" so much as you just know what you get with Windows | regardless of the version in terms of basic features; | what worked on Windows XP probably works on Windows 11, | but even that is starting to erode in a slow and painful | way. There are quite a few programs on Windows I get the | impression that Microsoft just doesn't want me to be | running, but things like the Windows Store, Windows' | implementation of security for unsigned apps, etc, these | all feel like Microsoft isn't confident enough to fully | invest into these new features or to drop them in order | to advance. | | Microsoft definitely has the talent and cash reserves to | pursue a strong consumer laptop to compete with Apple; | for whatever reason, they don't seem to have the interest | though for consumer devices. Probably the simplest reason | is the server market is theirs and this is plenty of | money, but I just can't get why they continue with such | forays then. | | Edit: just elaborated on price point for consumer laptops | and recommending machines. | mmis1000 wrote: | I think the primary reason that windows rt failed totally | is no software can run on it at all. Not only you can't run | x86 software. You can't even download random executable and | run it. It is basically killed by ms itself. It is always a | mystery to me that why ms would expect user to buy a device | that nearly run nothing. | | It looks like they want to address this. But I wonder if | they will succeed this time. | qball wrote: | >It is always a mystery to me that why ms would expect | user to buy a device that nearly run nothing. | | Because at the end of the day, Windows RT was a creature | born of greed. They saw dollar signs- Apple's 30% App | Store cut- and as such wanted a machine that forced you | to buy software only from them. There was no technical | reason that normal software couldn't run on Windows RT, | given that MS themselves did it with Office. | | So confident were they that this would work that they | threw the tablet features onto Windows 8 proper, | relegating the reason people buy computers to a secondary | function- after all, paying MS for the privilege of | developing software was going to be the New Way forward. | Besides, don't you want security? | kitsunesoba wrote: | I'll be curious to see benchmarks but it would be funny if | Windows for ARM running in Parallels on an M1 MacBook Air ends | up being a better dev machine than an official Windows for ARM | dev box produced by Microsoft. | lostgame wrote: | I hadn't thought of that - but holy shit; I'd put money on | that being the case. How embarrassing. | caycep wrote: | on Vmware fusion tech preview...can't say I've pushed its | performance, but it is really quite smooth so far... | GekkePrutser wrote: | So the big question... Can it run Linux? | jenscow wrote: | Of course, but the real question is: can it run Windows? | bluescrn wrote: | Or: can it run unsigned code? | sedatk wrote: | Or: will it blend? | generj wrote: | For a developer focused machine? Nearly certainly. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | I have mixed feelings about how successful this will be. The 32GB | of RAM is really cool for the price - but 8cx Gen 3 is still no | M1. It's still significantly slower than an 11th Gen laptop Core | i5. Probably not super fun to develop on, even if serviceable - | but considering nobody has cared about Windows on ARM to this | point, why would you spend $599 to suddenly care about it, when | WoA has far less than 1% of Windows PC marketshare? | | Because Microsoft says it's the future? Microsoft is the worst at | these promises. That's what they said about Windows 8, then | Windows RT, the Windows Phone, the Windows Phone 8 platform, | Windows 10 Mobile, UWP in General, the Windows Store, the | relaunched Windows Store, Windows on ARM years ago, Project | Reunion with XAML islands, Windows 10 S, Windows 10 X, Desktop | Converter Bridge, the iOS Converter Bridge... I suppose they kept | their promises with DirectX and that kind of thing. Right now, | developer apathy for Windows is nearly insurmountable, and has | been for the last decade, and Microsoft's constant changing of | directions does not instill confidence. | | https://www.androidauthority.com/snapdragon-8cx-gen-3-intel-... | [deleted] | sedatk wrote: | On the other hand, Microsoft had spot on bets on operating | systems, Internet, 64-bit, cloud, gaming consoles, managed | runtimes, programming languages, high-end consumer PCs, Linux | integration, and open source (albeit late). | | Yes, they might have dropped the ball on more than one thing. | You're especially right about Windows app ecosystem today, but | it's not like Microsoft is constantly failing. They're doing | phenomenal job on many fronts. They're certainly not that easy | to write off. | lostmsu wrote: | Windows Store and Desktop Bridge work though. You are right | about everything else. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Yes... and no. The Windows Store works way better now than it | used to, back in 2015. Now it's finally serviceable, but it's | still loaded with junk that makes the iOS App Store look | well-maintained. Discoverability is still poor (better than | it used to be), and the number of people actually using it | also remains low. So... it works, but it was hardly the | future of app distribution on Windows. | | As for the Desktop Converter, it's in the same boat. For the | first few years, all it was, was a pile of PowerShell | scripts. No GUI, mediocre documentation, run a pile of | scripts to package your app for a Store almost nobody uses. | Also the command to package the app requires Windows 10 Pro | and, like, 30 command-line arguments that had to be _perfect_ | in order to work. Now it has a GUI, and more people use the | Store than before, but the Store has abandoned the need to | use it and now allows just directly downloading unpackaged | Exes, rendering it mostly pointless. | syntaxing wrote: | I get it's way harder for Windows but they failed the first time | but Apple succeeded because they went all in for the M1. Windows | ARM is doomed to fail with such fragmentation. | cylinder714 wrote: | I'm stoked to see this as it's one more platform that can run | OpenBSD 7.2. From the release announcement last week | (https://www.openbsd.org/72.html): New/extended | platforms: - Added support for Ampere Altra | - Added support for Apple M2 - Added support for Lenovo | ThinkPad x13s and other machines using the | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (SC8280XP) SoC. | aliqot wrote: | I want to be on OpenBSD so bad but support is not the same as | full support. There are still issues like battery life, GPU, | etc. AFAIK everything still happens on the CPU, which increases | battery draw. | DeathArrow wrote: | This device uses UEFI or U-BOOT? | bpye wrote: | UEFI | bitL wrote: | Maybe I am missing the point, but why wouldn't you rather buy a | NUC instead of this slow box? I get it MS wants to be like Apple, | meticulously copying anything that pops up there, but their brand | is associated with different "experiences" and their main value | lies in backwards compatibility and open hardware ecosystem. | kcb wrote: | I doubt this is going to feel slow in actual use. You've got 8 | big arm cores with a lot of memory, fast storage, and active | cooling. | jyrkesh wrote: | Having worked with Windows on ARM in the past, I _hope_ | you're right. But my experience has been that a ton of code | is still going through the x86 emulation layer, which IMO is | woefully lacking in performance, particularly compared to | Apple's Rosetta 2 (which is a magical marvel of engineering). | MikusR wrote: | Rosetta feels fast because apple m cpus are about twice as | fast as qualcom ones | nebula8804 wrote: | 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. | seanp2k2 wrote: | There are already other machines with 8cx Gen3 CPUs on | Geekbench if you want to compare: https://browser.geekbench | .com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=8cx+ge... it's like a third | slower than an M1 Max in single-core. | znpy wrote: | Because nucs are not arm-based. | ykl wrote: | The point of this is that it's an Windows-on-ARM devkit; you | can't buy a ARM NUC that'll run Windows AFAIK (Intel doesn't | make ARM machines), and you can't test ARM software natively on | an x86-64 NUC. | dblooman wrote: | meticulously? What is it that Microsoft has really copied in | the last five years? | [deleted] | crooked-v wrote: | Because Intel performance per watt sucks compared to the | competition, mostly. | IceWreck wrote: | I want to install Linux on one of these and use it as a low power | consumption home server. | mackal wrote: | Secure boot is going to be forced on. | sedatk wrote: | which Linux can run on perfectly fine. | vetinari wrote: | Depends if it will enforce Windows' CA only, or if it will | trust UEFI 3rd party CA too. See also "Secured-core PCs". | Scharkenberg wrote: | Despite much FUD spread in Linux nerd circles online, | Linux can run just fine on it. | piperswe wrote: | Same here - with 32GB of RAM I could easily replace my main | home server (which runs NixOS, so I can easily just rebuild the | system for aarch64). I wonder how quickly people will get Linux | running on these... | whalesalad wrote: | The M1 can run Asahi Linux, which I imagine is going to | outperform this. | https://www.androidauthority.com/snapdragon-8cx- | gen-3-intel-... | [deleted] | radicaldreamer wrote: | Exactly, this is priced very similarly to the Mac Mini with | M1 (soon to be updated to use an M2) and can already run | Linux fairly well. | jbverschoor wrote: | It looks like a macmini | dihydro wrote: | Mac Mini has no option for 32GB of RAM, and with 512GB of | SSD storage is $899. How is that similar in price to | $599? | Tomte wrote: | There are two nines. Pretty similar, I'd say. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Performing a substring comparison on integers isn't a | useful operation. | PaulWaldman wrote: | I wouldn't say the pricing is similar. This retails at | $599 with 32GB of RAM. The Mac mini is $1,199 with 16GB | of RAM. | | edit: Was off on pricing of the Mac mini by $100. | nick88msn wrote: | From what MS says you cannot do it out of the box. | my123 wrote: | You'll need to wait a bit until a new device tree comes for | these devices. Given that support for the ThinkPad X13s with | the same SoC is coming along... going to happen pretty soon. | FeistySkink wrote: | Which things currently work and don't with X13s? | mdaniel wrote: | For others similarly interested, it turns out "X13s" is not | "multiple X13 models" but rather "X13s" is the model | number: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thi | nkpadx/th... and is currently listed at USD$995 for "Gen 1" | and all the way up to USD$1570 for the high end | gjsman-1000 wrote: | I don't know why you would buy one, even if it were available, | unless power-efficiency was a crucial component for a server. | Can you imagine what you could get, on eBay, in a small form | factor, for $600? | | I made off with a i3-8100T (about 3/4s as powerful, 35W TDP), | with 16GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD in an ultra-small-form-factor | case for less than $150. For $600, it makes absolutely no sense | against anything used. Let's say it drew 50W vs 20W total use | at 10 cents per KWh. It would take 5 years to save $130, if you | ran it 24/7/365. A $450 used Intel small-form-factor system | would run circles around it in performance (especially after | any emulation / code conversion) and you'd break even. | megous wrote: | More like 30-50c | | https://www.eex.com/en/market- | data/power/futures#%7B%22snipp... | | Anything power hungry gets really expensive quickly for home | use, these days. | alias_neo wrote: | Imagine for a second there are other countries in the world. | | Now let's say in Europe, just one of them was called "The | United Kingdom", where after a recent (temporary) energy | price cap, electricity prices rose to _only_ 36p/kWh (41 | cents US at current rates), and further rise are expected, | and the cap had an end, bringing us potentially to double the | current uni rate, then do the maths again and see why it | might be a "crucial" component for many. | | Running old, cheap hardware with high power usage has been | impractical here and many other parts of the world for quite | some time and that was before recent disastrous rises. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | Problem is, we are not talking about 10 year old hardware. | I find it sadly more likely that hardware from 5 years ago | will consume less than hardware from a couple months ago. I | myself have an x86 atom where the entire system can idle at | <2W, which is no easy feat unless you start reusing phone | hardware... | rr888 wrote: | I was going to say you should just use a raspberry pi, but you | can't get those any more anyway. :) | AshamedCaptain wrote: | And RPIs are not very good regarding power consumption, | neither idle power nor efficiency. | kcb wrote: | Snapdragon chips have pretty good Linux support. And the GPU | driver is in a good state with Freedreno for desktop use. So | probably a decent chance of it being functional shortly. | mhd wrote: | I wouldn't mind MS hardware if it were designed by the people who | did the first Natural Keyboard or the Intellimouse... | jmrm wrote: | This is pretty interesting. I'm just imaging a future with | inexpensive Windows ARM machines, passively-cooled, and running | in most of the offices of your country. | | With most of the important Microsoft software already compiled to | ARM, and with those kits available to developers to do compile | theirs at a competitive price, I won't doubt that future could be | possible. | layer8 wrote: | There are huge amounts of existing x86 software in use, | including Office add-ins, Explorer extensions, and COM | dependencies in general, that won't be recompiled to ARM. The | only way ARM would take over is if compatibility with existing | binaries is maintained (which is very difficult if not | impossible for x86 DLLs within ARM-based applications), and if | their execution remains sufficiently performant. | mmis1000 wrote: | Microsoft takes years to develop their own version of rosetta | after the fail of Windows rt. And I think you are already | able to use it now, you can already run x86 on Windows on arm | vm on mac(m1). | | Just wondering the performance when running it on the dev kit | they sell now. | layer8 wrote: | You can run a self-contained x86 application and self- | contained ARM applications, but you can't integrate between | ARM applications and x86 in-process components (DLLs etc.), | and such integration is how a lot of things work in | practice on Windows. Converting an x86 application to ARM | means losing those integrations, and that is a major hurdle | to adoption. | MikusR wrote: | https://devblogs.microsoft.com/windows-music- | dev/load-x64-pl... | moffkalast wrote: | Ah yes, the Microsoft NUC. | SllX wrote: | Intel might take exception since it was supposed to be their | thing for their ISA, but you know what? "Next Unit of | Computing" is a _lot_ more apt here, at least from a Redmond | perspective. | Spivak wrote: | I'm glad there's more serious competition in this space. And | apparently I'm not alone in this opinion. | | From 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17783924 | | > Oddly, what I'd really like to see is ARM enter the NUC | space. Maybe I'm the only one, but I'd like be able to pay | $200-400 for a small, low power usage, decently performant | machine. The 8th generation Intel NUC are good, but 28W TDP and | it'd be nice to get it much, much lower than that. I know these | are a small fraction of the overall market but personally I | think it'd be cool. | | Once you want something more powerful than Raspberry Pi or a | board based on a mobile SoC your options whittle down | considerably. There are "mini/micro" PCs but they don't touch | the lack of power consumption. | moffkalast wrote: | Well for what it's worth, Synology makes some ARM powered | NASes. But I suppose those fall under the mobile SoC | category. | Spivak wrote: | I've always been tempted by them but the price per compute | power never got to the point where I wanted to pull the | trigger. I don't fault them at all for their design | choices, they make complete sense, but I wanted the box to | be more compute/memory heavy. | hedora wrote: | For me, Synology is the remaining niche where Intel is | still competitive. | | Whoops. Never mind; they have an AMD Ryzen model now: | https://www.synology.com/en- | us/company/news/article/DS1621_P... | jeffbee wrote: | You'd _think_ the actual NUC would be the ultimate perfect | WinTel machine--I mean, it 's right there in the name!-but I | can't even get the Windows installer to boot my NUC. | dihydro wrote: | If the ethernet port doesn't support multigigabit Ethernet, that | is a shame. WiFi 6 is great, but we need more development, | deployment, and support of multigigabit ethernet for corporate | and enterprise customers! | faeriechangling wrote: | There's little point to such a feature for the intended use | case, which is just to run some VMs to test builds on. At $600 | with 32gb of ram multi-gig is asking a little much. | megous wrote: | Not it's not, even $150 SBCs like odroid-h3 can have 2x | 2.5gbit ethernet ports. | | For server usecase this is very unbalanced as far as | connectivity goes. Say you want to use the modem or wifi for | internet access. Modem gives you 5gbit/s and you'll get out | to your network just 1gbit. Wasteful, and it needlessly | limits the opportnities. | kcb wrote: | You can put a 2.5gbe adapter on the USB ports I guess. | megous wrote: | That would likely be stretching the USB interface to the | limit. Ethernet is full-duplex, USB is not. | | Also this SoC doesn't even seem to have proper publicly | available datasheet, and whatever marketing stuff qcom | has on their website doesn't list USB at all, lol. So for | all I care it can have just one host controller. Not | interested in SoC with no datasheets, when it's not | possible to answer basic questions about the SoC, like | how many USB host controllers it has... | atarian wrote: | I have a feeling that Microsoft is eventually going to follow | Apple's playbook and completely exit the desktop OS business to | focus on their own line of products. | sangnoir wrote: | Their current strategy is the opposite of what you stated: it | is to ensure MS software and services run on every imaginable | product, including those made by others, including competitors. | Hence XBox pass, VS Code / Edge on Linux, Office 360 on | iOS/Android, etc. | kristianp wrote: | I'm surprised at the price for a 32GB RAM device. I'm tempted to | get one just to double the ram of my desktop, despite probably | being slower than my i7-3770. It might be a good platform to work | on Scalable Vector Extensions (SVE) code without needing to rent | a Graviton from AWS. | | Anandtech about the cpu: | https://www.anandtech.com/show/17127/qualcomms-8cx-gen-3-for... | | Some info about the ARMv8.2-A Architecture (2017): | https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture... | whalesalad wrote: | Funny, I have an i7-3770K as my gaming rig and to this day | still play Warzone regularly on it. Such a workhorse for being | 10 years old. | dtx1 wrote: | And here's the difference between Microsoft and Apple: When Apple | switches to ARM, people believe them. When Microsoft switches to | arm, people ignore them. Why? Because Microsoft only ever half- | asses such changes (see the terrible SOC in this). | MBCook wrote: | Well when the M1 came out it was _dramatically_ better than | everything else available to Mac users outside some small use- | cases (like Mac Pro + multi-GPU). | | People would have mostly wanted it anyway. | | That doesn't seem to be the case with this hardware. | indrora wrote: | They have no better choice. Name me, today, a desktop class ARM | SoC that isn't made by Apple and represents the median | performance band of the class. | | Fundamentally, ARM Holdings is what Antitrust legislation was | supposed to break down. They own the "ARM" name and control who | can license the ARM IP and most importantly, _how_. | | Ampere, the folks behind a lot of ARM servers, are by contract | barred from getting into the market of making ARM chips for | phones, desktops, or otherwise. That's the form of their | license: Server-grade 96-core behemoths running at 3+Ghz and | with the thermal output of a small space heater. | | ARM holdings sets all sorts of weird restrictions and _forces_ | market segmentation to make sure that nobody "Accidentally" | makes something that they don't immediately approve of. | Qualcomm is basically locked into making phone SoCs for all | eternity until they renegotiate their license with ARM | holdings. They're in a shit situation because they have | competition all over the place (Allwinner, Rockchip, a legacy | Intel series, NXP, and Samsung to name a few), letting | ARMHoldings bully them into not making something that rocks the | boat too hard. | | Apple pulled a massive show of force in making ARM license them | desktop grade chips. You see, Apple