I have seen the discussions about 'Intel emulation layer on ARM' v.s. 'native ARM64', as far as I saw the talks are just about native ARM64 code. Most important the same level of HW drivers support of course as for x86_64. And already for graphics/GUI/GPU, that can be a big problem to get it somehow working. The easy way is indeed a VM, I am running various VMs on Pi4 and RK3588, it is easy UEFI support and almost native storage+network speeds etc, but no way of accelerated HW for human interaction stuff (GPU), what Windows essentially is for terminals.In fairness to Microsoft, in these early days of their ARM support:
... is that 'Windows on ARM' 'is slower' (on the MS/QcomHW ?), so many predict again another failure of Windows on ARM this round again.
As already said, your ARM64 computer needs to support UEFI (BIOS), that is What Windows and most other OSses need.
- They seem to initially running their Intel based software through an Intel emulation layer on ARM. This would have performance impacts
- My limited reading indicates the current ISO image available is for building VM's and not bare metal boots.
It might be that the majority of people think that they can run their old favorite Windows program they used for years on x86_64 will also now run on ARM64. I don't know how large the percentage of Windows users is who think like that. Qcom and MS don't earn anything from that of-course and for open-source just re-compilation mostly did already the trick. I find it still amazing how similar various Linux distro's massive SW repos are for x86_64 and ARM64. This whole Windows CPU architecture porting is just a big PITA IMHO, even if I only look at those sites explaining how to install and so on.
Statistics: Posted by redvli — Mon Nov 18, 2024 12:02 pm