Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #132884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-24 04:38 +0000 |
| Last post | 2020-06-26 18:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 88 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 04:38 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-23 21:45 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-24 17:10 +1200
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-24 02:05 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 01:47 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 13:29 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 09:42 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 09:45 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 14:42 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-24 10:02 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 10:24 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 14:38 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 14:40 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 16:48 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 01:53 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:34 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 16:47 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-24 20:17 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 02:03 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2020-06-24 23:34 -0500
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-25 00:46 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 05:18 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-06-25 01:49 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-25 17:47 +1200
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 02:50 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-25 08:24 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 06:48 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2020-06-25 07:34 -0500
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 08:39 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:34 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 14:37 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:43 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-26 08:40 +1200
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 13:42 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 04:46 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-25 08:19 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 12:33 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-26 10:53 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-06-26 23:39 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-27 00:39 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-26 18:01 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-24 14:29 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 13:41 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-06-24 13:55 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 14:42 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 17:15 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 17:56 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 02:31 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-06-25 13:06 +1200
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-25 02:24 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-07-03 15:46 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-07-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-07-04 15:14 +1200
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-07-04 00:49 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-07-04 01:15 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-04 08:09 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-03 20:54 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-07-04 16:30 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-04 17:12 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-07-05 09:47 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2020-07-05 19:23 +0100
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 15:50 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2020-07-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 16:11 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2020-07-05 21:51 +0100
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 16:57 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-05 15:50 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-07-04 15:11 +1200
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 15:55 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 16:04 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 15:04 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 15:12 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-24 18:07 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-24 18:27 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 02:41 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 06:48 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-06-25 10:53 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-25 11:11 -0400
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-06-25 18:21 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 11:32 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-06-25 19:14 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-25 12:56 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-06-26 12:22 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-26 12:21 -0700
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-06-27 00:33 +0000
Re: Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-06-26 18:02 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-25 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rd30v9.14a0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #132922 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote: > > > windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks. > > Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on > Itanic as well. Application ecosystem never materialized and the > platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge ) As you say, Windows on non-x86/non-x64 has never materialized to any relevant extent. (The HP-PA version was another failure missing on your list. Or did you mean HP-PA when you mentioned Itanium?) > Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if > Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll > see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips > and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard. I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen. There's way too much 'legacy' code out there. And no, re-compiling, let alone porting, is not going to cut the mustard. > But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps. I hope that with 'translator' you mean a run-time environment which can run unchanged non-x86/non-x64 code (i.e. things like .exe, .dll, etc.). Their 'track record' for the last 20 odd years has been 'sub-optimal' to put it mildly. But yes, it *can* be done. The question is, can Microsoft do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-25 11:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rd2qkg$6q4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132954 |
