[HN Gopher] Windows Subsystem for Android
___________________________________________________________________
Windows Subsystem for Android
Author : ethanpil
Score : 119 points
Date : 2022-01-26 15:22 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (docs.microsoft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (docs.microsoft.com)
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| First it was Windows Subsystem for Linux.
|
| Now Windows Subsystem for Android has been added too.
|
| It is the OS/2-ization of Windows as more subsystems are added to
| try to make Windows a clearinghouse for any possible desktop use.
|
| What could come next?
|
| Windows Subsystem for Xbox - so anything that plays on Xbox will
| play on Windows
| nightski wrote:
| They are already offering all Xbox games on PC going forward.
| It's part of their strategy lol.
| btbuilder wrote:
| Some commentators at the time said that supporting windows apps
| on OS/2 significantly contributed to its downfall. It meant
| that developers only needed to write their apps for Windows and
| OS/2 users could run them too.
|
| Perhaps we will see a reduction in certain classes of windows
| apps (slack?).
| bluGill wrote:
| The design of the NT kernel was very well done and doing this
| type of thing is one of their explicate goals. Microsoft did a
| great job of getting great people to do great things in the
| early 1990s and they are still benefiting from that. (though in
| the 1990s computer hardware wasn't really up to running NT)
| temac wrote:
| If that's like WSL2 that's a complete VM. And WSL1 was
| already departing from the trasitional NT subsystems anyway
| (because e.g. they were not designed for completely bypassing
| NT userspace to the point of not mapping it)
| toyg wrote:
| The hardware was just fine - in fact, your average late-'90s
| piece of junk would run NT much faster than Win95/98. The
| problem was the lack of drivers.
| monocasa wrote:
| PCs don't have the hardware security infrastructure at the
| moment for Microsoft to feel comfortable adding Xbox support.
| Even the previous gen never put decrypted content into RAM,
| which is part of how it became the first major console to not
| get hacked in it's lifetime.
| apozem wrote:
| > Windows Subsystem for Xbox - so anything that plays on Xbox
| will play on Windows
|
| I think Microsoft will just stream Xbox games through the cloud
| for Game Pass subscribers. That way, you get Xbox games on PCs,
| Macs, smart TVs, you name it.
| stordoff wrote:
| They're already doing that with Xbox Cloud Gaming[1]. You can
| use the Xbox app or a browser.
|
| [1] https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/play
| mugsie wrote:
| I mean, that wouldn't be hardest thing in the world to do,
| afaik, XBox OS is a windows kernel ...
| [deleted]
| tasha0663 wrote:
| Windows subsystem for PalmOS
| systemshutdown wrote:
| To add to that list, Windows subsystem on Windows aka WOW64.
| basementcat wrote:
| One of the first subsystems for Windows NT was the OS/2
| subsystem. Some versions even supported Presentation Manager
| (GUI applications).
|
| https://second.wiki/wiki/2-subsystem
| sedatk wrote:
| Another original subsystem was POSIX subsystem which provided
| a UNIX-like layer on Windows.
| karmakaze wrote:
| Never used that one. Makes sense though since NT grew out of
| research on OS/2 v3. The Posix subsystem[0] didn't work so
| well the times I tried working with it. The OS/2 subsystem
| didn't matter so much as Windows NT popularity outgrew that
| of OS/2 pretty quickly.
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
| [deleted]
| anonymousDan wrote:
| How well does the ARM emulation on x86 work performance wise I
| wonder?
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Assuming it's just x86 Android (which does exist), it would
| just be using the Dalvik VM. So no ARM->x86 transpiling; just a
| JITter
| floatboth wrote:
| Lots of apps aren't pure JVM apps, and many apps with native
| components don't ship x86_64 versions of native libraries.
| toast0 wrote:
| There were a decent handful of x86_64 Android phones
| released, so it's not that uncommon. Decent apps ship a
| couple flavors of arm, mips, and x86. Of course, not all
| app developers care that much.
| ourmandave wrote:
| I assume they tested with industry standards, which is to say it
| will run Doom.
| 323 wrote:
| Android industry standard is TikTok, and yes, it runs that.
| synergy20 wrote:
| Microsoft's OS runs Google's Apps on Amazon's app store.
|
| Screw up Apple.
| neogodless wrote:
| So you can watch Netflix on a Google Android application from
| Amazon's app store on Microsoft's operating system?
