Microsoft Demonstrates Windows 10 Running on ARM

I’m excited for an ARM-based future for the PC. But if you’re not convinced it will work, this Microsoft demo video could help.

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

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

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 80 comments

  • 3229

    Premium Member
    08 December, 2016 - 8:14 am

    <p>I want to see how some .NET framework apps distributed in IL (I think Paint.NET is a good example) work on this processor. I don’t think any of the apps demonstrated here are .NET apps.</p>

    • 442

      08 December, 2016 - 9:03 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29190">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/inlocoabsentia">inlocoabsentia</a><a href="#29190">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>I’m sure Photoshop is a special compiled version just for this demo too.&nbsp; The World of Tanks I believe is the UUW version of the game, which is compiled to run on any supported processor.&nbsp; In other words, I seriously doubt .NET will be supported on ARM.&nbsp; .NET is going away.&nbsp; New coding languages and practices pretty much make .NET very outdated and less attractive to newer developers.</p>

      • 600

        Premium Member
        08 December, 2016 - 9:31 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29215">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Narg">Narg</a><a href="#29215">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>Why wouldn’t .Net run on ARM? Windows RT ran on ARM and rand Store apps in .net.</p>
        <p>Microsoft and their partners are expanding where .Net Runs. Plus if you forget about RT it compiles for ARM on Android and IOS.&nbsp;</p>
        <p>.Net isn’t going anywhere, in fact&nbsp;you’ll be seeing more of it not less.&nbsp;</p>

      • 3229

        Premium Member
        08 December, 2016 - 9:41 am

        <p>Isn’t the whole value of this to enable backward compatibility with older programs?! If this isn’t source code compatible with .NET framework apps, how is this useful in any way for legacy apps? UWP is already a good platform for modern app development. <strong>Very</strong> few people should be writing new apps in C++ that aren’t games, because you probably don’t need that much power in exchange for all the dangers and hassle of writing native code.</p>

        • 1377

          Premium Member
          08 December, 2016 - 5:24 pm

          <p><em><a href="#29247">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/inlocoabsentia">inlocoabsentia</a><a href="#29247">:</a></em></p>
          <p>Databases and statistics programs should be written to be as time-efficient as possible, so not .Net.</p>

      • 5611

        08 December, 2016 - 2:19 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29215">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Narg">Narg</a><a href="#29215">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>.NET Core is open source and already runs on ARM. Samsung ported it so that they could use it on Tizen.</p>
        <p>What is outdated is your understanding of .NET because .NET Core is the future of .NET and is <em>very</em> attractive to developers.</p>

    • 5611

      08 December, 2016 - 1:37 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29190">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/inlocoabsentia">inlocoabsentia</a><a href="#29190">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>.NET Core already runs on ARM. It’s open source and&nbsp;has recently been ported to ARM by Samsung because they want to use it&nbsp;with Tizen.</p>
      <p>This enables .NET devs to target Tizen ARM devices by using C# (and later VB too).</p>

  • 223

    Premium Member
    08 December, 2016 - 8:30 am

    <p>I think this is damn cool! They waiting on moving Windows 10 to ARM until the success of Windows 10 as an OS was a given, thus avoiding the crater-like pitfall of Windows 8. I really want to see this in action, because the next step after this could be a phone interface directly embedded in the OS like the tablet interface is. Thus, Continuum becomes unnecessary as the whole OS is multi-hardware-type compatible. Very cool!!!</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>

    • 223

      Premium Member
      08 December, 2016 - 9:17 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29193">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/vernonlvincent">vernonlvincent</a><a href="#29193">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>And I apparently grok’d the next <a href="../86317/full-windows-10-arm-rip-windows-phone-premium" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">article </a>that Paul was to post regarding the phone OS.<br /><br /></p>

  • 5396

    Premium Member
    08 December, 2016 - 8:59 am

    <p>This is amazing and revolutionary feature as long as its actually implemented correctly/effectively which hasn’t always been microsofts strong suit</p>

  • 6525

    08 December, 2016 - 9:02 am

    <p>In the demo running are Windows 10 Enterprise 64b, an x86 desktop software, Photoshop etc. For the latter, it is unclear whether it is a 64b binary. I’d really like to see a definite confirmation whether 64b Win32 desktop softwares can run.</p>

  • 124

    Premium Member
    08 December, 2016 - 9:05 am

    <p>Finally GOOD news.</p>

  • 209

    08 December, 2016 - 9:05 am

    <p>Meh, the real question is where do I get the Ninja Cat on Laser Tiger! :-p</p>

  • 442

    08 December, 2016 - 9:10 am

    <p>Nice to see Microsoft finding ways to keep making Windows exciting.</p>

  • 4853

    08 December, 2016 - 9:25 am

    <p>That video that ran "really smoothly" looked very hitchey to me.</p>

    • 5528

      08 December, 2016 - 12:25 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29237">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/paladintom">paladintom</a><a href="#29237">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>Indeed. I LOL’d everytime he said smooth. It’s far from smooth on videos and in applications but it’s also hardly awful. I’m sure this will get refined between now and 2018.</p>

