> As much as I'd like it to be I don't think Linux is a serious desktop contender for most people, so Microsoft is just in second place - and it's not that distant yet, since the Apple transition has just started.
My point here is:
- A huge chunk of Linux software (desktop or server) has been ported to ARM or will soon be.
- A huge chunk of MacOS software will likely be ported within the first few months of launch.
- A very small percentage of Windows software has been ported to ARM. Even the usual Windows strongholds: Games and corporate software have poor support for Windows ARM. Windows x86-64 bit emulation is missing (or at least was at launch) so a significant amount of pro software and games won't run even under emulation.
> The Windows version is "maybe there will be ARM devices one day, maybe". That's not nearly as convincing.
Exactly this. Microsoft has had so many false starts on platform shifts they have a hard job selling this.
> Windows software written in .NET and Java has little to worry about what CPU is being used, and there is plenty of it to chose from.
Considering many/ most pro apps like Photoshop are not written in .NET or Java, it is a significant concern. Likewise games—a category of software Microsoft has long dominated—are not generally written in Java/ .NET. Likewise, huge chunks of legacy corporate software is not very portable.
> Also outside HN bubble right there in the real world, macOS desktops are about 8% across the whole world. It doesn't really matter what CPU they have.
I wasn't talking about unit sales, I was talking about how much software the platform supports. Regardless of whether the Mac has 3% or 99%, there is going to be a better selection of software available for Mac on ARM in 6 months than for Windows ARM.
Sure they are, most modern Windows software is a mix of .NET and C++.
As for modern Windows programming, UWP has been able to target ARM since ages.
Yeah, not everything will be available, then again it doesn't matter how much software is available, if only a subset of those 8% of the computing world population is going to get it.
At least for right now. We'll see how things look in a few years. If Intel can't get back on track, ARM might actually surpass them and that's a very good reason for Microsoft to be looking to support ARM.
Lack of 64bit-only pro software isn't matter for 2019-2020 because lack of SoC performance. Possibly MS support 64bit emulation in time for SoC performance improving.
You can play the c++ version of Minecraft on the Surface X, however you couldn't play the Java version. Maybe the openjdk can fix this problem but I'm not really optimistic.
My point here is:
- A huge chunk of Linux software (desktop or server) has been ported to ARM or will soon be.
- A huge chunk of MacOS software will likely be ported within the first few months of launch.
- A very small percentage of Windows software has been ported to ARM. Even the usual Windows strongholds: Games and corporate software have poor support for Windows ARM. Windows x86-64 bit emulation is missing (or at least was at launch) so a significant amount of pro software and games won't run even under emulation.
> The Windows version is "maybe there will be ARM devices one day, maybe". That's not nearly as convincing.
Exactly this. Microsoft has had so many false starts on platform shifts they have a hard job selling this.