On 2020-06-25 11:21 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote: >> >>> windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks. >> >> Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on >> Itanic as well. Application ecosystem never materialized and the >> platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge ) > > As you say, Windows on non-x86/non-x64 has never materialized to any > relevant extent. (The HP-PA version was another failure missing on your > list. Or did you mean HP-PA when you mentioned Itanium?) > >> Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if >> Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll >> see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips >> and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard. > > I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen. There's > way too much 'legacy' code out there. And no, re-compiling, let alone > porting, is not going to cut the mustard. There already is a version of Windows for ARM: <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/> > >> But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps. > > I hope that with 'translator' you mean a run-time environment which > can run unchanged non-x86/non-x64 code (i.e. things like .exe, .dll, > etc.). > > Their 'track record' for the last 20 odd years has been 'sub-optimal' > to put it mildly. But yes, it *can* be done. The question is, can > Microsoft do it? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-25 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rd343m.ti4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #132955 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-06-25 11:21 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: > > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote: > >> > >>> windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks. > >> > >> Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on > >> Itanic as well. Application ecosystem never materialized and the > >> platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge ) > > > > As you say, Windows on non-x86/non-x64 has never materialized to any > > relevant extent. (The HP-PA version was another failure missing on your > > list. Or did you mean HP-PA when you mentioned Itanium?) > > > >> Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if > >> Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll > >> see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips > >> and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard. > > > > I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen. There's > > way too much 'legacy' code out there. And no, re-compiling, let alone > > porting, is not going to cut the mustard. > > There already is a version of Windows for ARM: > > <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/> A quick look shows only 'How x86 emulation works on ARM'. What about x64? And what about x64 UWP apps (assuming there are such beasts (I'm not into UWP apps))? And if you don't mind, I've seen similar documentation for the earlier non-x86/non-x64 platforms mentioned above. Until I see it and see reports from users with x86/x64 'legacy' code, I go by the (below mentioned) (non-)track record. > >> But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps. > > > > I hope that with 'translator' you mean a run-time environment which > > can run unchanged non-x86/non-x64 code (i.e. things like .exe, .dll, > > etc.). > > > > Their 'track record' for the last 20 odd years has been 'sub-optimal' > > to put it mildly. But yes, it *can* be done. The question is, can > > Microsoft do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-25 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rd2vhc$7ca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132960 |
On 2020-06-25 12:14 p.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> On 2020-06-25 11:21 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote: >>>> >>>>> windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks. >>>> >>>> Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on >>>> Itanic as well. Application ecosystem never materialized and the >>>> platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge ) >>> >>> As you say, Windows on non-x86/non-x64 has never materialized to any >>> relevant extent. (The HP-PA version was another failure missing on your >>> list. Or did you mean HP-PA when you mentioned Itanium?) >>> >>>> Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if >>>> Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll >>>> see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips >>>> and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard. >>> >>> I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen. There's >>> way too much 'legacy' code out there. And no, re-compiling, let alone >>> porting, is not going to cut the mustard. >> >> There already is a version of Windows for ARM: >> >> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/> > > A quick look shows only 'How x86 emulation works on ARM'. What about > x64? And what about x64 UWP apps (assuming there are such beasts (I'm > not into UWP apps))? > <https://www.techradar.com/news/windows-10-on-arm-is-set-to-become-more-useful-with-emulation-for-traditional-64-bit-apps> > And if you don't mind, I've seen similar documentation for the > earlier non-x86/non-x64 platforms mentioned above. Until I see it and > see reports from users with x86/x64 'legacy' code, I go by the (below > mentioned) (non-)track record. > >>>> But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps. >>> >>> I hope that with 'translator' you mean a run-time environment which >>> can run unchanged non-x86/non-x64 code (i.e. things like .exe, .dll, >>> etc.). >>> >>> Their 'track record' for the last 20 odd years has been 'sub-optimal' >>> to put it mildly. But yes, it *can* be done. The question is, can >>> Microsoft do it? You said: 'I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen.' You were clearly wrong. Not only because of what I already showed you... ...but because there is already at least one machine you can buy that is running Windows 10 on ARM: <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/business/surface-pro-x/processor> Now do the mature thing, and just admit you were wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-26 12:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rd50aq.182o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #132961 |
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-06-25 12:14 p.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >> On 2020-06-25 11:21 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: > >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >>>> On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks. > >>>> > >>>> Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on > >>>> Itanic as well. Application ecosystem never materialized and the > >>>> platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge ) > >>> > >>> As you say, Windows on non-x86/non-x64 has never materialized to any > >>> relevant extent. (The HP-PA version was another failure missing on your > >>> list. Or did you mean HP-PA when you mentioned Itanium?) > >>> > >>>> Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if > >>>> Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll > >>>> see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips > >>>> and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard. > >>> > >>> I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen. There's > >>> way too much 'legacy' code out there. And no, re-compiling, let alone > >>> porting, is not going to cut the mustard. > >> > >> There already is a version of Windows for ARM: > >> > >> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/> > > > > A quick look shows only 'How x86 emulation works on ARM'. What about > > x64? And what about x64 UWP apps (assuming there are such beasts (I'm > > not into UWP apps))? > > <https://www.techradar.com/news/windows-10-on-arm-is-set-to-become-more-useful-with-emulation-for-traditional-64-bit-apps> Thanks. That leaves the x64 (and x86?) UWP apps. (What the article talks about are traditional x64 programs (the example given was Adobes Premiere Pro), not UWP apps). And, as we don't know anything about the rest of the architecture of this "new