  • 5234

    08 December, 2016 - 9:39 am

    <p>WAIT A DAMN MINUTE:</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>They show this running on a Snapdragon 820. &nbsp;I call BULLSH*T on this canned demo. &nbsp;Or else someone is lying about the system specs/requirements.</p>

    • 622

      08 December, 2016 - 12:33 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29246">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29246">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>This technology has been in development for sometime and is validated on existing silicon i.e. 82x.&nbsp;Production silicon 83x is only available&nbsp;next year which will provide better performance than what is demonstrated today with 82x.</p>

      • 5234

        08 December, 2016 - 1:02 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29322">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/VasiS">VasiS</a><a href="#29322">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>Sooo….The Elite x3 will get this as an update?</p>
        <p>BTW: The Snapdragon 835 is already in production. &nbsp;Production *systems* won’t be built until 2017, but won’t likely be ready until 2018. &nbsp;That means a 2-year old chip is going into them.</p>

        • 340

          02 January, 2017 - 2:19 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#29335">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29335">:</a></em></blockquote>
          <p>Highly unlikely for&nbsp;Windows 10 to change SKUs (ie. from mobile to desktop)</p>

  • 5783

    08 December, 2016 - 9:47 am

    <p>I’m heartened by this news. Hopeful for the future – good news has been rare lately.</p>
    <p>But I’m concerned that it’s still too late. So yay – I could ditch my x86 and move to an ARM laptop\tablet\phone (eventually) running Windows 10. At the very least I’ll potentially save battery power.</p>
    <p>But it doesn’t do anything to reduce the app gap. Let’s say I get an ARM tablet running Win10 in my car. I want to navigate using Waze. Oops – not on the Windows store. Maybe I could run Bluestacks (or something else) under emulation in order to emulate Android…… (not being serious). And Waze is just one of many apps I now use after switching to Android that just don’t exist on the full windows store.&nbsp;</p>
    <p>But I guess we’ll see.</p>

    • 6323

      09 December, 2016 - 1:58 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29249">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/yaddamaster">yaddamaster</a><a href="#29249">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>does Waze encourage the use of mobile phones while you drive. I use maps on my 535.</p>

      • 5539

        09 December, 2016 - 12:08 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29568">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/JC">JC</a><a href="#29568">:</a></em><a href="#29568"></a>&nbsp;Not sure of your point. You clearly use a map/navy app on your phone while you drive. That’s what Waze is. It adds one benefit that if I’m using Waze, and going 25mph in a 75mph zone, the system uploads that and makes it available to other drivers in the vicinity in near real time. When I pass the accident that is causing the slowdown, I can, if I choose, just tap the accident icon, adding that to the system data. It is crowd sourced traffic info, but really doesn’t require the user to participate actively. I’m a windows phone user and like Maps, but Google maps with Waze integration is just better.</blockquote>
        <p>&nbsp;</p>

  • 5234

    08 December, 2016 - 10:05 am

    <p>More bullsh*t:</p>
    <p>They’re running this on Photoshop CC 2014.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>

    • 5611

      08 December, 2016 - 1:32 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29257">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29257">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>So what?</p>

      • 5234

        08 December, 2016 - 8:51 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29359">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/WP7Mango">WP7Mango</a><a href="#29359">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>It’s outdated. &nbsp;CC includes free automatic upgrades. &nbsp;They likely did this because it doesn’t use some of the new processor and GPU instructions that the 2015 and 2017 versions do, and their emulation layer can’t handle them.</p>
        <p>Also, Windows isn’t activated. &nbsp;You’d think they would have an activation for it for a public presentation. &nbsp;That’s pretty bad optics.</p>
        <p>&nbsp;</p>

  • 5234

    08 December, 2016 - 10:13 am
    • 5501

      Premium Member
      08 December, 2016 - 1:13 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29263">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29263">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>What I’m wondering is if they’ll be able to just make Windows "lighter" so that it can run on these kinds of chips without chewing up so much battery. &nbsp;I mean, take the kernel for example. &nbsp;My understanding is that the Windows kernel is not some huge, bloated, unoptimized mess. &nbsp;It’s actually very efficient. &nbsp;You’d think that they’d be able to pull this off, to have an ARM SKU that still emulates x86 apps and doesn’t include all the unnecessary cruft that is normally part of a typical desktop Windows installation.</p>

      • 5234

        08 December, 2016 - 8:48 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29338">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/ErichK">ErichK</a><a href="#29338">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>The kernel is fine. &nbsp;They’ve done some decent work at optimizing it. &nbsp;It isn’t Linux-efficient, but it’s good compared to what it used to be. &nbsp;The problem is with poorly-written drivers and API layers. &nbsp;Adding a processor codebase emulation layer in there just makes things worse.</p>