has been a license holder | for ARM for a bit now (with the Ax series chips) and makes up, | ballpark, 15% of worldwide phones and now >50% of US phones. | Apple had already idly said "we could... you know, not use an | integrated solution" when they fiddled with Intel's radio | baseband. | | For ARM to try and sue Apple for breach of contract for | developing the Mx series of desktop class ARM processors and | get away with it, they'd be putting their market share | dominance in four different major markets at risk. Qualcomm | can't do that. | | So that leaves Microsoft, who does not want to get into the | processor fabrication business and who is still reeling over | the antitrust lawsuit 20 years ago (which, I'll point out, was | mostly over a _shared text mangling library_ , for what it's | worth) out in the dust looking for options, and the option they | get is "Whatever Qualcomm will ship them." | IceWreck wrote: | > Apple pulled a massive show of force in making ARM license | them desktop grade chips | | Afaik Apple has an Architecture License which means they can | do anything they want. They were one of the companies who co- | founded ARM. | tiahura wrote: | The architecture license was acquired in 2008. | | Is there any evidence that anyone has been refused a license | to develop a desktop arm cpu? | Macha wrote: | > grade 96-core behemoths running at 3+Ghz and with the | thermal output of a small space heater. | | I mean, have you seen some of the latest desktop-grade | hardware? I have had space heaters with less heat output than | a 4090 at full tilt. | blibble wrote: | > Apple pulled a massive show of force in making ARM license | them desktop grade chips. You see, Apple has been a license | holder for ARM for a bit now | | apple was part of the original ARM joint venture and gave it | its initial capital | | it's been there since day 0 | kitsunesoba wrote: | > Apple pulled a massive show of force in making ARM license | them desktop grade chips. You see, Apple has been a license | holder for ARM for a bit now (with the Ax series chips) and | makes up, ballpark, 15% of worldwide phones and now >50% of | US phones. Apple had already idly said "we could... you know, | not use an integrated solution" when they fiddled with | Intel's radio baseband. | | > For ARM to try and sue Apple for breach of contract for | developing the Mx series of desktop class ARM processors and | get away with it, they'd be putting their market share | dominance in four different major markets at risk. | | As I understand, Apple has a special license with a lot more | leeway than those held by other companies thanks to Apple | having been one of ARM's founders[0], so they may not have | had to do any negotiations at all since they had the rights | from the get-go. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_(company)#Founding | dtx1 wrote: | Let me play my tiny violin for the Gigacorporation Microsoft | that was so unfairly treated by ARM that they just had to | take "Whatever Qualcomm will ship them". Poor Multi Billion | Dollar, they never had a chance to compete on a fair playing | ground. | | Nah, this is just organizational incompetence. The same | reason we got cortana, windows 8 or adds in the start bar. | rchaud wrote: | I think another considerable difference is that Windows global | footprint is 10x that of MacOS, so Microsoft has to keep both | backwards compatibility and OEM's production plans in mind. | | There is nothing for people to believe or not believe. MS | cannot cannot discontinue x86 overnight because their OS is | used by a much larger proportion of the world. | dtx1 wrote: | > There is nothing for people to believe or not believe. MS | cannot cannot discontinue x86 overnight because their OS is | used by a much larger proportion of the world. | | Apple managed a competent compatibility layer, albeit with | some special sauce in the SOC to make it fast. Is that too | much to ask from Microsoft? | rchaud wrote: | Yes, maybe it is too much to ask. | | Windows is a general purpose OS, which is why it dominates | two enormous markets: business software and games software. | Microsoft will usually err on the side of developers | because of this. The two companies' philosophies will of | course be different. | | If MacOS had similar mindshare in those markets, Mac | developers would probably ask Apple to avoid overnight | changes like the discontinuation of x86 Macs. | | MS still provides security updates for Windows 7 despite | its EOL occurring nearly 3 years ago. This is because many | organizations still run critical software that they cannot | shift away from, for whatever reason. Apple doesn't have to | do that because no hospital or airport is running their | logistics on MacOS. | | Even with all this baggage, Windows on ARM has been | available in some form since 2012's Surface RT. | tmikaeld wrote: | So, "everyone" is switching to ARM now? | Kye wrote: | Microsoft was there first, but handled it so poorly it got | memory holed. | | edit: I forgot about the A in ARM. | SllX wrote: | Nah, Acorn was first. | moffkalast wrote: | It cost them an ARM and a leg. | chasil wrote: | I think the Newton was the first major use of the | architecture outside the Acorn Archimedes. | | "...an advanced, low-power processor was needed for | sophisticated graphics manipulation. He found Hermann Hauser, | who had developed the Acorn RISC Machine that utilized what | became known as the ARM architecture, and put together | Advanced RISC Machines, now Arm Ltd." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton | | Around this time, DEC also chose to implement their | StrongARM, so that pushed into embedded. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrongARM | [deleted] | throwntoday wrote: | Take a look at what Apple is doing today to find out what the | industry is doing in a year or two. | MBCook wrote: | Apple seems to be a lot more than 2 years ahead. | | The M1 was November 2020. That's two years ago, give or take | a few weeks. | | There is nothing close to the M1 available for a Windows ARM | computer. There is nothing close from Intel/AMD if you just | want an ultra-low power chip with very good performance. | counttheforks wrote: | Break the build tools for their cash cow about once a month, | and forbid anyone from developing for it without spending | thousands of dollars on new hardware? | karamanolev wrote: | Seems to be working out for them alright. I'd love to make | fun of them for similar reasons, but look at market, and | more importantly, mind, share... | jccalhoun wrote: | Windows has been on ARM since 2012 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT | chasil wrote: | Windows CE was actually on it long before this. | | The original launch of CE was on MIPS and Super-H, but ARM | appears to have gained support with Windows CE version | 2.2.0. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Embedded_Compact | tomcam wrote: | Haven't bought a Windows machine in a few years. It seems like | this would likely be useful as a general purpose development | machine because there is probably no crapware installed. Do you | think this is a plausible argument to buy one or are they now all | infested no matter what? | sedatk wrote: | My experience with Windows 11 so far has been great. | smoldesu wrote: | It might not get the longest-term support, but it seems like a | half-decent deal. If you're comfortable turning it into a home | server/compute module once it reaches EOL, I'd say go for it. | tomcam wrote: | Yeah I like that choice to | dgellow wrote: | I wouldn't recommend Windows on arm if you just want a general | purpose machine, it is still very niche and will need time to | be well supported. Just get a desktop with a recent Intel or | AMD and reinstall the OS if you want to ensure you have | something clean. | tomcam wrote: | Well, a general purpose development machine. I'd like to be | able to run office and a go compiler, not games | xemdetia wrote: | I kind of hoped this was a laptop instead of an all in one. I | have a Lenovo x13s and I really like it. The windows on ARM | experience with win 11 is almost surprisingly good compared to | early arm iterations. | FortiDude wrote: | Damn, is that my new Linux ARM home PC? hehe | gw99 wrote: | The gen2 was scoring only half an M1 in performance. With the | bloat of windows on top this is going to be horrible. | nick88msn wrote: | "Microsoft tells Windows Central that the Windows Dev Kit 2023 is | exclusive to Windows 11, with no official support for running | other operating systems such as Linux or even Windows 10 on ARM. | The product is designed for developers looking to optimize their | apps for ARM on top of Windows 11." | gw99 wrote: | Realistically you have to ask how many people is that now? | | I have never seen an ARM windows machine in the wild. | | In fact I barely even see any windows 11 machines. | zeusk wrote: | Surface Pro X had some traction, but they share the chassis | with Surface Pro 7 and 8 so you wouldn't be able to tell even | if you passed by one. | Funnyduck99 wrote: | No the 7 is different, but I believe the 8 and 9 look the | same | zeusk wrote: | Ah my bad, I meant 8 and 9. | xd1936 wrote: | The word _official_ is italicized[1], and the words "the | product is _designed for_" means there may be hope that this is | possible. | | 1. https://www.windowscentral.com/software- | apps/windows-11/proj... | my123 wrote: | UEFI Secure Boot can be disabled or put in a custom | configuration on all arm64 Windows devices, including Windows | Dev Kit 2023. | smoldesu wrote: | And people said they wouldn't help. This is intended for | us! | paxys wrote: | That doesn't really mean anything. No laptop released by | Microsoft or most of its OEMs officially supports Linux. I'd | wager this one will be running some ARM distro within 5 minutes | of the first developer getting their hands on it. | [deleted] | blinkingled wrote: | Microsoft's Apple envy continues - additionally hobbled by | Qualcomm's indistinguished/2nd rate hardware and disinterested | developers. | [deleted] | osigurdson wrote: | I'd like to be able to run Windows on mac M series. | smoldesu wrote: | Or full-featured Linux, for that matter. | 58028641 wrote: | Asahi Linux is making decent progress. | VTimofeenko wrote: | Arm64 vms seem to be working great. And pretty soon Asahi | will get to the point of being completely usable as a daily | driver | smoldesu wrote: | Why would I buy a Mac Mini for Linux when devices like | this exist? The Qualcomm chip is officially supported and | much cheaper than buying the Mac. Seems to be much less | hassle and better value on the