For over a year we’ve been treated to the fantasy that Windows 10 on ARM was the same as Windows 10 on x86. But it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
Granted, we’ve known some of the differences from the beginning, and we’ve vaguely understood that there would be trade-offs for those moving to this new hardware platform. In particular, the performance of x86 apps, which would need to be emulated.
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 week, however, Microsoft finally published a more complete list of the limitations of Windows 10 on ARM. And that word—limitations—is interesting. This isn’t how Windows 10 on ARM differs from Windows 10 on x86-based systems. It’s how it’s more limited.
And while we absolutely knew about some of these, the items on this list include.
64-bit apps will not work. Yes, Windows 10 on ARM can run Windows desktop applications. But it can only run 32-bit (x86) desktop applications, not 64-bit (x64) applications. (The documentation doesn’t note this, but support for x64 apps is planned for a future release.)
Certain classes of apps will not run. Utilities that modify the Windows user interface—like shell extensions, input method editors (IMEs), assistive technologies, and cloud storage apps—will not work in Windows 10 on ARM. They will need to be recompiled for ARM, and my guess is that this will not happen in most cases, especially in the next year.
It cannot use x86 drivers. While Windows 10 on ARM can run x86 Windows applications, it cannot utilize x86 drivers. Instead, it will require native ARM64 drivers instead. This means that hardware support will be much more limited than is the case with mainstream Windows 10 versions. In other words, it will likely work much like Windows 10 S does today.
No Hyper-V. This was a gray area previously—I’ve heard the phrase “it’s just Windows 10, so it will work” several times—but now it’s real: Hyper-V is not supported in Windows 10 on ARM.
Older games and graphics apps may not work. Windows 10 on ARM supports DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, and DirectX 12, but apps/games that target older versions will not work. Apps that require hardware-accelerated OpenGL will also not work.
That’s an interesting list and while it’s not completely damning, my months-long lackluster experiences with Windows 10 S suggest that the first year will be tough for many who do adopt this platform. As is so often the case with platform shifts, you’re best off sticking to new stuff and letting go of legacy, since much of the latter either won’t work, as noted here, or will run slowly.
Like many, I’m very interested in getting my hands on some ARM hardware to see what the experience is really like.
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246396"><em>In reply to Daekar:</em></a></blockquote><p>I suspect the cost/performance ratio of ARM vs Intel when adding emulation isn't going to be as significant as some people want to believe. Not sure how we got into this "if only full Windows ran on ARM" mentalilty. Reminds me of the old Slashdot meme: 1) Get Windows to run on ARM. 2) ? 3) Profit!</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246494"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Selling" is implicit but doesn't necessarily lead to profit. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246528"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Instant on" sounds like an implementation choice/detail that is processor-independent. Battery life is irrelevant to desktop systems and often not that important for laptops since they're often used as deskop replacements. Battery life is most important for smartphones and pure tablets that are used almost excuslively in a portable fashion. Microsoft failed in the former case and doesn't offer any products in the latter case. </p>
skane2600
<p>I'm not even sure that Microsoft remembers why they went down this road in the first place. IMO, the likely best case scenario is a zero-sum result – a few people will buy devices with ARM-emulated Windows who otherwise would be buying Intel-based Windows while the number of Windows licenses sold will not change significantly. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246482"><em>In reply to warren:</em></a></blockquote><p>It might be relevant to tablets but point-of-sale and kiosk computers are usually not battery operated and you really wouldn't want them to be. So low-power isn't really all that useful in those scenarios.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246497"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>When did the subject change to digital-signage systems? I said nothing about them.</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#246497"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>Digital signage and POS systems of two completely different things.</p><p><br></p><p>I work in retail. If you have to comply with PCI (US) at Merchant Level 1, 2 or 3 then you are not using mobile devices for POS. They are not compliant at this time. </p><p><br></p><p>The iDevices and Android based POS devices are small business self governing Merchant Level 4 PCI stuff.</p><p><br></p><p>POS retail is still a Windows world. Windows 7 embedded is probably the most popular right now. If you need stuff like scales/scanners and what not (grocery industry) then you need a PC with lots of powered USB ports.</p><p><br></p><p>Sadly there is no Windows 10 embedded.</p><p><br></p><p>Out side of the POS terminals EVERYTHING is Linux. From your Verifone/Vantif etc card readers to any and all handheld devices for scanning inventory etc it is all Linux/Android. 8 years ago Windows CE owned that world but now it is lost to the Linux/Android world. iOS has no real play here either.</p><p><br></p><p>This new version of Windows, on ARM, will never be a player in the POS/Retail world.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246504"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree, but the simplistic nature of the apps required could probably be written for UWP without any disadvantage. Of course that would make x86 emulation irrelevant and still doesn't address why customers should switch if their Android solution is working for them.</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#246659"><em>In reply to Jules_Wombat:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree there is no use case. Why have we not seen benchmarks of emulated software yet? I have read in forums that those who have seen them say they are NOT good. Maybe that is not true?