Microsoft today announced that Visual Studio 2022 17.3 Preview 2 is now available, and there’s a native Arm64 version for the first time.
“This will be the first version of Visual Studio that will natively support building and debugging Arm64 apps on Arm-based processors,” Microsoft’s Mark Downie writes. “Our key goal with this preview is to introduce and stabilize the most popular workloads used by developers who are building apps that run on Arm64, and to gather feedback from the community to help us prioritize additional experiences and workloads as we work toward General Availability (GA) later this year.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Microsoft announced that it would deliver an Arm64 native version of Visual Studio—as well as Arm versions of .NET, the .NET Framework, and C++—at Build 2022 earlier this month. And even this first build “significantly reduces the dependence on x64 emulation,” Downie notes, adding that it supports three workloads: desktop development with C++, .NET desktop development (Windows Forms, Windows Presentation Foundation) using both .NET Framework and modern .NET, and network and web development. These workloads will be generally available by the end of 2022, Microsoft says.
There is a single installer for Visual Studio 2022 17.3 Preview 2, so it will correctly detect your PC’s system architecture and install the right version.
dftf
<p>It’s still shocking just <em>how-little</em> software is available in an ARM version for <em>Windows on ARM</em>.</p><p><br></p><p><em>Edge </em>and <em>Firefox</em> remain the only two browsers; only about half of the <em>Microsoft Office</em> suite apps (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, Outlook); and some third-party apps, like <em>7-Zip </em>and <em>WireGuard VPN</em>.</p><p><br></p><p>Compared to <em>iOS, macOS</em> and <em>Android</em> (where a 64-bit only future is approaching) it’s telling that of all the apps I use regularly on my personal <em>Windows </em>PCs, about 90-95% of them still offer a <em>current, 32-bit</em> version available for download, yet only about 3-5% offer an <em>ARM</em> version.</p>
dftf
<p>I wonder how-important thesedays battery-life is in laptops is though?</p><p><br></p><p>Since the pandemic, many-more people are working-from-home, where they can remain plugged-in, or for people who work "out in the field", the majority will be using smartphones or tablets to do their work on instead. (And desktop PCs are always plugged-in; some may have an UPS, but that is not the same as a battery, but there to permit a safe-shutdown and prevent data-loss).</p><p><br></p><p>So… should ARM really be such a priority (in this respect) for <em>Microsoft</em> when most of the devices <em>Windows</em> is used on will mostly be permanently plugged-in to mains-power anyway?</p>
dftf
<p><em>"I think the reason is developers are not 100% sold that Microsoft is really in on ARM"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Fair-point. I don’t-know why they won’t allow anyone to just self-build their own <em>ARM</em> PC, for example.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"They are actively building out x86 code with Windows 11"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Are they? They have said they will no-longer ship the <em>32-bit kernel</em> versions for <em>Windows 11</em>, but <em>32-bit app support</em> is still fully-there, and no timetable as-of-yet for when <em>Windows</em> will only run 64-bit apps.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"… have not given any signal that ARM is the future of Windows."</em></p><p><br></p><p>Perhaps the question we could ask is: <strong><u>should</u> <em>ARM</em> be the future of <em>Windows?</em></strong><em> </em>For mobile-devices and tablets, that are mostly used on-battery, <em>ARM</em> makes-sense as it gives greater battery-life than x64 chips. But as <em>Windows</em> is mostly used on devices that remain plugged-in (desktops and laptops) then it’s not as major a concern. And sure, while Apple’s M1 and M2 chips clearly blow most low-to-mid range chips from AMD and Intel out-of-the-water, once you get to the high-end, such as the i9 and Xeon range, you can still get CPUs (and separate, discreet GPUs) that are more-powerful. So… <em>does</em> Microsoft <em>really</em> need to move to ARM? It does somewhat feel to me like it’s something people want just because other systems are doing so…</p>
dftf
<p><em>"There’s little to no incentive for Windows developers to update their apps for any reason"</em></p><p><br></p><p>I assume you mean there no-incentive for them to update their apps to offer an <em>ARM </em>version, rather-than just not provide any app-updates full-stop (period)? As for the latter, of-course there is: fixing bugs and security issues for starters. In some cases, doing so may be legally-required, depending on the type of software and use.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"On the Apple side, there is a much more engaged user base and Apple advances its platforms more aggressively"</em></p><p><br></p><p>It should be no-surprise that when people specifically choose to move to a platform that has a higher cost-of-entry that they have greater investment and expectations. You pay more = you expect more. And because <em>Apple</em> remains very-much a "personal" computing company, of-course they can advance more-quickly than <em>Microsoft</em>, who have to maintain compatibility with past apps. Though <em>Windows 11</em> clearly does show an advancement, as no-longer will they offer <em>32-bit kernel</em> versions of <em>Windows</em> going-forwards, so once <em>Windows 10</em> ends support in 2029, 16-bit app support, 32-bit drivers and the 32-bit <em>Windows</em> kernel will all be retired. (I’d imagine <em>32-bit app support</em> will linger-on for a while yet though…)</p>
dftf
<p>Yes, here in the UK, under the "price-cap", rates average about €0.32 (28p) per kW — there is a daily "standing-charge" of around €0.52 (45p). (Do other European countries also have a standing-charge, or do you only pay for what you use? We have it on gas too; there it is around 7-8p currently.)</p><p><br></p><p>Similar to Apple’s M1 and M2 machines, versus Intel and AMD, the same is true for the various games-consoles: the <em>Nintendo Switch</em> will be cheapest to run; and the <em>Xbox Series S</em> averages about 15-30W less in peak-draw than the <em>Series X</em> or <em>PS5</em> consoles, from what I can find online. (I’d imagine in the future, streaming will also help, as it will be more-efficient to run games on a data-centre, and then all people need in their own homes is a low-powered device to simply display the stream, and receive the input data from the controller.)</p>