They're trying to "unlimit" it by making emulated x86/x64 apps work, otherwise the chicken/egg/app/platform problem persists.

Supposedly ARM is more power efficient than the x86 family, so you'd get lighter laptops with longer battery life.

I would love to know from the HW experts here what happens when you start running your usual desktop workload on an ARM device. Does the power consumption stay low ?

looking at how quickly phones run out of battery when playing games, my feeling is that the ARM advantage is over-hyped, but I'd be interested in opinions from people who know this stuff.

Phones have much smaller batteries and you’re not going to usually be playing graphic intensive games on a laptop. Besides, games usually use the GPU which would use up more battery.

Reviews have stated the emulation performance is terrible - akin to Rosetta back in the PPC/Intel transition into OSX.

I read two reviews which stated even 32-bit Chrome’s performance was terrible compared to the native ARM 64-bit Edge, and Photoshop, etc, are borderline unusable.

Stranger still, the Surface Pro X’s battery life has been reported to be on par or poorer than the less expensive Intel-native Pro 7’s - I’m rather confused by Microsoft’s strategy here.

The Surface RT didn’t work.

I acquired a Surface Pro X. I can't compare it to a 7 but battery life is excellent so far.

One thing that my previous Surface Pro 4 did was Connected Standby. It would usually be fine and wake up after an hour asleep just 1 or 2 percent battery down. But then other times I'd go to use it and it'd be at 20%.

So far this X has not betrayed me like that. It's been good for regular tablet use (not continuous) for 10 hour days, easy.

Sorry, my phrasing was terrible, as usual. I know the emulated performance is terrible. My query is about native ARM desktop workloads vs native x86 desktop workloads (if Microsoft's vision comes to fruition) in terms of power consumption. I really can't imagine they'd be different, but I don't know enough about it other than "tech press" comparing phone battery lives to laptops.

I am also quite curious about this. Just like when I see review sites benchmark an iPad versus a surface pro running full windows, I can’t help but be confused as to what anyone really hopes to learn from such an apples to oranges comparison

ARM might win against the x86 architecture in more and more areas. They already beat Atom on phones and tablets.

Intel might run into serious problems for whatever reason we can't even imagine today.

Apple switched from Power to Intel when IBM stopped being competitive in their area. Apple is rumored to also work on the switch to ARM.

It is usually a good idea to invest into a few alternatives if only it is to bring them up in negotiations.

The reason that IBM/Motorola stop being competitive was the cost of staying competitive was to great compared to the number of processors they hope to sell. By the time that Apple made the switch to Intel, they were the only PPC customers besides game consoles and mainframes that had different needs. Apple was only selling five or six million computers back then.

Now, Apple sells about as many ARM based devices than all of the PC manufacturers combined [1] sell x86 chips. Apple will be its own best customer.

[1] Apple sold about 230-240 million iPhones, iPads, watches, AppleTVs and if it start selling ARM Macs it will add about 16-20 million to that number.