Of all the biggest missed opportunities in Microsoft’s rather long history of wasted opportunities, I’m saddest about Windows on Arm, but that could soon change.
When Windows 10 on Arm was first touted (the less said about the earlier Windows RT the better), the promise of a full-fledged version of Windows running on Arm-based hardware typically found on smartphones and tablets (instead of the more common Intel and AMD hardware) was incredibly exciting.
We were told that Windows 10 on Arm would combine the power and flexibility of the best laptops with some of the best features of smartphones and tablets – most notably fast boot times, fast resume, always-connected internet and all-day battery life.
Unfortunately, the reality was very different from those lofty promises. While Windows 10’s battery life on Arm devices was certainly impressive for the time, performance was poor, especially considering that Windows 10 on Arm devices was also very expensive.
Worst of all, these devices could only run apps downloaded from the Windows Store (now known as the Microsoft Store). And those apps had to have Arm-compatible versions.
Unfortunately, most Windows apps are designed for Intel and AMD hardware (also known as x64 architecture). This makes sense because the vast majority of Windows devices – especially during the Windows 10 years – were built on x64 hardware. So many app developers didn’t see the point in creating Arm-compatible versions, and this meant that Windows 10 on Arm devices was not only more expensive and less powerful than standard Windows 10 laptops, but they also couldn’t do much turn. of the most popular applications – a fatal combination.
Poor sales of Windows on Arm devices inevitably followed, and that in turn meant that app developers were less likely to port their products to Arm.
Breaking the vicious circle
Unfortunately, the lack of both apps and clients created a vicious cycle that affected the success of later Windows 11 on Arm devices.
However, there have been some exciting breakthroughs that could positively impact the fate of Windows 11 on Arm devices, finally allowing them to reach their full potential.
The most important development is the launch of the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Plus and Elite chips. Qualcomm is one of the largest companies in the world, and while it may not have the kind of brand recognition that Intel and AMD do, its Arm-based chips power millions of mobile devices around the world. The company has been a key partner of Microsoft when it comes to Windows on Arm devices, applying its experience making Arm chips for mobile devices to create more powerful chips for computing devices. While these haven’t always been successful, the latest generation promises some very exciting things.
Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite is the most powerful variant, and it’s shaping up to be an Arm chip that could finally live up to expectations. My colleague, UK Computing Editor Christian Guyton, was particularly impressed when he tested some prototype laptops powered by the X Elite earlier this month. He could play Baldur’s Gate 3, a rather complex game, with a decent frame rate and resolution.
This seemed to me to be proof that Qualcomm may have solved two of the biggest problems with Windows on Arm devices. First, there’s the performance. While Baldur’s Gate 3 was playable on the Snapdragon ran at all is impressive. This bodes well for the day-to-day performance of Snapdragon X Elite laptops.
There’s also the important fact that there isn’t an Arm version of it Baldur’s Gate 3 for Windows devices. This means the game uses emulation so it can run on Arm hardware. This comes at a performance cost, which makes the playable state of the game on the Snapdragon X Elite even more impressive. It also shows that even demanding non-Arm applications can be made to run on Arm hardware without the need for a native Arm version. This could pave the way for more programs coming to Windows on Arm – and it doesn’t rely on developers creating special versions. This could address the issue of lack of apps on Windows on Arm.
In addition to the Snapdragon If performance remains competitive (and early benchmark leaks suggest this is the case) and the price is low enough, we could see Windows on Arm devices that aren’t too expensive and offer much better value for money – making yet another common criticisms of Windows are addressed on Arm devices.
The Apple Effect
Before the launch of the Snapdragon X series, Windows on Arm was in a bad place. Things looked particularly bleak when Microsoft’s old rival, Apple, enjoyed huge success and critical acclaim with its line of Macs, powered by the M1 chips (and later M2 and M3 chips) – which are built on the Arm -architecture.
While Windows on Arm struggled, the MacBook Air (M1, 2020) and co proved that Arm-powered laptops were not only viable, but could be the future of computing. With the long battery life and fast boot-up we were promised, Apple’s first generation of Macs and MacBooks running on the company’s Arm-based chips, instead of the Intel hardware of older models, were a hit. And while the MacBook Air’s launch price of $999 / £999 / AU$1,599 wasn’t exactly cheap, it was a competitive price. And because the M1 delivers excellent performance, the high price tag is much more justified.
The best thing about the M1 Apple Macs was a tool from Apple called Rosetta 2. This was an emulation layer that allowed almost all existing Mac apps to run on the new M1 hardware. This meant that Mac users who switched to an M1 device could use virtually all their important apps and programs, even if the native M1 apps were in short supply.
This was a smart move by Apple, as it meant that M1 products became a huge success, and so app developers started creating versions of their products that could run on M1 hardware without the need for emulation – and take full advantage of Apple’s chip.
When the M2 series of Macs and MacBooks came out, Rosetta 2 was still in use, but the number of times I had to use it with an M2 MacBook dropped significantly as there was a growing library of M2 apps.
By the time the M3 chips hit the market late last year, the number of times I (and other users) had to rely on Rosetta 2 was even rarer. Very few pieces of software can be considered a success if fewer people need to use them, but that’s exactly what happened here. Rosetta 2 made it easy for Mac owners to switch to Arm-based Macs, while also freeing up app developers to develop native apps. And the more people switched to Arm Macs, the more attractive it became for app developers to port their apps to the platform.
It’s now up to Microsoft
So Apple has proven that Arm-based laptops can be successful, and it seems like Qualcomm could have addressed many of the hardware issues. Does this mean the next generation of Windows on Arm devices will be a slam dunk?
Unfortunately, that’s no guarantee, as there’s one company that needs to do its best to give Windows on Arm devices the best chance of success: Microsoft.
While it’s clear that Microsoft wants Windows on Arm to be a success, the way previous generations handled it is frustrating. The fact that there has never been a tool comparable to Rosetta 2 that would make running non-Arm apps easy is particularly annoying.
I am sure this is because it is a very complex job. After all, Windows devices are made by different manufacturers using components from different companies, leading to a potentially unlimited range of Windows PC configurations. Macs, on the other hand, have much more limited configurations, with the hardware built primarily by Apple.
However, the lack of apps is perhaps the biggest hurdle that still exists for Windows on Arm, especially when there are Macs that can run a much wider range of apps. And this is a problem that Microsoft should do something about.
Microsoft does have tools to get non-Arm software running on Arm hardware using emulation, but it hasn’t taken off in the same way, mainly because it’s not as easy to use and doesn’t work as well, and some apps are still available. refuse to flee.
If Microsoft can’t come up with a Rosetta 2-beating solution, it will have to do more work to convince app developers to port their software to Arm. This can be a difficult feat, especially when the user base is so small, but Microsoft is a very successful company with plenty of resources. It could offer financial incentives, or developers and tools to help port the biggest apps.
Microsoft is also a hardware company, and previous attempts to create Windows on Arm devices suffered from problems that have become all too familiar. The Surface Pro X, for example, came with Microsoft’s SQ1 Arm-based chip, made in collaboration with Qualcomm. It was also too expensive and did not perform well.
However, rumors are swirling that Microsoft could soon release Surface Pro and Surface Laptop devices with Snapdragon X chips. If Microsoft can nail both the software and hardware sides, we could see a new era of Windows on Arm devices that are actually worth buying. And Microsoft could give Apple’s rumored M4-powered Macs a run for their money.
However, if these devices hit the market with unattractive price tags, poor performance, and a continued lack of app support, it could be the end of the Windows on Arm dream. If Microsoft itself can’t make it a success, what hope do other companies have?