Microsoft side of things. | artificialLimbs wrote: | $699 for a Mini, $599 for this. The 32GB ram may be nice, | but I haven't felt ram pressure on my M1 16GB even | running Windows VM on Parallels once, with VSCode, Teams, | ~20 tabs of Firefox, DBeaver, Outlook, and Kitty open at | once. | | Would like to see perf numbers. Could be an interesting | box, maybe a nice home server. | Funnyduck99 wrote: | that 699 mini also has a lot smaller ssd which is pretty | important. | Funnyduck99 wrote: | Yeah I am seriously considering getting one of these. | 32gb of ram for 600 dollars plus its a decent specked arm | machine with plenty of ports | thisarticle wrote: | Where does it say Linux is officially supported? | smoldesu wrote: | The chip is having mainline Linux support merged with | 5.20, according to Phoronix: | https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-5.20-SoCs-8cx- | Gen3-Arm | monocasa wrote: | I'd wait to hear if this board has Linux support. It | might have a locked bootloader. | smoldesu wrote: | Specs seem to list UEFI Secure Boot, which has been | unlockable on all of Microsoft's Surface devices _and_ | previous ARM outings. Shipping this with a locked | bootloader would be one hell of a breach from tradition | (and probably undermine it 's usefulness as a dev box | anyways). | | Regardless, the internal SOC is the same as the new ARM | Thinkpad which also shipped with an unlocked bootloader. | Pretty much everything suggests that this will ship | unlocked. | monocasa wrote: | > Specs seem to list UEFI Secure Boot, which has been | unlockable on all of Microsoft's Surface devices and | previous ARM outings | | That doesn't quite seem accurate. | | For one example: https://www.theregister.com/2016/07/15/w | indows_fix_closes_rt... | my123 wrote: | For all ARM64 Windows devices, UEFI Secure Boot is end- | user configurable. And yes that includes Surface Pro X, | Pro 9 arm and this devkit. | speedgoose wrote: | Have you tried Parallels Desktop? | GeekyBear wrote: | Well, if they had copied Apple, they would have offered a $499 | developer test kit that you could use for a year to port your | app(s) to ARM and then return for a $200 credit. | | Then you wouldn't be stuck paying way more for much less | capable hardware. | raverbashing wrote: | If only MS was a larger company with more market push to get | QComm to put effort in it or find another supplier... /s | | Or maybe, in some twisted logic they want to sabotage their own | ARM products in favor of Intel | Manozco wrote: | It could make for an interesting server for homelab if we can | easily install Linux on it. Does anyone know if there is some | kind of lock that prevents installation of another OS ? | ramesh31 wrote: | Could this be the harbinger of a return to Windows Phone? The | world sorely needs an alternative to the mobile OS duopoly. | perardi wrote: | Why? | | (And let's set aside the how they'd possibly be able to compete | with the scale, market penetration, marketing spend, and mature | app ecosystems of iOS/Android and Apple/Samsung.) | | Privacy? Lack of advertising? Respect for the user's choices? | From the company that brought you Windows 11? Why does the | world sorely need another closed-source operating system full | of telemetry? | ramesh31 wrote: | >Privacy? Lack of advertising? Respect for the user's | choices? From the company that brought you Windows 11? Why | does the world sorely need another closed-source operating | system full of telemetry? | | Hardware. I want a Surface Phone. | IndigoIncognito wrote: | I'd argue that Microsoft entering the mobile OS market is worse | than having a duopoly | radicaldreamer wrote: | Why? | ramesh31 wrote: | >I'd argue that Microsoft entering the mobile OS market is | worse than having a duopoly | | We need something. I've lost all faith in the hardware | direction of iPhone. The 14 Pro (let alone Pro Max) is an | absurd monstrosity. And Google clearly has no interest in | innovation beyond copying Apple. | myko wrote: | > And Google clearly has no interest in innovation beyond | copying Apple. | | I disagree, I think both platforms have copied plenty from | one another. I used to jailbreak my iOS devices to get | similar functionality to Android. Hasn't been necessary for | awhile, I feel like the platforms are near parity now, but | claiming one is copying the other (with no reciprocity) | seems farfetched. | xen2xen1 wrote: | GP is probably one of the "small phone people" to hazard a | guess. | imwillofficial wrote: | How do you mean? Im curious as to your thoughts | ramesh31 wrote: | >How do you mean? Im curious as to your thoughts | | They've lost any sense of maintaining a cohesive design, | or keeping things sleek and convenient. Performance has | plateaued to a level of diminishing returns, so the only | way they can get people to buy a new phone every year | since iPhone 7 is to say "hey we put a bigger camera on | it". | | Product ran free with that mandate, and now we have this | abomination: https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg- | prod/images/trevor-raab-ipho... | | I have this recurring fantasy of an alternate history | timeline where Steve Jobs never died, and when an | engineer brought him the first iPhone 7 prototype, he | held it in his hand, flipped it over, felt the camera | bump, and said "You're fired. Get rid of the bump". I | just refuse to believe he would have allowed this to | happen, and I refuse to believe that we can't have good | cameras without bumps. | imwillofficial wrote: | Great points | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | >> I'd argue that Microsoft entering the mobile OS market is | worse than having a duopoly | | Would please you elaborate your argument? | | Personally, I think having more choices would be better. The | Apple vs. Google duopoly is limiting for consumers and | developers. | | Would you rather have an expensive device that you barely | control or a cheaper device that spies on you? | | More choices and competition, please. | scarface74 wrote: | So what exactly are "consumers" clamoring for that are not | currently being delivered? | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | >> So what exactly are "consumers" clamoring for that are | not currently being delivered? | | Until other choices are available, people tend to accept | the default or keep on doing what was done in the past. | | There is a segment of consumers that would like choices | beyond Apple and Google mobile operating systems: | | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2019/jul/0 | 4/c... | | https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/smartphones-5-alterna | tiv... | | https://www.pcmag.com/picks/break-away-from-android- | ios-7-fr... | | Personally, I would like to see more "convergence" | devices that let the little computer I carry around with | me be anything I want it to be: a programmable general | purpose computer, a streaming media server, or whatever | else I want. | | There are some projects that offer such functionality, | but most require expert knowledge to setup or are not | very widely-adopted or not very mature: | | https://maruos.com/ | | https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ | | Walled gardens are not where innovation happens because | the gardeners uproot whatever does not meet their vision. | scarface74 wrote: | You really don't think you're out of touch with what most | users want? | | > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2019/jul | /04/c... | | Yes because using an operating system from the other 1 | trillion dollar market cap company is going to be a | better alternative. Meet the new boss... | | > https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/smartphones-5-alter | nativ... | | And those alternatives are already out there and no one | wants them in a first approximation to no one | | > https://www.pcmag.com/picks/break-away-from-android- | ios-7-fr... | | Okay. So they are "out there to try". Have the majority | of users been clamoring for it? | | > Personally, I would like to see more "convergence" | devices that let the little computer I carry around with | me be anything I want it to be: a programmable general | purpose computer, a streaming media server, or whatever | else I want. | | And you are in the modernity and so much so that it | wouldn't be a profitable business. Do you think Microsoft | is going to give you that? | | > Walled gardens are not where innovation happens because | the gardeners uproot whatever does not meet their vision. | | Where are all of the "innovations" that the majority of | people care about - or even enough to make a profitable | business - on Android where you can sideload and have | third party web browser engines? | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | >> You really don't think you're out of touch with what | most users want? | | I don't claim to speak for what most people want. I think | having more options than iOS and Android could help | promote more consumer-friendly choices. | | >> Yes because using an operating system from the other 1 | trillion dollar market cap company is going to be a | better alternative. Meet the new boss... | | It would be another choice. Yes, they have similar | incentives, but more choices help to drive innovation and | keep all players competitive. | | >> And you are in the modernity and so much so that it | wouldn't be a profitable business. Do you think Microsoft | is going to give you that? | | No. Microsoft is a better position than many to be a | third choice in smartphone platforms, but they have shown | poor initiative in the mobile space. They could try again | or it could be some other organization with sufficient | know-how and daring. (Something disruptive like Tesla or | Starlink perhaps?) | | >> Have the majority of users been clamoring for it? | | "If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would | have said a faster horse." --Henry Ford | | "Some people say give the customers what they want, but | that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what | they're going to want before they do." --Steve Jobs | | >> Where are all of the "innovations" that the majority | of people care about - or even enough to make a | profitable business - on Android where you can sideload | and have third party web browser engines? | | Android is innovative because it is more open than iOS. | Even more innovation is possible given the right | circumstances. | scarface74 wrote: | > I don't claim to speak for what most people want. I | think having more options than iOS and Android could help | promote more consumer-friendly