Why Microsoft Windows 8 will run on ARM

10/14/2010 12:58 PM EDT

It makes total sense for Windows 8 to support ARM because ARM may very much become the MCU of the next generation computer regardless of mobile, laptop or desktop. Microsoft might already look into the market closely to determine how soon and when they will make Windows to support ARM. At the end of the day, market decides.

10/14/2010 2:13 PM EDT

The obvious thing to see is a Windows Pad based on the microsoft mobile (Zune). Look for future zune software to look like windows mobile software (a la ipod touch and iphone). My guess is that this is where the ARM is heading.

10/14/2010 3:39 PM EDT

I see more of a possibility that Windows Phone (or Tablet) 8 will slowly replace more devices that would've otherwise run Windows 8 Desktop.

More and more, what runs on the PC will become less relevant. But I doubt there will be a sharp transition.

10/14/2010 3:56 PM EDT

What will be the advantage of having W8 and ARM?
In my point of view the devices that work well is because windows is not the OS used! ipad, ipod, cell phones (no win mobile).
W7 looks pretty but needs lots of resources and how come W8 is announced if W7 is receiving updates constantly!!!
more crap to the market!!!

10/14/2010 4:27 PM EDT

I think the mobile revolution is a great opportunity to break the MS Windows monopoly of OSes, and I do not think the mobile market will make the same mistake of allowing a near monopoly of OSes. So, Android is the way for mobile. As for server-side OSes, Linux will eventually pevail. The added value will be in customisation, apps, and system integration.

10/14/2010 4:31 PM EDT

Supporting another architecture would be a huge expense and I frankly don't see how MS would ever get a return on the investment. Also, if I developed a program I would need to validate it on the Intel and Arm platform. Again, I don't see the value. This seems like an insane idea.

10/14/2010 4:40 PM EDT

As to x86 not being the dominant CPU, I remember in the 90's how everybody was talking about WinNT on a PowerPC desktop machine with PCI slots becoming the next wave machine. Didn't happen. While there are aspects of Linux on a desktop that I like, it still is not ready for primetime compared to the Windows (Win7) universe. Time will tell.

10/14/2010 4:59 PM EDT

Microsoft unfortunately has become a bloated dinosaur. The WP7 is a to late. WHERE ARE TABLETS? I have to agree with the statement that Apple has shown us the less is more. How much resources does it take to write a 'simple' os for the ARM. I am sure that Microsoft will screw this up. If I were Ballmer I would setup 5 groups of 5 of my brightest programmers and give them 5 months to come up with a NEW OS. Then pick the best and immediately deploy it. Microsoft YOU CAN NOT WAIT 3 YEARS !!!

10/14/2010 5:22 PM EDT

Microsoft will NEVER be run on ARM as we know it.
(1) Microsoft is and always will be unreliable.
(2) Unless ARM is going to try to compete with Intel and AMD head to head, ARM already is making money hand over fist in the Embedded market.
(3) ARM core is designed for mobile and low power, Windows was built for Desktop PC or Laptop with and AC adapter that runs for 2 hours on batteries.
(4) ARM core embedded use is for safety / medical / military use CAN NEVER USE WINDOWS. WILL NEVER BE CERTIFIED for any kind of use like that.
(5) Microsoft stopped "Innovating" 15 years ago

10/14/2010 5:27 PM EDT

"It would not be hard for Microsoft to run Windows on ARM. It has runs its Windows CE on ARM for years"
Ah, WinCE. The thought of working with it again makes me want to run out & buy an ipod devel kit.

10/14/2010 5:55 PM EDT

The desktop PC is a slowly dying breed. Smaller devices will prevail with the same processing power as the large bulky server's we use today. Lightweight OS & processors will be required for the new wave of internet enabled TVs, Fridges, Furnaces & Toasters. Google saw the potential long ago and will probably dominate the market. Microsoft is now on the right track and is positioning itself to capture a good share. As for Apple, expect them to fade out of existance once they realize their last lemming has jumped off the cliff.

10/14/2010 6:06 PM EDT

Well, there are also MIPS-based laptops from China with Loongson / Godson processor, Linux and Android. The hypothetical future Windows / ARM desktops/laptops/tablets would have to compete against existing MIPS / Android, ARM / Android, Apple and other solutions.

10/14/2010 7:15 PM EDT

Microsoft should try developing new MS Office and other applications on ARM. First, they better have look and feel of application development on ARM and after that they can develop optimized OS for ARM.

10/14/2010 8:50 PM EDT

Microsoft makes the bloatiest (sorry about that) Bloatware on the planet. That's why everything embedded that has Windows x on it runs like a dog. They might have the PC arena sown up but in the embedded space they don't stand a chance. I've had a number of Windows CE products that have such a slow user I/F as to be useless. I've traded them for functional embedded RTOS based products. Even Linux while fairly bloated runs faster.

10/14/2010 10:12 PM EDT

Who cares where it runs? This monopoly makes average products and smile to the market because there is no competition. The truth is that irrespective of where it is made, there is no choice. Ask Apple Mac, you have to have money for that.

10/14/2010 11:03 PM EDT

If MS is licencing an ARM core, then they must be building their own CPU. This means that they plan on doing to apple what apple did to them, going into the hardware business. They could come out with a very low cost ARM based netbook PC running Windows....or tablet (easy for them to grab a hold of that market at the moment).

10/14/2010 11:23 PM EDT

This is definitely going to bridge the gap between PCs & mobile devices. Soon all will be treated as 1

10/15/2010 12:41 AM EDT

As many pointed out Windows has already become a huge bloatware which ARM architecture wouldnt be able to smoothly run. And it would take years for MS to port all utilities from x86 to ARM. Many of the existing software might not work on the new platform. So IMO this aint going to happen. On the other side Windows Phone 7 OS would continue to grow in ARM platform devices.

10/15/2010 3:43 AM EDT

MS have tried working with different architectures before on Windows. The original NT worked on x86, MIPS, PPC and Alpha. But one by one, these architectures were dropped. There were several reasons for this:

1. MS's own software (windows, office, etc.) was written specifically for the x86 - making the code portable was a huge effort.

2. Third-party developers wrote code specifically for the x86, not portable code.

3. MS didn't want to pay the costs of making and supporting Windows on these architectures - they made the cpu manufacturers pay. This was a large cost for the manufacturers, and made competing with Intel's processors even harder. In the end, these companies found it was not worth the cost to pay MS, so MS dropped them.


In the Linux world (and also for most embedded OS's), portability is standard. The kernel supports several dozen cpu architectures, and most software is written for portability. The cpu architecture is almost incidental in a Linux system.


If MS are going to get Win8 running on ARM, they will have a lot of work to do. And they will have to do it themselves - ARM won't pay them to do it. Much of the work is going to be in getting third-party developers to support it. For developers using dotnet, it will not be too hard - but most important software runs native on the x86.

The result will be that the Win8 ARM tablets will look like large Win7 phones, without the phone. They will work for browsing, email, MS office, and a few games. They won't work with any other windows programs the user might have. And if you can't run windows programs, why bother with windows? Do you buy a Win8 ARM tablet so that you can run MS Office, MineSweeper and Solitaire, or do you buy the cheaper one with Linux, OpenOffice, and thousands of other apps that can be installed from a simple dialog box?

10/15/2010 3:46 AM EDT

Running on ARM won't do much good unless Microsoft can also convince application developers to deliver ARM builds. Windows NT came in versions for Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC, but none of those caught on because there was almost nothing to run on them.

If Microsoft is serious about making ARM an alternative platform for Windows 8, they may need to strongarm (sic) developers. Will they withhold the "runs on Windows 8" certification unless your application runs on both platforms?

10/15/2010 4:55 AM EDT

Why settle for something as mediocre as Windows on your tablet pc?

10/15/2010 5:44 AM EDT

What a stupid idea. Windows' big draw is its binary compatibility with almost two decades worth of commercial software, which is almost entirely x86. Remember what happened to Windows NT on MIPS? Or Alpha? Or PowerPC? Yeah, exactly.

Moving to another platform will be a *huge* break with the past and the mountain of existing software. If you're going to make such a huge change, you might as well switch the OS too. There's already Linux (incl. Android), Apple iOS, the other BSD's, Symbian, and probably a few other viable choices for dekstop/tablet/netbook/phone use.

Can we please, finally, leave Windows in the past, where it belongs?

10/15/2010 10:58 AM EDT

I think that Rick is smoking something and is completely out of touch with reality.

First of all porting the Windows base to ARM would be very costly..if not downright impossible. There are so many pieces that are specific to the x86 that it would take a huge effort to rework it. Then, what do you do with all of the applications? If you don't emulate an x86 instruction set at the lowest level (which would likely be slow) everyone would have to re-develop their PC applications. If you do emulate, you probably lose all of the benefits that an ARM processor might provide.

The better choice is the Windows CE path. It was written from the ground up by Microsoft to support multiple processors with a cleaner overall architecture, including better driver design, power management, etc.

Applications written in .NET have a much better chance to make to Windows CE anyway via the .NET Compact Framework.

Finally, the Windows code base is a "soft real time" design. Windows CE is "hard real time". Why this might no matter to everyone, I think it might.

Rick, you have a profound ignorance of the fundamental differences between Windows CE and the Windows x86 code bases.

10/15/2010 12:15 PM EDT

Recently ARM trumpeted a desktop-like SoC from China. The startup's processor uses a 1.6 GHz dual-core Cortex A9 -- The Startup is Beijing Nufront(www.nufront.com), the chip is NuSmartTM 2816, which is being installed into tablets,notebook,all-in-one, smart TV now, more than ten such devices will be showing at CES'2011 -- No matter Windows8 support or not, Android/Ubuntu + ARM-A9-1.6G is fantastic.

10/15/2010 12:55 PM EDT

Has anyone noticed that Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel Architecture? Why? ... Intel outspent the PowerPC group of IBM/Motorola and built faster, better, and cheaper processors.

REALITY: Any legacy "x86" hardware in a current generation Intel Architecture processor takes up so little of the die. Current Intel Architecture processors are modern designs that are worked on by brilliant people .... I know it may not seem that way, but Intel can afford to hire some of the brightest minds. Yes there are some legacy bottlenecks, but for the most part these are not significant impacts on performance/cost.

If I listened to the pundits I would be running typing this on a Linux desktop by now.... but I am not. Seems when Linux was saddled with the need of supporting a wickedly diverse set of hardware, drivers, software, etc. that it started to get bloated and slow too.

The reality is that Windows8 on ARM is highly unlikely to run as fast as it will on Intel processors. If ARM makes a processor that is as fast, it is likely to use as much power and cost as much.

10/15/2010 5:09 PM EDT

I may have "a profound ignorance of the fundamental differences between Windows CE and the Windows x86 code bases" but I note that Linux is available on ARM, x86, MIPS and Power. MS ought to follow its lead.

10/15/2010 5:10 PM EDT

And I stopped smoking anything a looooong time ago ;-)

10/15/2010 7:23 PM EDT

There is a fundamental assumption that everyone seems to be making about the point that Rick is proposing - that is the definition of an operating system. If Microsoft were to embrace the lightweight front end towards which Google is moving then the back end could be hosted in the cloud. As a result, the front end could be a relatively hollow shell of current Windows versions. With that configuration it would be quite possible to support applications which would be built for x86 on beefy server backends while the UI is blissfully unaware of running on ARM devices of all kinds.
Larry M.

10/16/2010 12:33 AM EDT

Thanks for this article. I reading information this topic. But based on what you are saying (if it is true); I think you may be 100% right. Eveyone love the word low cost. We will visit this topic at a later date and compare the notes.

10/16/2010 2:04 PM EDT

The dialog here is confused because everyone talks about their own orbit. I wonder if business IT matters any more to MS now they are targeting consumers via ARM. Lets look at the economics: (1) The only legacy apps I can think of that consumer/mass markets care about are the MS products which will obviously port to Win8 just fine. (2) Any platform-specific Win86 business apps will either have to clean up and port to Linux/Win8/Android or just linger on in old Win platforms. (3) New apps will all strive for platform-independence (except maybe iapps of course).

10/16/2010 3:20 PM EDT

@sharps .... The complete life for the Microsoft lies in providing OS for the business IT. No one is going to compete or replace the windows in this area. But I welcome this move since microsoft should think a little ahead and develop the operating systems for the future microprocessor cores like ARM.

10/16/2010 5:17 PM EDT

@kiran... sure. It is also true that as MS produce cleaner, more abstract APIs they are sowing the seeds of escape for their client base. Also, classical marketing history shows us that incumbents typically overlook threats until a 'tornado' ruthlessly sweeps them aside. Suddenly their customers act as a herd and abandon the old for the new, the critical moment being when the herd senses that they might be left out if they don't move NOW. Just maybe MS is trying to outguess history...?

10/17/2010 4:21 PM EDT

One of the more confused speculations I have seen.
An Arm version of a Desktop OS, makes no sense, as there is no Arm hardware to run it on.
What could make sense, is a Tablet OS, from Microsoft. Do not confuse that with Windows 8.
What actually happens in this space, is likely to be dictated by Apple and Intel.
Intel: ["Intel has its eye on the flood of Google Android, HP WebOS, Blackberry Tablet OS and Intel/Nokia MeeGo tablets that are starting to hit the market. Most of them will use Intel Atom processors."]
Of course, Apple have deep experience on moving cores, so they could do an Intel iPad, if the hardware numbers were compelling enough.
Users don't actually care whose brand is on the silicon.

10/17/2010 9:51 PM EDT

I think it makes sense for Microsoft to support the ARM for multiple reasons. First, ARM is pushing into the server market and Microsoft doesn't want to be blocked out by Linux. Next, Intel is putting more and more support behind Linux, shouldn't MS expand it's supported processors? Finally, why block out the fastest growing market in tablets?

10/18/2010 12:29 AM EDT

BTW, send any leaks on 64-bit ARM cores and/or Windows 8 to yours truly ;-)

10/18/2010 11:36 AM EDT

I'd say that Microsoft certainly has it in them to create an ARM version of Windows 8 (or Windows 9 or Windows Electra) but I don't think that's the point. A few decades ago, few people though that IBM could build a personal computer, but they did and they changed the world while at it. However, they don't sell them any more. IBM is and was a big iron company.

The real point comes from looking at what Microsoft is. They have built small system OS's like CE and their various phone OS's, but none have really had the legs to capture long-term, broad-based market share.

As an outsider, I'd have to presume that Microsoft's core philosophy is to be the big all-things to everyone OS. It's ingrained in their DNA. Microsoft is the software equivalent of a big iron company. That's not a bad thing. It's just a different approach. My suspicion is that they will build the ARM OS, but it will stumble along as a low-market share product, always way in the shadow of their flagship.

10/18/2010 1:00 PM EDT

I guess you could call this an Arm win...,

10/18/2010 10:14 PM EDT

See it this way, it's better than MS not doing anything and bodes well for ARM and some start ups waiting in the wings.
Well, Win8 may be what we are not thinking- small and lean.

10/19/2010 3:28 AM EDT

What is it with all you anti-Microsoft types? Remember, if we didn't have Microsoft Windows we wouldn't have one hundreth of the computing power we currently enjoy in our desktops, laptops, PDAs and mobiles. In fact, we probably wouldn't have desktops and laptops at all, computers would still be limited to massive mainframes useable only by those companies that could afford to buy them. It's only because of Microsoft's policies with Windows, and the fact that they keep on pushing the boundaries of hardware and software, that we enjoy the processing power we have today. And before you Unix / Linux guys get started, Microsoft also had a version of Unix, it was called Xenix and ran on a PDP-11. And it ran very well indeed.

10/20/2010 9:53 AM EDT

Obviously this topic hits a nerve - and reveals our technical biases. My only additional observation would be that the title of the article is misleading "Why Microsoft Windows 8 WILL run on ARM" when, as an opinion piece, it should have read "Why Microsoft Windows 8 SHOULD run on ARM".

11/8/2010 10:59 AM EST

It is impossible to run real desktop Windows on anything else then x86. Windows are deeply attached to x86. It should not be too hard for Microsoft to create some new desktop_windows-like OS, possibly built on .NET, with full MS Office support ... But this will not be the main branch, as the backward compatibility is the biggest advantage of Windows.

12/16/2010 3:08 PM EST

Well, well. I did not read through all of the posts here. Mainly because what I did read seemed like the same old zealot war of old.

An Operating System is not a religion - An Operating System is a tool, and every tool has it use(s).

Lots of people here seem to be forgetting one very important factor. Microsoft has an embedded line of Operating systems. Based on XP, Vista, and now I believe Win7 too ( Not even mentioning Windows CE ). Windows embedded is modular, not dissimilar to to the way Linux its self is modular. Except in regard to having access to the source code. One could most definitely "roll their own" version of Windows using this set of tools. For specific hardware, and end use.

Often the systems that run this operating system are x86 based which can be terrible at energy efficiency. Perform a small number of *simple* tasks, and spend a lot of time idle ( sitting there waiting on user interaction ). Queue in ARM here.

Now then lets be honest with ourselves. The above mentioned systems number in the millions. We run into them daily at the grocery store, bank, and even the occasional video rental KIOSK sitting out side of the local fast food establishment. Considering this, what harm could there be in saving an good amount of power in the process ?

Evil empire or not. Personally I would rather see the "evil software" running on the most efficient platform possible.