Next time lead off with “I will reject any argument to the contrary” in your posts so that I don’t waste my ****in time with a measured response.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple M1 Pro Review - Is It Really Faster than Intel/AMD?
- Thread starter Shirasaki
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a complicated issue for sure. Apple can pull off things like the architecture transitions, or the moves away from 16, then 32-bit software because they control the Mac hardware and OS. MS can only write software for existing hardware, OEMs can only use Microsoft's OS. Neither can make any major changes without the other. Microsoft has done their part, but there really isn't anything comparable to M1 readily available. I'm sure there will be pressure. Microsoft would love to be able to offer Surface hardware that can match M1, or even design an Xbox that can fit the power of the Series X into the form factor of the Series S.
I'm sure we'll see more ARM on Windows going forward, just as I'm sure we'll see more ARM in servers. There will be demand for ARM-based Chromebooks to compete with M1 as well.
Yes, Windows on Arm will be there, but they wont be the majority, not even a good minority until they start licensing to individuals. There really is no advantage to running it right now.
Unfortunately, that's a bit of a turd sandwich for Microsoft right now. I would imagine that even M1 will run WoA faster in a VM than Microsoft's own Surface Pro X can run it natively. It will take some time before we see competing ARM chips for laptops and desktops. And it will take time for mainboards and chipsets to become available to DIYers, well, something more powerful than Raspberry Pi anyway. But I do think Apple has demonstrated that it is feasible and profitable.
ARM for the desktop is in a weird situation. Apple pulled it off because they control the whole stack, obviously. But PCs are another question entirely.
Wintel got where it is because the IBM 5150 shipped with it, and “PC Compatibles” grew out of there. Essentially both Intel and Windows piggybacked off the reach of IBM.
From there, MS used many tactics (some arguably illegal) to grab 90% of the market, solidifying Windows on x86 as the dominant player. Intel also became extremely successful and outpaced AIM’s Power architecture, and that’s when Apple switched.
In the current market, I’m not sure how ARM gets its foot in the door. There has to be a profit motive and a player big enough with the technical prowess to take on the x86 players and convince Microsoft to take Windows on ARM seriously. NVidia comes to mind, and iirc AMD said they’ve restarted their ARM development.
But it’s not gonna be useful without compatibility, and they need Microsoft to do that. Linux already has ARM covered, but unfortunately most people are comfortable with Windows.
Wintel got where it is because the IBM 5150 shipped with it, and “PC Compatibles” grew out of there. Essentially both Intel and Windows piggybacked off the reach of IBM.
From there, MS used many tactics (some arguably illegal) to grab 90% of the market, solidifying Windows on x86 as the dominant player. Intel also became extremely successful and outpaced AIM’s Power architecture, and that’s when Apple switched.
In the current market, I’m not sure how ARM gets its foot in the door. There has to be a profit motive and a player big enough with the technical prowess to take on the x86 players and convince Microsoft to take Windows on ARM seriously. NVidia comes to mind, and iirc AMD said they’ve restarted their ARM development.
But it’s not gonna be useful without compatibility, and they need Microsoft to do that. Linux already has ARM covered, but unfortunately most people are comfortable with Windows.