[array_key_first]

Microsoft has tried Windows on ARM, like, 5 times in the past 15 years and it's failed every time. They tried again recently with Qualcomm, but Qualcomm barely supports their own chips, so, predictably, it failed.

The main reason x86 still has relevance and will continue to do so is because x86 manufacturers actually care about the platform and their chips. x86 is somewhat open and standardized. ARM is the wild, wild west - each manufacturer makes bespoke motherboards, and sockets, and firmware. Many manufacturers, like Qualcomm, abandon their products remarkably quickly.

[whizzter]

Huh? Qualcomm announced the X2 chips just 2 months ago with shipments for early next year. Looked at a local dealer site and there's MS, Dell, Asus and Lenovo WinArm machines (with current gen Elite X chips).

Yes, Windows on desktop hardware will probably continue mainly with x86 for a while more, but how many people outside of games, workstation-scenarios and secure scenarios still use desktops compared to laptops (where SoC's are fine for most part)?

[array_key_first]

1. Don't do the 'huh?' thing. It's not cute, it's just annoying.

2. I am referring to the snapdragon x elite and associated devices, which were and are a failure.

3. You don't need ARM to create an SOC. Even Intel makes a more power efficient x86 SOC than the x elite.

4. Games and work are, like, HUGE use cases. If you can't use the ARM laptops for your job or your not-at-job, then what the fuck can you use it for?

[whizzter]

1: It's not meant to be cute but rather incredulity at a statement of declaring something to having failed that still very much seems to be in progress of being rolled out (and thus indicating that it'd be nice to have some more information if you know something the rest of the world doesn't).

2: Again, how are they failures? Yes, sales have been so-so but if you go onto Microsofts site you mostly get Surface devices with Snapdragon chips and most reports seems to be from about a year ago (would be interesting to see numbers from this year though).

3: Yes, I got a new x86 machine myself a month back that has quite nice battery life. Intel not being stuck as far behind on process seems to have helped a fair bit (the X elite's doesn't seem entirely power efficient compared to Apple however).

4: Yes, _I_ got an x86 machine since I knew that I'd probably be installing quirky enterprise dependencies from the early 00s (possibly even 90s) that a client requires.

However, I was actually considering something other than wintel, mainly an Apple laptop. If I'm considering options and being mostly held back by enterprise customers with old software I'd need to maintain the moat is quite weak.

My older kids previous school used ARM Chromebooks (currently x86 HP laptops at current upper highschool but they run things like AutoCAD), the younger one has used iPad's for most of their junior high.

Games could be one moat, but is that more due to the CPU or the GPU's being more behind Nvidia and AMD. Someone was running Cyberpunk 2077 on DGX Spark at 175 fps (x86-64 binary being emulated.. )!

But beside games and enterprise...

So many people that are using their computers for web interfaces, spreadsheets, writing, graphics(photoshop has ARM support) and so on won't notice much different about ARM machines (why my kids mostly used non-x86 so far), it's true that such people are using PC's less overall (phones and/or tables being enough for most of their computing), but tell a salesman Excel jockey that he can get 10-20% more battery life and he might just take it.

Now, if Qualcomm exits the market by failing to introduce another yearly/bi-yearly update then I'll be inclined to agree that Win-Arm has failed again.. but so far it's not really in sight.