Qualcomm's Windows On Arm Push Would Be Great – If Only It Ran All Your Software

Analysis Qualcomm has set its sights on Arm-based Windows laptops, which, in theory, offer notable advantages. The company's Arm-powered Snapdragon processors promise exceptional battery life that puts x86 machines to shame, fanless designs, and integrated 5G connectivity that leave Intel and AMD looking dated. By betting on a mobile and connected world, Qualcomm aims to position Arm-based Windows laptops as the future.

But there's a problem: software compatibility. Qualcomm's strategy relies on the assumption that users will prioritize battery life and always-on connectivity over a critical aspect of computing devices.

For Windows users, a thin and long-lasting device isn't enough if it can't run the applications they depend on daily – applications optimized for x86 architecture over the span of decades. While Qualcomm may have its "Windows revolution" mapped out, the reality is that Windows on Arm continues to struggle with compatibility issues that Qualcomm and Microsoft have yet to resolve. Is Qualcomm's Arm push overly optimistic?

Qualcomm's Windows on Arm strategy

Qualcomm's core selling points for Arm-based Windows laptops include significantly longer battery life compared to x86 machines. Thanks to Arm's efficiency, Snapdragon processors enable fanless laptops that remain cool and operational throughout the day, even in ultra-thin designs. Qualcomm is also stuffing 5G modems into these laptops, offering "always-on, always-connected" internet access aimed at students, remote workers, and just about anyone tired of battling unreliable Wi-Fi connections.

Qualcomm also emphasizes its focus on AI. The Snapdragon platform has a dedicated neural processing unit (NPU), which Qualcomm says can handle AI-driven tasks directly on the device without compromising performance. This aligns the company's designs with the current AI hype, suggesting these Arm machines can deliver "next-generation AI experiences." Qualcomm also asserts these devices are "performance-ready," although those acquainted with Arm's history on Windows may question this claim.

On paper, Qualcomm's proposition appears reasonable, particularly for users engaged primarily in browsing, emailing, and running lightweight applications. However, Windows users typically expect more than a glorified tablet; they require laptops capable of running all their essential applications, such as Adobe Creative Suite, advanced development tools, and complex Excel spreadsheets critical to businesses. If Qualcomm's Arm devices cannot support these applications effectively, then features like extended battery life and 5G connectivity become secondary to the fundamental issue of software compatibility.

Using x86 emulation to bridge the gap?

To address the software compatibility issue, Qualcomm's Windows on Arm strategy relies heavily on Microsoft's x86-64 emulation. In theory, emulation allows Arm devices to run x86 applications not optimized for the Arm architecture. However, "running" these applications via emulation is not without drawbacks. Emulation is not a panacea; it introduces substantial performance issues and can deplete battery life faster than expected. As a result, any efficiency gains from Arm architecture may be negated when users run legacy applications.

A prominent example is Adobe Creative Cloud, widely used by designers and content creators globally. While Adobe Photoshop can technically run on Arm through emulation, the user experience is far from plain sailing. If you're working with high-res images or layered files, overall performance takes a nosedive compared to native x86 execution. Try running Premiere Pro or After Effects, and you'll find yourself questioning why you even bothered.

Content creators and users investing in a new platform expect their tools to function seamlessly, without lag or reduced functionality. They are unlikely to accept emulation that merely suffices. Unfortunately, Adobe does not appear to prioritize optimizing its software for Windows on Arm, likely because x86 continues to dominate its user base and remains their primary focus.

It's a similar story with AutoCAD, the go-to tool for engineers and architects that requires precise performance and substantial processing power – attributes not adequately provided by emulation on Arm. AutoCAD on Arm is, at best, clunky, and, at worst, unusable – a deal-breaker for professionals who need reliable machines. Even Microsoft Office, which you'd think would run flawlessly, has limitations on Arm. While basic tasks like editing Word documents and simple spreadsheets are manageable, handling data-intensive Excel files with macros reveals Arm's shortcomings. The same goes for developers who lack Arm-native versions of essential Integrated Development Environments (IDEs), rendering Arm impractical for serious software work.