</p><p><br></p><p>The best case scenario for these devices is NATIVE Windows 10 ARM apps. They will run better and then the ONLY real advantage of these devices "battery life" will sell it.</p><p><br></p><p>How well has Microsoft been able to get developers to natively support their Windows on ARM OS'es……..not well at all. How will this time be different? Will PWA's save the day??? PWA's allow users to ditch Windows all together.</p><p><br></p><p>Without native apps you will have limited support for some Win32 apps running via emulation which is NEVER a great experience.</p><p><br></p><p>DOA.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246531"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>Given that most "standard" productivity tasks are performed using X86 programs, it doesn't sound like ARM will have the advantage there.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246556"><em>In reply to Jeremy_Petzold:</em></a></blockquote><p>And nobody here said they were.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246561"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's funny when you get voted down when you make a statement that is absolutely true.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246628"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>I can't comment on the performance or price difference between an iPad Pro and an unamed Windows or Mac machine. </p><p><br></p><p>There's a long history in tech of maintaining the status quo for compatibility reasons even when better alternatives exist or could be developed (although there's little evidence that UWP would fit that "better alternative" scenario.)</p><p><br></p><p>Look at the QWERTY keyboard. Look at the way the web protocols, HTML, CSS, the DOM and JavaScript are duct-taped with frameworks and libraries rather than simply recognozing that the web as we know it wasn't designed to support web apps or to maintain security.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><a href="#246606"><em>In reply to YouWereWarned:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p> can you show me the benchmarks that x86 apps will run at 20%? thanks</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246610"><em>In reply to dontbe_evil:</em></a></blockquote><p>20% is just speculation like any other number one could come up with but we can be pretty sure it's going to be less than 100%. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><a href="#246614"><em>In reply to Markiz von Schnitzel:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>He even just troll and down vote us</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><a href="#249149"><em>In reply to YouWereWarned:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I don't care about downvotes in general, in this case I cared because you're downvotes were non (argumented) answers, to our facts</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><a href="#249652"><em>In reply to YouWereWarned:</em></a></blockquote><p>Are we moving the topic to English grammar? "You're" it's clearly a stupid android auto correction issue, about the second sentence, thanks to point it out, I'll try to improve it… You know not everybody is a native English speaker</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#246613"><em>In reply to Ugur:</em></a></blockquote><p>"the devices are while being the same in hardware quality besides the chip on same quality level as Intel laptops/desktops MASSIVELY cheaper."</p><p><br></p><p>The problem is that the CPU isn't really what drives the cost of a computer. Thus chromebooks even when using ARM chips are still no cheaper than low-end Intel PCs. This was part of the problem for the so-called Network Computers that Sun and Oracle tried to push in the late 90s (although they had additional cost of ownership problems that went beyond the client machines).</p>
Stooks
<p>DOA.</p><p><br></p><p>Microsoft is confusing anyone that looks at them. No Windows phone, but yeah another Windows on ARM???? Third time is a charm? (Windows Phone, RT and now this).</p><p><br></p><p>Is it Win32, UWP or PWA? Amazon just put their glorified web/music app in the store as a wrapped Win32/UWP app??? Where is iTunes in the store? Groove is gone.</p><p><br></p><p>My company fed up with many many issues of controlling the junk in normal Windows 10 Enterprise, especially after any of the big updates, is redeploying Windows 10 LTSB. The very stripped down version of LTSB is what the Enterprise version should have been, especially for corporations. Just waiting for Microsoft to screw that up somehow.</p><p><br></p><p>I just do not see Windows 10 on ARM ever going anywhere. Native apps would help it but they will never come in any kind of way.</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#246872"><em>In reply to Ugur:</em></a></blockquote><p>What exactly are you needing to do in the living room that an iPad can't do??</p><p><br></p><p>The iPad 5th gen is $329 and has massive software and accessory support. What will these Windows 10 ARM devices cost? What 64bit x86 emulated software will you run on it while sitting in the living room?</p><p><br></p><p>What we still HAVE NOT seen is real benchmarks. Why is Microsoft hiding them. I bet the benchmarks are horrible for any complex apps.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
Todd Northrop
<p>Another sad sack article bemoaning Microsoft for seemingly no reason. Who the F would need to run Hyper-V on something like an iPad?! Because that’s the type of hardware that the ARM version will be targeted at. There is no attempted thoughtful analysis here, just a bunch of sour grapes at s*** that doesn’t apply to the use cases of the hardware. Oh no, my scanner I bought 10 years ago will not work with my Windows ARM tablet. Give me a break. So annoying to read this negativity. You should let the other guys write the next article so it has at least a bit of useful analysis. </p>
seapea
<blockquote><a href="#246669"><em>In reply to Speednet:</em></a></blockquote><p>Excuse me, have you considered that with no 64 bit apps and no driver support for any x86 drivers that there are a lot of current productivity setups that will simply be a non-starter.</p><p>You are also making a grand assumption as to the type of hardware the ARM version will be targeted. An assumption based on what? </p><p>Did you see or read any of the publicity items from the Windows ARM event in Hawaii? </p><p><br></p>