Microsoft has recently released two new versions of their Surface line, both boasting an Arm-powered processor. The first, the 9th generation of the Surface Pro, has seen largely negative reviews due to software compatibility problems. The second is the less-known $600 Windows Dev Kit 2023, formerly known by a much cooler name: “Project Volterra.” It’s supposed to help solve that problem.
Microsoft has announced a brand-new PC, coming in the form of their first Arm-powered desktop.
Microsoft tried doing Arm Windows developer boxes, but they didn’t do well. They sold the LIVA QC710 for $219, but with its 4GB of memory, 64GB of storage, and underpowered Snapdragon 7c processor, it was just like revisiting a netbook. It wasn’t powerful enough for real work – even for someone like me who primarily does text-based work.
The Windows-on-Arm dev kit costs three times as much, but the hardware is powerful enough that it mostly just feels like a normal midrange mini laptop. Freed from the limitations of cruddy hardware, the machine makes it easier to evaluate Windows-on-Arm’s remaining software limitations. The Windows-on-Arm device won’t be used as a developer box for this review, but it does give us a good chance to evaluate where the project is right now – both in hardware and software – especially relative to the Mac, the other hardware and software ecosystem that will make a cleaner transition from x86 software to Arm.
A Surface, in all but name
Because it doesn’t operate like a traditional computer, Microsoft is not selling the Dev Kit as a Surface device. Instead, it shares some of its DNA with the Surface computers and in other ways.
The Surface Book has a modern design, with a unique metal chassis and glass surface. It’s slightly smaller than the Mac mini and features a streamlined Microsoft logo in place of an apple.
The device is shorter and more streamlined than the Mac mini due to its use of an external 90 W power supply, as compared to the Mac mini which has its power supply inside. This difference can be explained by Microsoft’s approach when designing the Dev Kit–Microsoft had used the components they typically deploy in their Surface Pros in order to make them compatible with Apple’s design. The result is a more simplified design that follows closely to the Mac Mini while adding some modern flair.
One of the giveaways is a bunch of unused connectors that are visible at the top-right corner of the Dev Kit when you remove the bottom. Exposed ports are what allow a Surface device to connect to its external components, but they go unused in this kit. The two USB-C ports (also a Surface feature, with identical positioning and space between them), are the only ones built into the board, while Ethernet port, USB-A ports, mini DisplayPort, and power jack on the back are all built into a separate board. (The fact that this Dev Kit is a Surface clone means that it has no headphone jack.) Firmware and driver updates pulled down from Windows Update are also Surface branded.
The Dev Kit has mini DisplayPort and USB-C ports that can connect to up to three monitors at once. The DisplayPort is the primary one, and only one that will display a signal when adjusting its UEFI firmware settings. It seems like it’s a holdover from its Surface roots, in which case it would be connected with an internal embedded DisplayPort connector that works the same way.
The only component that can be upgraded in the Dev Kit is the 512GB M.2 SSD, which is a small drive that’s just like those Microsoft uses in their other Surface PCs. Every other component, including the motherboard and memory, is fixed and can’t be upgraded. You’ll have to figure out how to hold it yourself since there’s no place for an M.2 2280 drive and it’s not really designed for upgradeability anyways. The rationale for using a small little SSD would probably be similar to using an old Surface motherboard because it becomes cheaper and easier to reuse something rather than designing and building a whole new thing from scratch.
Windows-on-Arm looks and acts exactly the same as Windows on a regular PC. The interface is the same, apps are the same, installing and downloading apps, as well as running apps are all the same. We’ve come a long way from Windows RT, which looked like Windows but couldn’t run most of the third-party software.
Microsoft deserves credit for steadily improving Windows-on-Arm and improving the x86-to-Arm translation layer that makes it possible to run most Windows apps on Arm devices. However, Microsoft recently released a new update that allows x86 code to be translated as well. This allows developers to not only create apps that specifically target Windows ARM, but also to provide a smoother experience by translating x86 programs with the translation layer. I can get most of my basic apps up and running on Arm Windows fairly easily, and the Dev Kit’s performance is fast and responsive when running most of my connected accessories. I plugged the Dev Kit right into my dual-monitor setup without issue and everything worked very smoothly, driving both 4K displays fluidly and working properly with most of my connected accessory
Surface Pro 9 comes in both Intel and ARM flavors. The Surface Pro X offers a variety of features which can be hard to grasp without in-depth experience. This device is for those who know the ins and outs of these special features.
Unfortunately, that leads us to the “but so far” stuff. That starts with the x86-to-Arm app translation. It’s been… fine. It works. But x86 apps running on the Dev Kit regularly stutter when rendered or hesitate before responding to input.
Efficient and easy-to-use interfaces are amazing—client projects have come to expect them. Anything less can lead to frustrations, loss of productivity, and lost time posting social media updates or searching for documents. Unfortunately, Adobe Audition is not yet an example of that kind of product, so the wait time between clicking and seeing the result on-screen is inconsistent and sometimes frustrating, even with powerful hardware like a top-notch processor, fast storage, and plentiful memory.
Many x86 apps can run on the Arm version of Windows, but the performance penalty may vary depending on the app. Even apps with a x86 version may download and install their x86 versions instead for certain circumstances.
Windows has both Arm and x86 versions. While the transition can be challenging, there are many options available. In some cases the performance penalty is not worth it.
Andrew Cunningham, who
There’s some trouble with Apple’s Rosetta technology as well. Scrolling in a Rosetta app, for example, is noticeably jerky versus scrolling in an Apple Silicon-native app. However, that can be mitigated somewhat by (1) the M1 and M2 chips’ superior performance and (2) the fact that Intel-only apps on the Mac are currently the exception rather than the norm. The reverse is true in Windows where apps using Arm processors are only sometimes available.