        • 5501

          Premium Member
          09 December, 2016 - 9:20 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#29538">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29538">:</a></em></blockquote>
          <p>Still, I’m wondering if it would be good enough for consumer apps.&nbsp; Obviously most people won’t be running multiple Photoshop and CAD instances on ARM machines.</p>

    • 5611

      08 December, 2016 - 1:36 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29263">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29263">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>No, that’s not a reality check. It’s just a rant by some clueless&nbsp;bell-end.</p>

      • 5234

        08 December, 2016 - 8:44 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29363">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/WP7Mango">WP7Mango</a><a href="#29363">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, meat curtains.</p>

  • 5234

    08 December, 2016 - 10:35 am

    <p>People are already pulling this demo apart. &nbsp;Users with Core i7 systems with M.2 SSD’s are saying that Photoshop doesn’t load that fast.</p>
    <p>At the least, it’s not an honest representation of performance. &nbsp;I’m going to call it as I see it, at least for now: it’s a fake.</p>

    • 5611

      08 December, 2016 - 1:31 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29276">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29276">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>It’s entirely possible that Photoshop had already been launched before, therefore a subsequent launch would always be much faster. That’s no different to how it works now! Applications do load much faster second time round.</p>

      • 5234

        08 December, 2016 - 8:40 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29358">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/WP7Mango">WP7Mango</a><a href="#29358">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>That only assumes it’s precached in RAM, and there’s ABSOLUTELY NO WAY Photoshop is precached in 4GB of RAM.</p>

    • 622

      08 December, 2016 - 2:11 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29276">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/Waethorn">Waethorn</a><a href="#29276">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>Cant compare high power sockets like i7 with ARM cores. They’ll both be different calss of devices. These snapdragon devices will be replacing the old Atom devices on the lower end, but will include better performance than them + longer battery life + cellular connectivity.</p>

      • 5234

        08 December, 2016 - 8:42 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29386">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/VasiS">VasiS</a><a href="#29386">:</a></em></blockquote>
        <p>The 820 is slower than Bay&nbsp;Trail on cross-platform benchmarks. &nbsp;Bay Trail stomped on the Tegra 4, which was the fastest ARM chip at the time. &nbsp;The 835 is already in production, which means it’ll be almost 2 years old by the time systems ship (estimated timeframe for shipping systems will be 2018).</p>
        <p>Battery life goes out the window when you run emulation.</p>

  • 5486

    08 December, 2016 - 10:37 am

    <p>Impressive as it is technologically (more x86 emulation on ARM than anything – assuming it is emulation, and not based on App-V), MS have lost the consumer space, and show no signs of regaining any consumer trust. Latest Q3 usage figures for WM are at 0.4% and falling! Enterprises are also moving away from WM, so is this just too little too late? MS couldn’t wait for Intel to pull their fingers out and get back into x86 mobile, so MS take the alternative route and port full Win10 to ARM. It’s an interesting move, but I just don’t see it making any real difference anymore.</p>

  • 8940

    08 December, 2016 - 10:56 am

    <p>UNBELIEVABLE!</p>
    <p>I really like this news. I am even interested in a cheap battery friendly ARM Windows 10 device! It has many possibilies</p>
    <p>BUT</p>
    <p>For some reason every windows phone obsessed website turns this PC news (MS clearly said this 2 times) again in the good news show for Windows Mobile.</p>
    <p>If the ARM PC’s is the first hardware to support this will be released at the earliest end of 2017, begin 2018 it doesn’t mean there is a "phone" variant anytime soon. <br /><br />Also apps need to be compatible with many screen sizes. For tablet this doens’t pose a problem but most/all x86 windows program don’t resize to phone sizes without major work.<br /><br />I read on WC for instance how there will be so many steam games on the phone now. For that steam need to have a mobile UI and most games needs some serious work. Many times games have different layouts on iPhone and iPad.<br /><br />So if devs are not going to be bothered to update some of their 5 year old games to support smaller screens it doesn’t mean a thing for phone sized devices.&nbsp;<br /><br />I do like the news and I am looking forward to see how it progresses. However claiming it as the next rescue attempt for phones (or small sized pc’s) is a stretch too far. <br /><br />For business running win32 apps could be handy. But standard consumer long have moved on to apps and webapps. In fact steam games like Talisman, Smallworld 2, Ticket to Ride, Hitman GO, Ascension, 80 days, Sorcery, etc appeared first as iOS and Android apps before making the jump to PC screen on Steam. Same with stuff like Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, YouTube. You still use the browser: ARM or not.<br /><br />Sure there will be more old skool programs available but is that what we have been looking for? All that is coming, we have today. Only the hardware, battery, fan etc is way less efficient because of the CPU. This announcement solves that. I doesn’t solve the UWP app problem by any means</p>