choices. | | Using Linux on the phone with the lack of integration, | the poor interface etc is the opposite of "consumer | friendly". | | Normal consumers are not asking for the ability to | "program their phone and run media servers". | | > Android is innovative because it is more open than iOS. | Even more innovation is possible given the right | circumstances | | "Open" is not an "innovation". | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | >> Using Linux on the phone with the lack of integration, | the poor interface etc is the opposite of "consumer | friendly". | | Who said anything about using Linux on phones? I agree | that a third smartphone platform would need to be user | friendly. Whether based on Linux, OpenBSD, QNX, Symbian, | or something is just a technical detail. | | >> Normal consumers are not asking for the ability to | "program their phone and run media servers" | | No one asked for iPhone. They were quite happy with their | Blackberry and Treo phones. My personal wants for a | smartphone are not why having a third smartphone platform | would help innovation and competition in the current | stagnant duopoly. | | >> "Open" is not an "innovation". | | Yes, but "Closed" sucks for everyone but the platform | owners. | | iOS developers have been suffering and Apple has little | reason it fix the issues: | https://www.wired.com/story/apples-app-store-review-fix- | fail... | | Android developers face similar troubles: | http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/07/developer-class- | action-se... | | The current smartphone duopoly is just two competing | monopolies with consumers and developers caught in the | middle. | | Some organizations are trying to get "Open" smartphone | marketplaces and more choice and competition in the | markets: | | https://appfairness.org/ | | https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press- | releases/2022... | | Open standards and open markets encourage real | competition and innovation. | ridgered4 wrote: | Not the OP but I've had this thought as well. Microsoft has | an almost unassailable position on desktop even still. If | they had a solid position in mobile they could probably | expel Android/iOS from enterprise with the same bundling | tactics they use to push out different software on Windows | with their own (often but not always) inferior offerings. | From there the consumer space would be weaker and | enterprise may start to ignore iOS/Android altogether. iOS | and Android may well be to entrenched at this point for | this to be a realistic fear, but based on how aggressively | Google reacted to Windows phone (The youtube app fiasco) I | think they at least worry about it a great deal. | | Ideally, we'd have 3 or more fairly evenly matched and | interoperable OS choices on mobile and desktop but that | doesn't seem likely to happen. Trapping the monopoly inside | it's own castle may be the best we can get. | | I feel similarly about people calling for Apple to open iOS | up to different browser engines. Idealistically that is | what I believe should happen, but realistically I think it | would just result in Chrome being even more dominate. For | the same reason I lament the death of IE and even the | original Edge. I don't personally use IE or Safari but I | benefited from them existing and having decent market | share. | | > Would you rather have an expensive device that you barely | control or a cheaper device that spies on you? | | It is unclear to me if modern Windows actually still spies | on you any less than Google at this point. My feeling is if | still does, it isn't by much. | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | >> Microsoft has an almost unassailable position on | desktop even still. If they had a solid position in | mobile they could probably expel Android/iOS from | enterprise with the same bundling tactics they use to | push out different software on Windows with their own | (often but not always) inferior offerings. | | >> It is unclear to me if modern Windows actually still | spies on you any less than Google at this point. My | feeling is if still does, it isn't by much. | | Microsoft is in a good position to be a strong third | contender in the mobile space, but that does not mean | that they would be better in all aspects. | | >> Ideally, we'd have 3 or more fairly evenly matched and | interoperable OS choices on mobile and desktop but that | doesn't seem likely to happen. Trapping the monopoly | inside it's own castle may be the best we can get. | | Yes. That is why I would like to see more choices with | hopefully better treatment of consumers and developers. | Right now consumers have limited choices and the mobile | development experience is agonizingly painful. It seems | like an opportunity for disruption, but the entrenched | players are dug in deep and probably nearly impossible to | dislodge. | IndigoIncognito wrote: | I was joking... Everyone Chill out | faeriechangling wrote: | The hardware looks well suited to a cluster to me especially at | the price point and with the presumably low power usage. Smack | three of these bad boys together and you're got about 64gb of | memory to work with and 32gb for redundancy for $1800. That's not | terrible considering SBCs only go up to about 16gb of memory and | tinyminimicro boxes probably draw a bit more power and don't cost | less new... | cpsns wrote: | 800$ in Canada, at that price point it's impossible to justify | buying it instead of an M1 Mac Mini for 100$ more as a general | use machine, especially given the sorry state of Windows-ARM. | | Given it's a dev kit companies won't care about cost, but I can't | see many being sold to independent/small developers, the | excitement just isn't there. | bpye wrote: | I initially had the same reaction but the 900$ Mac Mini has | only 8GB of memory, 256GB of storage and can only drive two | displays, vs this which has 32GB of memory, 512GB of storage | and can drive three displays. | [deleted] | klodolph wrote: | It makes sense. The Mac Mini is what you get if you want to make | a Mac or iOS app, but you want to keep your Windows or Linux | system for daily use. | TwoNineA wrote: | What's wrong with using a Mac Mini as a daily driver? | klodolph wrote: | I think you may be responding to something I didn't write :-) | wumpus wrote: | I have a mac mini as a desktop in my home office and actual | office, multiple screens, and almost all my windows are either | browsers or shell windows to my Linux dev server. I've never | developed a MacOS or iOS app. | ArtWomb wrote: | I think I have to get one. To replace an obsolete HP Steam. I | was gonna do the Mac Mini, but I don't think the M2 model is | out yet. Just worry about Win ARM compatibility across remote | desktop, citrix daas, etc ;) | gopalv wrote: | > The Mac Mini is what you get if you want to make a Mac or iOS | app | | This is probably closer to the Mac Mini with M1 that they | shipped to kick-start the Apple Silicon transition for desktop | apps. | | Because if I was a windows programmer for today's customers, I | can't really build things on a "Windows on Arm" device like | this. | | Like Apple before, I hope this is just the first salvo against | the Windows+Intel, before we all switch to Arm chips (including | Intel fabs). | porbelm wrote: | I imagine Dr. Su a couple of years ago whispered to a couple | of lead technicians "you are going to start a little garage | side project here at AMD; it will be the future" | | AMD releases 32-core + ARM APUs | pell wrote: | Are you sure? I don't want to go the anecdote route here but I | know plenty of people who use Mac minis as daily driver desktop | machines. | klodolph wrote: | Yes, I'm pretty sure that the Mac Mini is good as a machine | for developing Mac and iOS applications. I have myself used | it for this purpose in the past, and it worked very well. | TazeTSchnitzel wrote: | There's no conflict? It's a good daily driver for some, and a | good second machine for others. | dijit wrote: | There's a lot more use-cases though, of both systems. | | If you want a "good" small computer and you already have a | screen (or want to buy cheap ones) then these systems are | fantastic. | | Performance is completely fine for moderate-to-heavy workloads | (assuming the heavy workloads are bursty) for the Mac mini, and | hopefully this. | | Both systems are what you would get if you didn't need a | display or keyboard already, they're desktop replacements with | a small footprint, and fantastic for the majority of computer | workloads including a lot of development ones. | newaccount2021 wrote: | lostmsu wrote: | Lack of HDMI is disappointing. | cjensen wrote: | HDMI connectors cost a lot of money to the HDMI licensing | authority. This payment is very painful if you have a small | quantity of shipments. DisplayPort is free. And as others have | pointed out, you just need to buy a cable. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Wouldn't display over USB-C solve this as well? | Joe_Boogz wrote: | It looks like this does support display over USB-C - the | tech specs have a snippet saying that you should use DP | over USB-C so you see the BIOS. | montecarl wrote: | A <$10 cable solves this problem. | [deleted] | regular wrote: | fxtentacle wrote: | Sorry Microsoft, you lost me with Windows 11. I'll wait until you | release a worthy successor to Windows 10, just like when I | skipped Vista. | nyanpasu64 wrote: | Windows 10 (and perhaps 8) was the beginning of Windows as | spyware and adware that exists to manipulate rather than serve | the user (outside of past obscure edge cases like Windows's | anti-piracy mechanisms and disabling debugging on audiodg.exe). | Now we have forced Microsoft accounts at install time, | gaslighting users for switching off Edge and sending your Edge | browsing history to coupon clipping sites, telemetry in Windows | and Visual Studio and every time you open a MSVC command | prompt, Visual Studio phoning home your menu searched to the | web for "cloud AI menu search results"... | DeathArrow wrote: | I also skipped Windows Millennium and Windows 8. | fxtentacle wrote: | Yeah ME was awful, too. I thought 8.1 was actually OK. | [deleted] | jstimpfle wrote: | Is there a list of things that are worse with 11? I had it | pushed on one of my less frequently used devices and so far all | that has been annoying has been the Explorer context menu which | hides "less used" items (some of which I frequently need, of | course) behind a "More" entry. | nevi-me wrote: | I'd also be curious to know. I've found Win11 to mostly be a | skin on top of 10. | | Maybe I'm biased because I'm on the Insider Program, and I | get changes incrementally instead of as a big release in 2 | years | taspeotis wrote: | Personally I find Windows 11 fine although the decision to | make the start bar only icons instead of icon + text is a bit | bizarre in today's trend towards (ultra)wide monitors. | nightski wrote: | I despise the fact that there is no right-click/context | menu on the task bar. I use that frequently. | taspeotis wrote: | I think there is a registry key for that? And the very | latest Insider build brings back Task Manager on right | click. | | Explorer Patcher can fix it all but you shouldn't be | obliged to fight the OS to feel productive. | neogodless wrote: | For me personally | | - Taskbar cannot be pinned to the side on my widescreen | monitors | | - Items on taskbar cannot be un-grouped | | - Cannot show text on taskbar | | - News/weather widget is awful, full of clickbait news and | tiny Weather widget, which is vastly inferior to having a | live tile that opens to a full screen weather app | | - Reduced start menu customization (live tiles / grid are | replaced with folders that add an extra click) | | Other than that I haven't used it enough to comment much | more. I have it on my laptop which is mostly just used for | gaming, and I can tolerate the taskbar and start menu | regressions. But for me, most of using Windows is... using | the taskbar and start menu. To take away most of their | functionality seems like complete insanity! | layer8 wrote: | - The awful new context menu in Explorer. | dmonitor wrote: | it's so terrible that they even have to include a "show | the good context menu" button | gzer0 wrote: | This tool [1] can solve all of your Windows 11 problems. I | simply refuse to use windows 11 without the full right | click context menu. This open source program does that, and | much, much more. Smaller task bar, grouping/ungrouping | icons. So glad I found this. | | [1] https://github.com/valinet/ExplorerPatcher | jyrkesh wrote: | > - Items on taskbar cannot be un-grouped | | Oh my god, so much this one. It's driving me insane. I keep | hoping that the next round of Start menu "improvements" | bring it back, but I keep getting disappointed. | fxtentacle wrote: | They basically tried to remove everything that needs a 2nd | mouse button. Plus many keyboard shortcuts are gone. It looks | and feels like an iPad to me, not like an environment to be | productive in. | nottorp wrote: | Does it have a power brick larger than the NUC, like those things | usually do? | | Neither the Verge piccies nor the marketing movie are clear on | this. | Joe_Boogz wrote: | X2 - If its ARM / mobile chip I wouldn't think that the power | supply would be very big. Maybe it's internal? | thom_ wrote: | They should give them away. I'd never spend $600 on any kind of | windows product. Maybe we can install linux on it? But you'd have | to be smoking crack not to buy a mac mini m1. It's the best | computer I ever used hands down | imwillofficial wrote: | I mean crack, or a specific use case that isn't Mac bound like | some kinds of development. | | But probably crack | LegitShady wrote: | if you don't want to spend money on it, just dont buy one. It's | ok for something to be made for people who aren't you. | swarnie wrote: | Can a mac mini m1 run Windows? | nottorp wrote: | No, not x86 Windows. You can only virtualize ARM Windows, | which the other answers mean. | dottedmag wrote: | Yes, in Parallels. | TillE wrote: | Virtualized, yes. For most purposes, an M1/M2 Mac is an | excellent platform for developing stuff for Windows ARM64. | 1123581321 wrote: | When Apple released its $500 ARM dev kit ahead of the M1, they | offered a $200 credit in exchange for return. Something | equivalent seems appropriate here. This isn't meant to be a | computer for mass consumption so shouldn't be compared to the | M1 Mini. | [deleted] | justapassenger wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU | csnweb wrote: | It seems to be priced relatively cheap already with 32GB Ram | and a 512GB SSD. A Mac mini with only 16GB of memory already | costs nearly twice as much and I really wish there were a 32 gb | mini at all. I like my Mac mini, but I hit the memory limit | from time to time. | [deleted] | pid-1 wrote: | Why would anyone buy that before Windows users are actually using | ARM? | wmf wrote: | Maybe MS is giving these for free to important developers. | timbit42 wrote: | To run Linux on it, if it isn't locked out. | Nican wrote: | Jeff Atwood 5 years ago: "the Qualcomm hardware people told | Google internally they were 5 years behind Apple on hardware. | This was about 1.5 years ago, but I believe that's about right." | ( https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/1050538041796788225) | | And benchmarks continue to show: | https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1584350796233117696 | tootie wrote: | Is the chip in this PC anywhere on that chart? I assume it's | most similar to the latest Galaxy's which are not far behind | Mac. Which is pretty much fine as far as I can tell, I don't | see many CPU-bound workstation activities for most folks. And | if you are CPU bound, you don't buy a micro form factor. | MBCook wrote: | Someone had a battery life test for phones. The iPhones beat | the android phones in nearly every test by hours. And they only | had 60-70% of the raw battery capacity. | | And you know they have faster processors too. | | It's so weird to me. The A series is kind of "that doesn't | count" because the competition can't get close. The M series | wowed people and then we all went back to normal AMD/Intel | stuff like nothing happened. | | If I want a new PC laptop, it just won't compare because no | reasonable part is available for the heat/battery life I could | have gotten. | sylens wrote: | It is astonishing to me that people are out there buying | Intel PC laptops when the M1 MBA can be had for <$1000 | tootie wrote: | Well, $1000 upfront plus $100 a year for the right to | develop apps. | borissk wrote: | The base MBA comes with only 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD and has | very limited upgrade option. Also Apple charges crazy | prices for more RAM and storage. | | For $1000 one can buy a Windows laptop with 32GB RAM and | 1TB SDD, that can cheaply be upgraded to 64GB memory and | 10+TB SSD (2x SO-DIMM slots + 2x M2 PCIe slots). | jzb wrote: | Um. Cheaply to 10+ TB SSD? Where are you shopping?! I | want to go there. | MBCook wrote: | I'm not arguing people should switch to an M1 Mac. | | I'm trying to say I think people should have the option | of something like it on Windows, not just the hot/power | hungry stuff out there today. | MattGaiser wrote: | $1000 is still more than I would guess about half of PCs. | | It would surprise me if my mother, grandparents, sister, | etc. have ever sent more than $800 on a computer. | q-big wrote: | > It is astonishing to me that people are out there buying | Intel PC laptops when the M1 MBA can be had for <$1000 | | Can the M1 MBA run Windows? | | EDIT: Or can it run GNU/Linux natively (see | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33320765)? | 58028641 wrote: | Apple Silicon Macs can run Windows and Linux in a VM. | Asahi Linux (native) is making decent progress. | eliasmacpherson wrote: | The M1 is a marvel, however there's a vast range of things | it's not going to do anytime soon, e.g. CUDA, eGPU etc - | nevermind games. | | https://store.steampowered.com/macos | | Had they not pushed Metal so hard over Vulkan - then things | would be different. There's time yet for them to change | course. (Seems Valve open sourced MoltenVK, so that's one | barrier removed at least!) | jimnotgym wrote: | It depends what is important to you. | | Firstly I am mostly plugged in, so battery life is | secondary. | | Secondly I am a heavy Excel user, and it just isn't as good | on Apple | | Thirdly I use PowerBI which isn't available for Apple | | Lastly I have hybrid Active Directory, and can deploy SSO | trivially to my remote Windows users, which I can't on Mac. | During Covid I could mail someone a PC and get them signed | on to AD resources in minutes. My Windows users are first | class citizens, easier to support, and happier with their | IT. | ultrasounder wrote: | THIS! Apple:- fair warning an inside Bollywood joke. | | Apple:- "Mere paas M1/M2/MAX,A16, Hain " and looks at | MSFT and asks "Tere paas kya Hain"? | | MSFT:- Shoulder shrugs and says "Mere Paas Excel Hain". | | Apple has nothing on Excel. And Numbers languishes Excel | by a few generations. Esp after the boatload of updates | that Excel APIs got last year. I guess it's all about | priorities and what's important for that business at that | time. | MBCook wrote: | That wasn't what I was trying to say. | | I know there is Windows only software. I know there is | software that's better on Windows. | | I don't care if people switch to Mac. | | They should _all_ have the choice of a chip as good (or | reasonably close) to the M1. | | But they don't. And it doesn't look like that's changing. | And I find that sad. | MBCook wrote: | I'm not advocating everyone switch to Mac. I'm sorry if I | gave that impression. | | I'm advocating Windows/Linux users should have the choice | of a machine roughly as good. Doesn't have to 1:1, but | clearly there is a lot of space for "better" past what | everyone is selling today. | | And I don't see that improving much after 2 years and I | find it kind of sad. | | Why should you have to switch OSes and everything to have | a fast computer with good battery life that's quiet and | cool? | | You shouldn't. | matsemann wrote: | I guess that says something about the concessions some of | us will do to avoid using MacOS. | encryptluks2 wrote: | An Intel laptop can be had for like $200 | makeitdouble wrote: | This was the general sentiment when Apple was on PowerPC, | and we were buying pricier mac laptops just because of the | OS. | | I don't have actual experience on a windows machine right | now, but if the linux subsystem is getting good enough, | switching there could be worth the hardware and price | penalty. | uni_rule wrote: | I understand the sentiment but a dead ssd won't permanently | brick a large portion of x86 laptops. | II2II wrote: | More to the point: I can still access the data from the | SSD even if every other component on the laptop was dead. | Heck, I could pop the SSD into another laptop and | continue working where I left off. | karmelapple wrote: | Who went back to AMD/Intel stuff? Any Apple user is far away | from that, and comparing the performance, heat, noise, and | battery differences between my Intel and Apple Silicon | computers, I have no desire to regularly use an Intel machine | until they make some stratospheric leap. | | (I still need it for some x86 vagrant boxes I have though!) | moomin wrote: | The entertaining thing here is that Apple's walled garden | is intended to keep people in, but here it's keeping them | out. The M1 is a technical marvel, but if you're not | already tied to Apple, it's nowhere near good enough to | warrant leaping that wall. | Dennip wrote: | But isn't the walled garden in thsi case part of the | appeal? i.e. running windows on it bare metal would not | be as performant because of all the tighly coupled | hardware-software integration apple do? | josephg wrote: | I did. I moved over to linux mint for at-the-desk | programming (though I still use a macbook while traveling). | My linux desktop idles at 0% CPU, which is something macos | hasn't been able to deliver for 5+ years at this point. | | Current generation Intel / AMD desktop CPUs have similar | performance to apple's M1/M2 chips. They just consume a lot | more power. (Though apparently applying a slight underclock | makes a huge difference.) | | I'm not sure how recent intel / AMD laptop performance | compares, but a PC with an x86 chip is still a great | choice. | chaostheory wrote: | For VR and games, Apple doesn't compare to PCs for now | until Apple Reality is released. Apple tolerates video | games now because of the revenue, but they still don't like | them. The M2 is the most amazing Apple upgrade that I've | ever had, but it's an ecosystem that doesn't garner enough | support for non-mobile, non-iOS video games. | MBCook wrote: | I meant the rest of the industry. They said "wow" and then | went back to business as usual. They had talking points | about how they'll improve and performance (as always) and | efficiency got talked up more. | | But when will any of that show up? Hardware takes time but | I just don't see reviewers demanding it. They'll be happy | if it shows up but they're not calling out "this isn't good | enough" and I just don't get it. How can they use an M1 and | go back to a hot low battery life Intel laptop in the same | price class and say "this is fine?" | jborean93 wrote: | What can you do about it. Outside of Apple hardware | running macOS you just can't get the same. We can demand | all we want but no one can offer what is available from | Apple yet. I'm certainly not surprised Qualcomm/Intel/AMD | want to add more fire to their feet by talking up their | competition. | MBCook wrote: | But you _have_ to demand it. People have to make clear to | the vendors that _this matters_. | | As long people don't do that everything will continue as | normal. It needs to be very clear _you're not doing good | enough_. | | As long as reviewers keep ignoring the elephant in the | room in their text and scores, how are you ever going to | get what I'm guessing just about everyone wants? They may | not know it (us Mac users were getting annoyed at heat | and noise but didn't know how much). | | But I'm convinced if someone built it, users would come | out of the woodwork. So many people doing "office" work | that doesn't require high power machines would benefit. | Qualcomm just doesn't seem to be trying very hard in the | computer segment. | geerlingguy wrote: | It's surprising that efficiency is barely mentioned | still, in all the latest AMD / Intel reviews, maybe it's | even a point that early reviewers have to avoid or | something? | | To me, the performance per watt is increasingly important | not only as we start approaching branch circuit limits | (1200-1500W max in the US), but also as (in many places) | energy prices continue to rise. | | Both idle power consumption (e-state, core sleeping, | etc.) and max power consumption (with a few measures of | work per watt) should be highlighted in any serious | review, probably on par with whatever other benchmarks | (like Cinebench, Blender, etc.). | girvo wrote: | Hardware Unboxed is the only reviewer that I see that | discusses efficiency consistently when reviewing parts | (be they CPUs or GPUs) | sunjester wrote: | This is very hard for me to believe, even when I see the test | results. Everyone I know with an Apple phone is either over | 60 or looking for a charger. | tootie wrote: | That can't possibly be a useful benchmark. There are hundreds | of Android models with different batteries and power | characteristics. Was it just CPU power efficiency? | LeonM wrote: | If I click on the "You can purchase the dev-kit here" button, I | get "We are sorry, the page you requested cannot be found". | | Probably because the device is not available in my country, but | then at least show a page explaining I can't purchase the device | based on my IP or whatever. This was a really bad experience. | jayski wrote: | game of thrones has nothing on that Microsoft video... | nuc1e0n wrote: | Does windows on arm have emulation for x86 programs? I'd think | something like what apple has done in the past with rosetta would | be a necessity. | | It doesn't have to be super fast, just work well enough. | Scharkenberg wrote: | Yes, both 32-bit and 64-bit apps should work, as long as they | don't rely on low-level x86 stuff. | nuc1e0n wrote: | Why isn't this capability highlighted more? | Scharkenberg wrote: | I don't know, perhaps because it's not that new. It's very | nice to have though. | | On the other hand this particular device is meant as a dev | kit for making ARM apps (either new ones or porting | traditional programs to ARM) - it would be _a little bit | ironic_ if x86 compatibility were to be highlighted here. | dignick wrote: | https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/apps-on-arm-x8... | | Yes, but not for drivers (so device manufacturers have to write | drivers specifically for ARM) | tim-- wrote: | It sure does! https://learn.microsoft.com/en- | us/windows/arm/apps-on-arm-x8... | | It's probably nowhere near as good as Apple's emulation. | https://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-on-arm-this-is-... | functorg wrote: | Very interesting to see that it has a built-in NPU. Such co- | processors are increasingly being included in recent high-end | mobile phone platforms, used mostly to accelerate image | processing algorithms. | | Seems like this is a sign of things to come in Windows platforms | too, since Microsoft are including an NPU in this devkit. The PC | of the future may well end up being CPU+GPU+NPU as standard, much | as it is CPU+GPU today. | kimburgess wrote: | I'm almost willing to bet this is early look at what a 'native' | Microsoft Teams Room device is. Currently Microsoft relies on a | partner ecosystem for compute in these, but given the push into | more features built around real-time image processing, dealing | with multiple cameras, multiple audio channels and other | latency sensitive workloads this seems like a perfect platform | to distribute that. | solarkraft wrote: | Are they actually becoming serious about ARM all of a sudden or | is this just a fluke? | | It speaks volumes that Visual Studio wasn't even available as an | ARM version until now. | znpy wrote: | No, they have been for a while. You don't port a whole | proprietary os to another isa overnight. | | And iirc windows rt already ran on arm. | wvenable wrote: | First they to make the 64bit version of Visual Studio for | x86-64. It seems the ARM port was pretty fast after that. | rkagerer wrote: | Not to be confused with Voltera, a company in Canada that makes | desktop PCB printers. | mrlonglong wrote: | I've spent ages trying to get Windows 10 Pro for ARM to run on my | raspberry pi w/ 8GB. Seems to boot and then spend age doing sod | all. Maybr some day it'll get better but until then I'm sticking | with Linux. <3 | mdasen wrote: | 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. | chocolatkey wrote: | The most interesting part to me was the quote from Denuvo, | presumably testing out pluton: "The Volterra | devices are neat and powerful, ideal for us to test our market- | leading anti-piracy and anti-cheat game security technologies. | They're also very quiet, and they just work out of the box." - | Reinhard Blaukovitsch, Managing Director of Denuvo by Irdeto | progbits wrote: | Yay, more walled gardens that will break for legitimate | customers while pirated version will continue to work forever. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29149555 | [deleted] | no_time wrote: | I wonder how many years until every DRM vendor can enforce | pluton as a baseline. 5 more? | carlamengo wrote: | > "Performance with Volterra has been refreshingly fast. We | have run Actipro's x86-based product installers, and they all | worked. Our WPF and WinForms controls all work well with no | changes, even the 'API-heavy' ones, as does all test | collateral." - Boyd Patterson, Senior Software Engineer, | Actipro Software | | I just thought the same, but not WPF native on arm?, but an | emulation layer?, still looks very promising. | bitwize wrote: | All that effort and the best ARM Windows development machine is | still "a VM on an Apple Silicon Mac". | mappu wrote: | My understanding is that it's not possible to legally get a | license for Windows in that case, as there's no SKU for it. | | Has that changed? Otherwise it's nonviable at $DAYJOB, | layer8 wrote: | What prevents you from using an existing not-hardware-bound | license? Enterprise volume licenses should also work. | lordleft wrote: | Is this actually true? How is Visual Studio in parallels or | crossover? | thesquib wrote: | Not great | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Technically, yes. If you look at the benchmarks, a VM of | Windows on an M1 (base model) is significantly faster than | both the SQ1 / 8cx Gen 1 and SQ2 / 8cx Gen 2 processors | Microsoft included with the Surface Pro X (by like, 30%, it's | not even close), though how it compares to 8cx Gen 3 / SQ3 is | unknown. However, considering we're on M2 by now, and that we | now have M1 Pro and M1 Ultra models as well... egh... | kcb wrote: | Having a functioning GPU with this box is likely to make a | bigger difference than the benchmarks in general use. | postalrat wrote: | 32gb on an m2 is probably going to cost you around $3000. I | don't think 32gb on m1 is even possible. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Sure - if you need all 32GB for development work, it is a | great deal. But, with a processor slower than a midrange | modern Intel laptop, good luck using it to its full | extent without feeling quite slow. So slow you might | almost prefer a 16GB M1 Mac mini with swap for the rest | despite the VM. | | Plus, if you read Microsoft documentation on Windows on | ARM so far, Microsoft doesn't actually expect you to use | an IDE on these machines - but rather run your code | remotely on them. You'll be a lot happier with your IDE | running on a more powerful machine. Of course, if you do | that, the lack of a GPU on the M1 for a Windows on ARM VM | becomes not really an issue. | petercooper wrote: | _But, with a processor slower than a midrange modern | Intel laptop, good luck using it to its full extent | without feeling quite slow_ | | I have little recent Windows development experience, but | I wonder if Windows on native Arm gets the same sort of | latency/lagginess reduction that going from Intel to Arm | on macOS does? Even if the raw processing power is less, | I would be happy with the tradeoff if Windows felt even | snappier. | postalrat wrote: | 16gb is the near the cutoff that I need to run all the | app/containers/etc I need. If I don't have enough memory | everything comes to an abrupt crawl. | | When that happens it doesn't matter what CPU I have, | things are nearly locked up. | lostmsu wrote: | VS .NET workload is advertised to be working already. | throwaway44111 wrote: | My mac studio with an Apple M1 Ultra has 64GB of unified | memory. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | Which probably cost you a bit more than $600. | croes wrote: | M1 != M1 Ultra | postalrat wrote: | How much development experience targeting windows on arm do you | have? | faeriechangling wrote: | I've developed on WoA plenty and it's my primary Windows dev | platform, but targeting it? Lol. I spin up an Azure VM for | testing. | | Any business which might have made use of this to take | advantage of things like ARM devices being cheaper/more | available than x86 devices (you literally can't find an x86 | tablet worth using for less than $400) long since ported to | Android. Microsoft sort of missed the boat with ARM. Every | time I see those little android based terminals littered | around small businesses I think "man this sure is a business | Microsoft lost for no real reason" | | I wish Microsoft would support the WoA use case people could | actually take advantage of. Using windows in a Mac VM. That | would be by far the most effective way to get people to | develop for the platform, not this product. | Joe_Boogz wrote: | It appears the consensus is HN is hesitant about the Windows on | ARM push. I really want this to succeed. | | If this gains traction then we should start seeing support for | windows laptops on ARM. As a dev who prefers windows but has a m1 | MacBook b/c of the battery life I really hope this works out. | detaro wrote: | There are Windows ARM laptops already, and their existence does | a lot to justify that hesitancy. | Joe_Boogz wrote: | Previous laptops and current surface devices do support ARM, | but IMO nothing MSFT has put out has been serious. (Looking | at you Surface Pro X). This targeted solution correctly | identifies the main problem with Windows on ARM. Lack of | developer support. Outside of internal MSFT dev support no | one has taken Windows/ARM support seriously. I hope these dev | kits represent a wider market push that ultimately leads to | better Windows laptops on ARM. (Ones that can close to gap | with the current MacBook lineups). | doublerebel wrote: | The new Surface Pro 7 ARM looks serious -- it does seem to | be the first serious ARM entry, though. | | Lack of Windows ARM devices for dev really has hamstrung | Hololens 2 development -- it's also Windows ARM and there | are very few libraries with Windows ARM compatibility. I | altered many libraries myself, despite that the | documentation was nearly nonexistent. | pornel wrote: | Of course Qualcomm being chronically incapable of making fast | CPUs doesn't help, but partly it's just a chicken-egg problem | of lack of ARM-optimized Windows software caused by the lack | of ARM Windows users. | | Having a decent devkit may help bring more native ARM | software, which may make these underpowered machines struggle | less with speed and compatibility. | treis wrote: | Genuinely asking because I don't know. Is there anything | that's better about ARM or is the Apple/TSMC being better | than Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, et. al.? | Cupprum wrote: | 1 - The instruction set is more interesting because it is | smaller. | | 2 - Arm also implements weak ordering which is type of | memory model. It allows instructions to be separated into | groups based on whether they affect other instructions. | This allows these groups to skip some waiting lines. | (Magic). X86 has strong ordering, which can make it | slower in specific scenarios. | temac wrote: | 3 - The instruction set is made of fixed length | instructions | | TBH there are various mostly-Apple/TSMC-"exclusive" | tricks too, for why their chips are better than the | others: | | A - On Apple Silicon, pages are larger, but not too large | | B - there are various accelerators leveraged by libraries | provided in the OS (or the provided toolchains, etc.) | | C - Apple got to use the best TSMC process years before | the competition. | | D - TSMC is ahead (I'm curious of what Zen4 will give on | laptop, btw) | | So it's mixed. The ARM ISA probably plays a small role in | the perf of Apple Silicon vs. x86 chips, but is probably | not the main cause of the perf gap. | sethhochberg wrote: | Its less about the instruction set and more about the | specific implementation choices and market they're | competing in. Apple has been doing ARM SoC design for a | long time and was an early 64-bit adopter, buys tons of | bleeding-edge capacity from fabs, and is willing to | design in more expensive features like tons of onboard | cache that they can make up on margins in other ways | because Apple sells complete devices, while Qualcomm etc | are mostly in the business of selling chips. So while | there are fundamental differences between x86 and ARM, | the bigger differences are more "Apple vs other ARM SoC | designers" than something fundamentally different about | ARM that Apple takes advantage of. | kotaKat wrote: | Yeah, I'm sitting here shocked at everyone's hate. I took a | major leap and bought a Thinkpad X13s, with the same 8cx Gen 3 | CPU this thing has. | | I am beyond impressed at it. Windows 11 on it - while, yes, | it's Windows 11 with its own concerns and issues - runs | flawlessly. I've been able to run my traditional x86 and x64 | workloads - even things like arm64 Tailscale without issues, | and I get amazing battery life. | | I am 100% for this thing. It's value for money in the high- | performance ARM Windows rig market. It benches similarly to a | ~11th gen i5 and runs the part. | MBCook wrote: | I'm out of the Windows ecosystem, except one machine at work. | | I'd love Windows on ARM to work. I love my M1 and would like | something comparable. | | But Apple had the M1 and the ARM PCs seem to be based on iPhone | 7 level chips (perceptually). | | "You can have Intel or ARM. No one buys ARM so there is little | software. Windows was ruined on ARM for a long time. Your ARM | laptop will be way slower, but it will be cheap because the | only ones you can buy are ultra-low spec with terrible | components like eMMC storage." | | There is absolutely no compelling reason to buy one for any | reason and they're not fixing it. | | The first MacBook Air was a horrible computer in many ways, but | it really excelled in one that mattered to people. | | These don't have that one thing that matters. They're just | 'meh' computers that don't run much. MS can't fix it (without | their own chip) and Qualcomm seemingly wont either. | binkHN wrote: | I don't know if Windows on ARM has a future, but, IMHO, almost | anything that encourages more happenings in the ARM ecosystem is | a benefit--the whole world has gone mobile, and its longer | battery life takes the cake over its more powerful x86/amd64 | counterparts. | nevi-me wrote: | It continues to suck how African countries are excluded from | these product launches and from many products in general. | | Microsoft has enough partners and regional offices because | Office365 and Azure are the only worthy products for us in | "shithole countries". | | If Microsoft isn't intending on selling a lot of these devices, | the cost of adding 1 or 2 African countries would be relatively | small compared to the revenue they make from our regions. | | I mean, expensive Macs came out, costing twice the shitty | HP/Lenovo/Dell enterprise offerings with poor thermals and | battery life. We bought them. | | I would buy this device if it was for sale in my market, I see a | benefit in testing my work on Windows ARM64. | DeathArrow wrote: | >It continues to suck how African countries are excluded from | these product launches | | All South American, most Asian and most European countries are | excluded. That sucks, too. | d4mi3n wrote: | Do we have any sense of how much of this is driven by privacy | regulation? Newer versions of Windows have been more | aggressive about collecting user information, so this would | not at all surprise me. | bornfreddy wrote: | Given that they are launching in _some_ of the EU | countries, not much. That said, I do hope their data | harvesting breaks some laws somewhere and they get fined | handsomely. This trend is atrocious. | ohbtvz wrote: | The EU has probably some of the strictest privacy | regulations in the world. I don't really get why you would | think that. | Bakary wrote: | Are there any actual stats of how profitable African countries | are for Microsoft? | nevi-me wrote: | I'd have to look. My previous employer spends a life changing | amount of money on Azure. MS has a lot of local partners. | They have an office here which seems adequately staffed | (might be mostly consultants). I'd say 90% of South African | businesses use Office365 to done level. We have Xbox | subscriptions. When the Xbox came out, people bought it. | | On the surface, Microsoft should be making decent revenue. It | won't compare with the revenue from the 8 markets they chose. | However that's my point, if they include smaller markets | strategically in some launches, it can benefit them in the | future. | 708145_ wrote: | Excluded how you mean? | croes wrote: | "The Windows Dev Kit 2023 is now available to developers in 8 | countries: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, | the United Kingdom and the United States." | [deleted] | MikusR wrote: | They exclude about 180 countries | tristor wrote: | This looks like a really good deal for folks using WSL2 and VS | Code for development. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-24 23:00 UTC)