standard" - i.e. ARM is just the CPU -, there's the tiny issue of the HAL (if that still is used), drivers, etc., etc.. (AFAIK, an ARM processor does not automatically define a certain I/O system, etc..) > > And if you don't mind, I've seen similar documentation for the > > earlier non-x86/non-x64 platforms mentioned above. Until I see it and > > see reports from users with x86/x64 'legacy' code, I go by the (below > > mentioned) (non-)track record. > > >>>> But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps. > >>> > >>> I hope that with 'translator' you mean a run-time environment which > >>> can run unchanged non-x86/non-x64 code (i.e. things like .exe, .dll, > >>> etc.). > >>> > >>> Their 'track record' for the last 20 odd years has been 'sub-optimal' > >>> to put it mildly. But yes, it *can* be done. The question is, can > >>> Microsoft do it? > > > You said: > > 'I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen.' > > You were clearly wrong. Nope. You again read out-of-context/not-for-comprehension. > Not only because of what I already showed you... > > ...but because there is already at least one machine you can buy that is > running Windows 10 on ARM: > > <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/business/surface-pro-x/processor> > > Now do the mature thing, and just admit you were wrong. And because you are again acting like an obnoxious pompous prat, I'm not going to explain your misinterpretation. OTOH, being the nice guy that I am, I already gave you another clue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-26 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rd5hsn$mhl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132966 |
On 2020-06-26 5:22 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: > Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> On 2020-06-25 12:14 p.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>> On 2020-06-25 11:21 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: >>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>>>> On 2020-06-24 15:12, nospam wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> windows on arm already exists, although x86 emulation sucks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows NT was also available on Alpha. and Windows was available on >>>>>> Itanic as well. Application ecosystem never materialized and the >>>>>> platforms were dropped. (and Itanic never gave performance edge ) >>>>> >>>>> As you say, Windows on non-x86/non-x64 has never materialized to any >>>>> relevant extent. (The HP-PA version was another failure missing on your >>>>> list. Or did you mean HP-PA when you mentioned Itanium?) >>>>> >>>>>> Not sure how well/complete the port of Windows 10 to ARM is. But if >>>>>> Apple gets a serious performance edge on its own chip vs 8086, you'll >>>>>> see Qualcomm and perhaps AMD start to make desktop version of ARM chips >>>>>> and Microsoft deciding that this is the new standard. >>>>> >>>>> I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen. There's >>>>> way too much 'legacy' code out there. And no, re-compiling, let alone >>>>> porting, is not going to cut the mustard. >>>> >>>> There already is a version of Windows for ARM: >>>> >>>> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/> >>> >>> A quick look shows only 'How x86 emulation works on ARM'. What about >>> x64? And what about x64 UWP apps (assuming there are such beasts (I'm >>> not into UWP apps))? >> >> <https://www.techradar.com/news/windows-10-on-arm-is-set-to-become-more-useful-with-emulation-for-traditional-64-bit-apps> > > Thanks. > > That leaves the x64 (and x86?) UWP apps. (What the article talks about > are traditional x64 programs (the example given was Adobes Premiere Pro), > not UWP apps). > > And, as we don't know anything about the rest of the architecture of > this "new standard" - i.e. ARM is just the CPU -, there's the tiny issue > of the HAL (if that still is used), drivers, etc., etc.. (AFAIK, an ARM > processor does not automatically define a certain I/O system, etc..) > >>> And if you don't mind, I've seen similar documentation for the >>> earlier non-x86/non-x64 platforms mentioned above. Until I see it and >>> see reports from users with x86/x64 'legacy' code, I go by the (below >>> mentioned) (non-)track record. > >>>>>> But yeah, that will depend on MS having a good translator for apps. >>>>> >>>>> I hope that with 'translator' you mean a run-time environment which >>>>> can run unchanged non-x86/non-x64 code (i.e. things like .exe, .dll, >>>>> etc.). >>>>> >>>>> Their 'track record' for the last 20 odd years has been 'sub-optimal' >>>>> to put it mildly. But yes, it *can* be done. The question is, can >>>>> Microsoft do it? >> >> >> You said: >> >> 'I think an ARM-only Windows is extremely unlikely to happen.' >> >> You were clearly wrong. > > Nope. You again read out-of-context/not-for-comprehension. There is no context or interpretation that will make something that has already happened into something "extremely unlikely to happen." Sorry. > >> Not only because of what I already showed you... >> >> ...but because there is already at least one machine you can buy that is >> running Windows 10 on ARM: >> >> <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/business/surface-pro-x/processor> >> >> Now do the mature thing, and just admit you were wrong. > > And because you are again acting like an obnoxious pompous prat, I'm > not going to explain your misinterpretation. That is a convenient excuse for you, yes. > > OTOH, being the nice guy that I am, I already gave you another clue. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-27 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rd644i$cn9$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #132884 |
Update: (dateline today) (all verbatim) "No more Windows on Mac, for now" o *Apple will kill off Boot Camp with new ARM-based Macs* <https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/06/26/apple-will-kill-off-boot-camp-with-new-arm-based-macs/> "Apple revealed it does not plan to support Boot Camp on its upcoming ARM-based Macs." Apple claims "the need to direct boot shouldn't really be the concern" "you won't be able to run them [Windows] natively upon boot" "if you regularly have to run Windows on your Mac for work or otherwise, you'll want to think twice before ponying up the dough for [the Mac ARM]" -- The lack of this freeware knocks the Mac ARM back into the Stone Age.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-26 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rd65qm$lvj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132972 |
On 2020-06-26 5:33 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote: > Update: (dateline today) (all verbatim) > > "No more Windows on Mac, for now" > > o *Apple will kill off Boot Camp with new ARM-based Macs* > <https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/06/26/apple-will-kill-off-boot-camp-with-new-arm-based-macs/> > > "Apple revealed it does not plan to support Boot Camp > on its upcoming ARM-based Macs." > > Apple claims "the need to direct boot shouldn't really be the concern" > > "you won't be able to run them [Windows] natively upon boot" > > "if you regularly have to run Windows on your Mac for work or otherwise, > you'll want to think twice before ponying up the dough for > [the Mac ARM]" > Yes: "for now". 'In the podcast, Apple exec Craig Federighi said “purely virtualization is the route, but these hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn’t really be the concern.” In other words, you’ll be able to run some operating systems with software like Parallels, but you won’t be able to run them natively upon boot. As far as we can tell, Boot Camp will be no more.'
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web