The bottom line is that emulation isn't really cutting the mustard, and why should it? Consumers investing in new devices may be attracted by Qualcomm's marketing points, but ultimately they desire a product that functions without the foibles we've mention. Windows users expect their applications to run smoothly, and emulation really isn't delivering that. If Qualcomm thinks this workaround is going to solve Arm's compatibility issue, it's very much mistaken.

The fundamental issue is that the Windows ecosystem was originally developed for x86 architecture. Qualcomm's Windows on Arm strategy might work in a vacuum, but in practice, it operates within a system not designed with Arm in mind. Unlike Apple, which rebuilt macOS to run natively on its custom M-series Arm-based silicon, Microsoft has not undertaken a similar overhaul of Windows. Instead, Microsoft has applied successive layers of emulation and compatibility patches to retrofit Arm support into Windows. While some aspects function, this approach resembles a temporary fix rather than the comprehensive, ground-up redesign that is necessary.

Resolving this problem requires Arm-native software, but Qualcomm and Microsoft haven't been able to entice the major developers to build Arm versions of their software. Unlike Apple, which provided developers with a clear path and strong incentives to adopt Arm architecture exclusively, Qualcomm and Microsoft appear to be hedging, promoting Arm as "good enough" without forcing a real shift. The result is that until developers fully commit to Arm, Windows on Arm will continue to offer a subpar experience compared to the traditional x86 ecosystem.

• Qualcomm triples Windows on Arm OEM design wins since May
• PC shipments stuck in neutral despite AI buzz
• If every PC is going to be an AI PC, they better be as good at all the things trad PCs can do
• Copilot+ PCs software compatibility issues left to you to sort out, with help from crowdsourcers

What Qualcomm needs to do to make Windows on Arm viable

1. 'Properly' invest in native Windows on Arm software – emulation isn't enough

Qualcomm can't expect users to settle for emulated x86 applications indefinitely. Native Arm software is the only viable long-term solution, and achieving this will require substantial investment from Qualcomm. This includes providing support and financial incentives to developers to produce Arm-native versions of critical software such as Adobe Creative Cloud, Autodesk applications, and Microsoft Office with full functionality. Developers are unlikely to adopt Arm for Windows independently, especially when their x86 software just works so it's up to Qualcomm to offer compelling reasons for them to make the transition.

2. Push Microsoft to build Windows for Arm from the ground up

Microsoft's half-hearted Arm support is a big part of the problem. Qualcomm needs to persuade Microsoft to move beyond implementing patches and instead optimize the Windows operating system specifically for Arm architecture, from the kernel level to device drivers. Apple's success with Arm on macOS resulted from rebuilding the OS specifically for its custom chips. Without a similar commitment from Microsoft, Qualcomm's Arm initiative is likely to remain in the "almost but not quite" category.

3. Reframe Windows on Arm as a companion device, not an x86 replacement

Qualcomm's error lies in marketing Arm as a direct replacement for x86 when it's far from ready to compete across all parameters. Arm laptops may currently be best suited as secondary devices – ultra-mobile companions that are always connected and ideal for browsing, streaming, and light productivity tasks. Qualcomm would benefit from setting realistic expectations and focusing on Arm's genuine strengths rather than suggesting it is ready to supplant x86, especially given the present state of the software ecosystem. Compatibility remains the primary obstacle preventing Windows on Arm from fulfilling both Qualcomm's ambitions and users' needs.

Qualcomm's dream of a Windows on Arm revolution is ambitious. While the company is betting big on battery life, AI capabilities, and 5G connectivity to win over Windows users, the core strategy overlooks a major barrier. Windows users require more than lightweight, long-lasting devices; they need machines capable of handling the full range of applications and software they use daily, much of which is specifically optimized for x86 architecture.

Although Qualcomm has garnered support from numerous OEMs – a positive indication of market potential – the compatibility challenges remain a critical concern. Progress is being made with Windows on Arm, but the platform must address the compatibility issues inherent in an ecosystem deeply rooted in x86 dependencies.

Many desire the success of Windows on Arm, recognizing the potential benefits that Arm architecture can bring to everyday devices, especially in areas where current x86 designs by Intel and AMD are limited, such as power efficiency. However, until software compatibility issues are not only addressed but fundamentally resolved, Windows on Arm will remain a platform that is merely "good enough" but not a true competitor. ®