    • 1377

      Premium Member
      08 December, 2016 - 2:17 pm

      <p><em><a href="#29287">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/rufflow">rufflow</a><a href="#29287">:</a></em></p>
      <p>It’s pixels which matter, not the screen’s diagonal length. As long as pixels are no fewer than 640×480 or whatever the 16:9 analog would be, Win32 apps should work though maybe not well.</p>

      • 5539

        09 December, 2016 - 12:40 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#29388">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/hrlngrv">hrlngrv</a><a href="#29388">:</a></em><em><a href="#29388"></a></em><a href="#29388"></a>On face value pixels might be significant, but in reality you still need to fix the UI and scale. You can see that easily using RDP into a PC from a hi-res phone. You can fit the entire desktop on the display and is clear as a bell, if using a magnifying glass, but virtually unusable.</blockquote>
        <p>&nbsp;</p>

  • 473

    08 December, 2016 - 12:22 pm

    <p>Surely the whole point is that we now can have ARM phones that can run Windows x86 applications.&nbsp; Imagine that on a continuum capable Surface Phone.&nbsp; The state of this makes me hopeful that they have a new Surface continuum phone that is about ready to ship!?</p>

  • 2592

    08 December, 2016 - 12:28 pm

    <p>The Verge had posted a good article on how MS can differentiate the Surface Pro and Surface Book line as result of porting Windows 10 to ARM</p>
    <p>http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883616/microsoft-arm-surface-pro-ultimate-mobile-future</p&gt;
    <p>"I could easily envision a product lineup split between the Surface Pro for mobile professionals running on ARM processors and the Surface Book for those with more powerful needs running on Intel&rsquo;s latest chips."</p>

  • 5496

    08 December, 2016 - 1:28 pm

    <p>Basically an updated version of Windows RT.</p>

    • 5539

      09 December, 2016 - 12:32 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29356">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/lordbaal1">lordbaal1</a><a href="#29356">:</a></em><a href="#29356"></a>One way to look at it, but updated with what was the major complaint, it didn’t run all my Windows apps. So I could still have my Lumia 2520, as light as my iPad, with comparable battery life, LTE connectivity, GPS, and it runs all my Windows apps.&nbsp;</blockquote>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>

  • 5530

    08 December, 2016 - 1:45 pm

    <p>TBH, I now want Apple to ship a MacBook with their A10 chip&nbsp;just to see how that compares to Windows 10 on ARM.</p>

  • 1377

    Premium Member
    08 December, 2016 - 2:51 pm

    <p>ARM uses less power than Intel processors, but would that still be true emulating WinTel software? It would seem like magic if ARM could run WinTel software almost as fast as Intel with much less power usage. [So much so that it could mean the death of Intel.]</p>
    <p>Would the same hold true for floating-point-intensive software? I mean very general floating point where one operation could be quite different from the next rather than batched transforms.</p>

    • 5234

      08 December, 2016 - 8:43 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29418">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/hrlngrv">hrlngrv</a><a href="#29418">:</a></em></blockquote>
      <p>In answer to your first question: Yes, but it won’t keep up.</p>

  • 1238

    08 December, 2016 - 3:19 pm

    <p>wonder if Google will be happy this time, or just whine as always. They don’t seem to care that they publish chrome as a uwp app</p>

  • 8497

    08 December, 2016 - 3:35 pm

    <p>Is this emulation restricted to only 32-bit Windows applications (ie. not 64-bit programs)?</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>

    • 5539

      09 December, 2016 - 12:25 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#29443">In reply to </a><a href="../../../users/chanms">chanms</a><a href="#29443">:</a></em><em><a href="#29443"></a>They said, yes. But, most everything is available in 32 bit, even if there are 32 bit versions. 64 bit applications are not typically needed. It is more for memory addressing. MS doesn’t even recommend their own 64 bit Office suite for most users, as it is overkill, and not as supported by third party add-ins. Those things you may need a 64 bit app version for are likely not things you would want to do on these devices. I don’t think we are going to see ARM based CAD workstations any time soon.</em></blockquote>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>

  • 5553

    08 December, 2016 - 5:07 pm

    <p>Not much of a demo…</p>
    <p>More impressed by DJT !</p>

  • 5553

    08 December, 2016 - 5:14 pm

    <p>Keep jobs in Redmond !?</p>

  • 2175

    08 December, 2016 - 11:50 pm

    <p>Someone please explain how this benefits us normal folk</p>

  • 8850

    Premium Member
    09 December, 2016 - 12:16 pm

    <p>Yikes that was super impressive, performance and speed in equal measure. Microsoft have made the right moves so far and taking windows 10 to ARM makes the future seem incredible exciting.&nbsp;</p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC