On 2021-09-23 20:23:00 +0000, John Dallman said:

> In article <siik2d$grk$1@dont-email.me>, seaohveh@hoffmanlabs.invalid
> (Stephen Hoffman) wrote:
>
>> There are a number of folks working with the Windows ARM64 insiders'
>> preview, including having gotten that working on Apple M1.
>
> Just in time for Microsoft to announce that running ARM Windows on M1
> is "not a supported scenario."

"Not a supported scenario" is the entirety of an insiders' preview of
an unreleased version on another platform.

Right up until the vendor decides to test and release and sell and
support it. Or not.

As was seen back in the FX!32 era, a whole lot of Windows app vendors
won't support their apps operating through app translation service.

Wouldn't surprise me to see some balk at supporting their x86-64 apps
on Windows on ARM64, particularly if the apps start crashing secondary
to emulation.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 9/23/2021 4:08 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 3:20 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2021-09-23 15:17:50 +0000, Dave Froble said:
>>> My question is, "why"?
>>>
>>> x86 is cheap.
>>> x86 is everywhere.
>>>
>>> What reason would Microsoft have to look at anything else?
>>
>> Price and power efficiency, same as usual. Arm can be cheaper, more
>> power-efficient, and fast.

>> Arm designs can also be juggernaut-scale, with 15 billion transistors in
>> one recent design; with fast big.LITTLE multiprocessor, a fast GPU,
>> statistics-math acceleration; that's a full-on SoC.  And
>> power-efficient. For comparison, Itanium Poulson and Kittson are ~3
>> billion. And Alpha and Itanium processors and servers never really saw
>> appreciable work on power efficiency.
>>
>> As for being "everywhere", the Arm installed base dwarfs those of Intel
>> and AMD and x86-64. And I'd suspect that Arm-related investments dwarf
>> Intel, too.
>>
>> Intel has spectacular processor design and processor fabrication
>> abilities, but they're also necessarily working within a massive
>> software installed base, and with a complex and accreted architecture.
>> And their fabrication efforts have been falling short. TSMC and others
>> have massive investments in fabrication, as well. Intel has discussed
>> using TMSC to fab parts of some Intel-designed components.

> I'm aware of many of the things ARM is used for.  Yes, they are quite
> useful.
>
> But, are they much better for desktop and notebook PCs?  I really can't
> see them being much better in that environment.

Was x86-64 better than Alpha, Power, SPARC etc.?

In my best opinion: no.

But x86-64 won anyway, because being able to sell many hundreds of
millions CPU's for desktop PC's enabled Intel and AMD to invest
more in CPU development (design and fab) than DEC, IBM and
whoever actually produced SPARC.

The big advantage for ARM is not its technical specs, but the fact
that it sell billions for phones and that can fund CPU development.

> Now, talking Microsoft, how successful have they been outside the
> desktop and notebook PCs?  Not very.  So, for them, x86 does the job.

MS is doing OK in servers. Very much behind Linux but way ahead
of traditional Unix, VMS etc..

Phones and tablets have been a long road of disasters.

> I have no idea of cost to get a decent WEENDOZE on ARM.  But whatever it
> is, would doing so be of adequate benefit to Microsoft?  Maybe sometime,
> but right now I don't see it.

Maybe for laptops due to less power consumption.

Arne

On 2021-09-23 20:08:36 +0000, Dave Froble said:

> But, are they much better for desktop and notebook PCs? I really can't
> see them being much better in that environment.

Apple is presently transitioning desktop and notebook products to Arm,
so we'll find out soon enough...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silicon

https://www.laptopmag.com/news/apple-m1-vs-intel-cpu-this-is-the-best-processor-for-your-laptop

It is likely a new M-class processor and new Macs will be arriving
later this year.

Apple has had practice with these architectural transitions. Microsoft
has had more ports, but hasn't yet migrated their whole hardware and
customer base.

Intel missed what became a massive market here:

> "We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want
> to view it. And the world would have been a lot different if we'd done
> it," Otellini told me in a two-hour conversation during his last month
> at Intel. "The thing you have to remember is that this was before the
> iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At
> the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that
> they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that
> price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one
> of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the
> forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought."

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/paul-otellinis-intel-can-the-company-that-built-the-future-survive-it/275825/

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 9/23/21 4:08 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 3:20 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2021-09-23 15:17:50 +0000, Dave Froble said:
>>
>>> My question is, "why"?
>>>
>>> x86 is cheap.
>>> x86 is everywhere.
>>>
>>> What reason would Microsoft have to look at anything else?
>>
>> Price and power efficiency, same as usual. Arm can be cheaper, more
>> power-efficient, and fast.
>>
>> https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-graviton2-arm-against-intel-and-amd/9
>>
>>
>>
>> Arm designs can also be juggernaut-scale, with 15 billion transistors in
>> one recent design; with fast big.LITTLE multiprocessor, a fast GPU,
>> statistics-math acceleration; that's a full-on SoC.  And
>> power-efficient. For comparison, Itanium Poulson and Kittson are ~3
>> billion. And Alpha and Itanium processors and servers never really saw
>> appreciable work on power efficiency.
>>
>> As for being "everywhere", the Arm installed base dwarfs those of Intel
>> and AMD and x86-64. And I'd suspect that Arm-related investments dwarf
>> Intel, too.
>>
>> Intel has spectacular processor design and processor fabrication
>> abilities, but they're also necessarily working within a massive
>> software installed base, and with a complex and accreted architecture.
>> And their fabrication efforts have been falling short. TSMC and others
>> have massive investments in fabrication, as well. Intel has discussed
>> using TMSC to fab parts of some Intel-designed components.
>>
>> https://www.reuters.com/business/intel-details-mixed-source-chip-strategy-tsmc-partnerships-2021-08-19/
>>
>>
>>
>> Microsoft has been selling Arm clients for a while, and publicly
>> prototyping Arm servers for several years now, as have others. How far
>> Microsoft might get with Windows 11 for ARM64? There are a number of
>> folks working with the Windows ARM64 insiders' preview, including having
>> gotten that working on Apple M1.
>>
>> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2021/06/28/announcing-arm64ec-building-native-and-interoperable-apps-for-windows-11-on-arm/
>>
>>
>>
>> How? If? When? Unknown. Architectural and product transitions tend to be
>> boring and slow and happening only around the periphery of other
>> markets, then the platforms and tools are ready, and then the changes
>> can then accelerate through the market.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm aware of many of the things ARM is used for.  Yes, they are quite
> useful.
>
> But, are they much better for desktop and notebook PCs?  I really can't
> see them being much better in that environment.

What difference does the CPU make for those two application genre?

bill

On 9/23/2021 5:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 9/23/21 4:08 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 9/23/2021 3:20 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-23 15:17:50 +0000, Dave Froble said:
>>>
>>>> My question is, "why"?
>>>>
>>>> x86 is cheap.
>>>> x86 is everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> What reason would Microsoft have to look at anything else?
>>>
>>> Price and power efficiency, same as usual. Arm can be cheaper, more
>>> power-efficient, and fast.
>>>
>>> https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-graviton2-arm-against-intel-and-amd/9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arm designs can also be juggernaut-scale, with 15 billion transistors in
>>> one recent design; with fast big.LITTLE multiprocessor, a fast GPU,
>>> statistics-math acceleration; that's a full-on SoC. And
>>> power-efficient. For comparison, Itanium Poulson and Kittson are ~3
>>> billion. And Alpha and Itanium processors and servers never really saw
>>> appreciable work on power efficiency.
>>>
>>> As for being "everywhere", the Arm installed base dwarfs those of Intel
>>> and AMD and x86-64. And I'd suspect that Arm-related investments dwarf
>>> Intel, too.
>>>
>>> Intel has spectacular processor design and processor fabrication
>>> abilities, but they're also necessarily working within a massive
>>> software installed base, and with a complex and accreted architecture.
>>> And their fabrication efforts have been falling short. TSMC and others
>>> have massive investments in fabrication, as well. Intel has discussed
>>> using TMSC to fab parts of some Intel-designed components.
>>>
>>> https://www.reuters.com/business/intel-details-mixed-source-chip-strategy-tsmc-partnerships-2021-08-19/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Microsoft has been selling Arm clients for a while, and publicly
>>> prototyping Arm servers for several years now, as have others. How far
>>> Microsoft might get with Windows 11 for ARM64? There are a number of
>>> folks working with the Windows ARM64 insiders' preview, including having
>>> gotten that working on Apple M1.
>>>
>>> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2021/06/28/announcing-arm64ec-building-native-and-interoperable-apps-for-windows-11-on-arm/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How? If? When? Unknown. Architectural and product transitions tend to be
>>> boring and slow and happening only around the periphery of other
>>> markets, then the platforms and tools are ready, and then the changes
>>> can then accelerate through the market.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm aware of many of the things ARM is used for. Yes, they are quite
>> useful.
>>
>> But, are they much better for desktop and notebook PCs? I really
>> can't see them being much better in that environment.
>
> What difference does the CPU make for those two application genre?
>
> bill

Not much. The question to ask is, what does it cost to move WEENDOZE to
ARM? Or just milk the current cash cow ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 11:18:14 AM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 5:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > On 9/23/21 4:08 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2021 3:20 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> >>> On 2021-09-23 15:17:50 +0000, Dave Froble said:
> >>>
> >>>> My question is, "why"?
> >>>>
> >>>> x86 is cheap.
> >>>> x86 is everywhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> What reason would Microsoft have to look at anything else?
> >>>
> >>> Price and power efficiency, same as usual. Arm can be cheaper, more
> >>> power-efficient, and fast.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-graviton2-arm-against-intel-and-amd/9
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Arm designs can also be juggernaut-scale, with 15 billion transistors in
> >>> one recent design; with fast big.LITTLE multiprocessor, a fast GPU,
> >>> statistics-math acceleration; that's a full-on SoC. And
> >>> power-efficient. For comparison, Itanium Poulson and Kittson are ~3
> >>> billion. And Alpha and Itanium processors and servers never really saw
> >>> appreciable work on power efficiency.
> >>>
> >>> As for being "everywhere", the Arm installed base dwarfs those of Intel
> >>> and AMD and x86-64. And I'd suspect that Arm-related investments dwarf
> >>> Intel, too.
> >>>
> >>> Intel has spectacular processor design and processor fabrication
> >>> abilities, but they're also necessarily working within a massive
> >>> software installed base, and with a complex and accreted architecture.
> >>> And their fabrication efforts have been falling short. TSMC and others
> >>> have massive investments in fabrication, as well. Intel has discussed
> >>> using TMSC to fab parts of some Intel-designed components.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.reuters.com/business/intel-details-mixed-source-chip-strategy-tsmc-partnerships-2021-08-19/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Microsoft has been selling Arm clients for a while, and publicly
> >>> prototyping Arm servers for several years now, as have others. How far
> >>> Microsoft might get with Windows 11 for ARM64? There are a number of
> >>> folks working with the Windows ARM64 insiders' preview, including having
> >>> gotten that working on Apple M1.
> >>>
> >>> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2021/06/28/announcing-arm64ec-building-native-and-interoperable-apps-for-windows-11-on-arm/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How? If? When? Unknown. Architectural and product transitions tend to be
> >>> boring and slow and happening only around the periphery of other
> >>> markets, then the platforms and tools are ready, and then the changes
> >>> can then accelerate through the market.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm aware of many of the things ARM is used for. Yes, they are quite
> >> useful.
> >>
> >> But, are they much better for desktop and notebook PCs? I really
> >> can't see them being much better in that environment.
> >
> > What difference does the CPU make for those two application genre?
> >
> > bill
> Not much. The question to ask is, what does it cost to move WEENDOZE to
> ARM? Or just milk the current cash cow ...

It may be worth asking what does it cost *not* to?

If everything you do is in a web browser there isn't really much keeping you on
Windows. If ARM powered Macs get better battery life then your x86 PC for the
same performance that may be enough for Microsoft to loose a customer. It may
be enough for Microsoft to loose *a lot* of customers.

Better for Microsoft if its a Microsoft product competing with x86 Windows
than some other companies product.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 7:20:47 AM UTC+12, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> Intel has spectacular processor design and processor fabrication
> abilities ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/27/intel_accelerated_analysed/

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 6:00:11 AM UTC+12, John Dallman wrote:

> They seem to have decided that Windows on ARM is /strictly/ for mobile
> devices.

Which seems like an attitude that is doomed to fail, when you consider the variety of ARM-based machines like the Raspberry π.

Also the most powerful computer in the world right now <https://top500.org/lists/top500/list/2021/06/> is based on ARM CPUs, and it has been at the top spot for over a year.

And naturally, Linux runs on all of these things.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:20:15 AM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:

> x86 is cheap.

x86 is not cheap. Consider a typical Windows PC, where the two most expensive components are the x86 CPU and the OS; the providers of both of those make obscene profits, while the PC vendor is lucky to manage an overall 1-2% margin.

Can you get an x86 CPU for a 2-figure price tag? Not a chance. With ARM, you can get an entire *computer* (like the Raspberry π) for a 2-figure price tag.

On 9/23/2021 9:43 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:20:15 AM UTC+12, Dave Froble
> wrote:
>> x86 is cheap.
>
> x86 is not cheap. Consider a typical Windows PC, where the two most
> expensive components are the x86 CPU and the OS; the providers of
> both of those make obscene profits, while the PC vendor is lucky to
> manage an overall 1-2% margin.

If the buyers are willing to pay that much money, then
who will blame the sellers for accepting it.

> Can you get an x86 CPU for a 2-figure price tag? Not a chance.

Actually i3's can be get for less than 100 dollar.

> With
> ARM, you can get an entire *computer* (like the Raspberry π) for a
> 2-figure price tag.

Sure.

But how many use that as their PC?

Arne

On 9/23/2021 9:43 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:20:15 AM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> x86 is cheap.
>
> x86 is not cheap. Consider a typical Windows PC, where the two most expensive components are the x86 CPU and the OS; the providers of both of those make obscene profits, while the PC vendor is lucky to manage an overall 1-2% margin.
>
> Can you get an x86 CPU for a 2-figure price tag? Not a chance. With ARM, you can get an entire *computer* (like the Raspberry π) for a 2-figure price tag.
>

Not lately. AMD's Ryzon CPUs are a bit more pricey than the past
Athlons. Still, on Newegg:

AMD Ryzen 3 1st Gen - RYZEN 3 1200 Summit Ridge (Zen) 4-Core 3.1 GHz
(3.4 GHz Turbo) Socket AM4 65W YD1200BBAEBOX Desktop Processor

$117.99 (5 Offers)
Free Shipping

And you can bet that PC mfgs can get a better price. Maybe even that 2
digits you mentioned.

Yeah, bottom of the line, but for a home PC for email and browser, it
will do a respectable job.

Even if an ARM is $10, it won't affect the price of the PC very much.

Now if you want to look at Intel's server CPUs, they can make the price
of an Alpha appear cheap.

:-)

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 9/23/2021 9:43 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

you can get an entire *computer* (like the Raspberry π) for a 2-figure
price tag.

Yes, and I have. Less storage, networking, display, and just about
everything else. Not knocking the pi, it's great for some things. But
it's not your normal PC.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:41:16 PM UTC+12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 6:00:11 AM UTC+12, John Dallman wrote:
>
> > They seem to have decided that Windows on ARM is /strictly/ for mobile
> > devices.
>
> Which seems like an attitude that is doomed to fail, when you consider the variety of ARM-based machines like the Raspberry π.

Seems like a reasonable enough decision - most people buy laptops and
tablets these days and that is where ARMs low power and cooling needs
are most useful. On a desktop ARMs only advantage is maybe price.

And Windows 10 does run on the Raspberry Pi with some effort. Performance
doesn't seem to be great but it does work. Maybe Microsoft will eventually
license the full Windows 10 or 11 for it. Or maybe they'll decide the performance
isn't good enough and don't want people running Windows on it only to get a
bad experience and decide all Windows on ARM devices are slow.

> Also the most powerful computer in the world right now <https://top500.org/lists/top500/list/2021/06/> is based on ARM CPUs, and it has been at the top spot for over a year.
>
> And naturally, Linux runs on all of these things.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting Microsoft should be
trying to compete in the supercomputer market with a slimmed down version
ARM Windows NT?

On 24/09/2021 03:41, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 6:00:11 AM UTC+12, John Dallman wrote:
>
>> They seem to have decided that Windows on ARM is /strictly/ for mobile
>> devices.
>
> Which seems like an attitude that is doomed to fail, when you consider the variety of ARM-based machines like the Raspberry π.
>
> Also the most powerful computer in the world right now <https://top500.org/lists/top500/list/2021/06/> is based on ARM CPUs, and it has been at the top spot for over a year.
>
> And naturally, Linux runs on all of these things.
>

What really makes it doomed to fail is the non-availability of the devices.

It is cheaper to run insider versions of Windows 10 for ARM on Parallels on a M1 Mac than it is to buy a WOA device, if it can even be found.

WOA devices are extremely rare, expensive, and almost impossible to get in Europe.

And since MSFT gave up on Windows 10 IoT Core on the Raspberry Pi 4, Windows on ARM has become even more of a laughing stock.

I would love to use Windows on ARM if I could run the IoT Core version on my Rapis and the full version on a tablet and/or laptop. But it's too expensive and too difficult.

(Incidentally, the emulator works well and runs both x86 and x64 software as well as 32 bit ARM software.)

On 09/24/21 00:26, David Goodwin wrote:

> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 11:18:14 AM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
> It may be worth asking what does it cost *not* to?
>
> If everything you do is in a web browser there isn't really much keeping you on
> Windows. If ARM powered Macs get better battery life then your x86 PC for the
> same performance that may be enough for Microsoft to loose a customer. It may
> be enough for Microsoft to loose *a lot* of customers.
>
> Better for Microsoft if its a Microsoft product competing with x86 Windows
> than some other companies product.

I think the real issue of arm and windows is related to standards, When
IBM brought out their first pc, it quickly became a standard hw platform
that many others cloned. What ARM really needs is for a major vendor or
industry group to create a standard platform, or reference model, which
will then make it worthwhile for Microsoft to invest in building windows
for Arm. Arm are already more than powerful enough for general desktop
use, but the market is far too fragmented at present, for that to
happen...

Chris

In article <ir5tbjF75oiU1@mid.individual.net>, andrew@netneurotic.net
(Andrew Brehm) wrote:

> It is cheaper to run insider versions of Windows 10 for ARM on
> Parallels on a M1 Mac than it is to buy a WOA device, if it can
> even be found.

The M1 is much faster, too.

> WOA devices are extremely rare, expensive, and almost impossible to
> get in Europe.

My employers have had no particular difficulty in buying a couple
recently. They are quite expensive, so retailers don't stock them, which
makes them hard to buy.

John

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:22:44 PM UTC+12, dgso...@gmail.com wrote:
> And Windows 10 does run on the Raspberry Pi with some effort.

That’s why they say: Windows is a great OS -- if your time is worth nothing.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:07:18 AM UTC+12, Andrew Brehm wrote:
> What really makes it doomed to fail is the non-availability of the devices.

It’s the usual chicken-and-egg situation that dooms all of Microsoft’s non-x86 efforts: vendors won’t make the devices unless they are sure customers will buy them, and customers will not buy them unless they can be sure to get apps that will take advantage of them.

On 25/09/2021 07:51, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:07:18 AM UTC+12, Andrew Brehm wrote:
>> What really makes it doomed to fail is the non-availability of the devices.
>
> It’s the usual chicken-and-egg situation that dooms all of Microsoft’s non-x86 efforts: vendors won’t make the devices unless they are sure customers will buy them, and customers will not buy them unless they can be sure to get apps that will take advantage of them.
>

I would not need many applications except the built-in and I have seen the x86/x64 emulator work well. I would use the device to keep me entertained on train rides, application availability wouldn't matter to me.

The non-availability of the devices is my only issue.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:22:44 PM UTC+12, dgso...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are you suggesting Microsoft should be
> trying to compete in the supercomputer market with a slimmed down version
> ARM Windows NT?

They did try something like that, some years ago (look up “Windows Server HPC”). It disappeared without a trace.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:51:20 PM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
> Not knocking the pi, it's great for some things. But
> it's not your normal PC.

It has achieved a greater level of success than Microsoft has ever been able to manage with Windows on ARM.

Den 2021-09-27 kl. 00:24, skrev Lawrence D’Oliveiro:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:51:20 PM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
>> Not knocking the pi, it's great for some things. But
>> it's not your normal PC.
>
> It has achieved a greater level of success than Microsoft has ever been able to manage with Windows on ARM.
>

A Rasp-PI and a normalt Windows PC are in total different markets.
Apples and Oranges, as they say. Can't be compared.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 8:27:29 PM UTC+13, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>
> Den 2021-09-27 kl. 00:24, skrev Lawrence D’Oliveiro:
>>
>> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:51:20 PM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>> Not knocking the pi, it's great for some things. But
>>> it's not your normal PC.
>>
>> It has achieved a greater level of success than Microsoft has ever been able to
>> manage with Windows on ARM.
>>
> A Rasp-PI and a normalt Windows PC are in total different markets.
> Apples and Oranges, as they say. Can't be compared.

Well, one way to excuse the fact you have lost the race is to pretend you were not competing at all.