|
| And you can run Facebook Messenger/Instagram/etc. on Android
| apps..
| synergy20 wrote:
| Better than your only option is: Apps from Appstore on
| Apple's OS with Apple's hardware that all named iLockYouUp.
| It gets boring. :)
| laurent123456 wrote:
| Does it also make Android development easier on Windows? i.e. can
| I build an Android app and open it via the subsystem, without
| having to run an emulator?
| epage wrote:
| Though this won't be as smooth, this is reminding me of the
| Maemo days. I had made adaptive abstractions for GTK / Maemo's
| patches and would develop my applications using PyGTK on the
| desktop. When I was ready for a release, I'd just scp the
| source over, do spot checking, and release my packages. That
| set the bar high enough for developer experience that I've
| never gotten into Android dev since Maemo died.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Yes: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/android/wsa/#test-a...
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Would it be any smoother? The official dev emulator runs
| Android in a VM, and this runs Android in a VM. So the points
| of differentiation are speed (does the SDK VM use hardware
| acceleration?) and integration (I'm guessing WSA doesn't play
| nice with attaching a debugger, and the SDK VM, AFAIK, just
| gives you a single "screen" in a window). So... maybe?
| drewg123 wrote:
| _In order to be available on a Windows 11 device...only a small
| set of apps selected by Microsoft and Amazon are available._
|
| WHY? Maybe give me a warning when installing, but at least let me
| try.
|
| I hate how Apple gave devs the choice to make their apps
| unavailable on MacOS, so even though I can run theoretically run
| iOS apps on my M1 MBP, there are no apps I care about available
| for MacOS, so the feature might as well not exist.
|
| At least with Android you can sideload the APK, so that's a
| plus..
| Anunayj wrote:
| you can sideload on WSA too! Though turns out a lot of stuff
| doesn't work if Google Play services is missing, so you might
| also wanna patch the system image to include OpenGApps.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I don't care if MS is a huge company, I _cannot_ take this
| seriously with the ridiculous doublespeak.
|
| The last thing was a Linux Subsystem for Windows, and this is an
| Android Subsystem for Windows.
| rndmio wrote:
| I always read it as; Windows (Subsystem for Linux) not (Windows
| Subsystem) for Linux
| belltaco wrote:
| It's more like Windows' Subsystem for Android.
| chipsa wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX Similar
| name. And much older. Just imagine there's a '-' after the
| Windows.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| I think I remember hearing that they originally wanted to call
| it LSW instead, but couldn't put "Linux" first because it's
| trademarked.
| dcminter wrote:
| At least it's short. Speaking as someone who used to be an "IBM
| VisualAge for C++ for OS/2" user. (s/developer/user/ edit for
| clarity)
|
| I don't really think it's doublespeak as such, just the weird
| corporate perspective. They built a subsystem that supports
| Linux so "Windows subsystem for Linux" makes logical sense at
| least. I think with that (twisted) perspective "Linux for
| Windows" would imply a version of Linux that was for running
| Windows applications.
|
| I wholeheartedly agree that "Linux for Windows" would be a
| better name for WSL, but I can see their point of view if I
| squint enough.
|
| Also, at least this new subsystem is consistently named; if you
| know what WSL is it's obvious what this is.
| MikusR wrote:
| It's a Windows subsystem for running Android. What doublespeak?
| dr-detroit wrote:
| Jernik wrote:
| This is a Windows subsystem. It is a system that runs inside of
| Windows, so it is a Windows subsystem. What is this subsytem
| for? It is for running Android (or previously Linux)
| applications and software. I agree that it is confusing, but I
| think it is incorrect to say that the name is outright wrong.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| To be fair to op I did expect this to be a link to something
| that allowed Windows to run on Android as well.
|
| In software 'for X' commonly refers to what it runs on. 'Doom
| for Windows' would run on Windows. A Windows subsystem for
| Android immediately implies a Windows subsystem that runs on
| Android.
|
| It's a very common usage and language is formed by the common
| usage. Microsoft have this backwards.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| It also commonly refers to what it does. 'Doom for blind
| people' would not run on blind people. 'Doom for
| trackballs' would not run on trackballs, it would let you
| use trackballs with Doom.
|
| > " _It 's a very common usage and language is formed by
| the common usage. Microsoft have this backwards._"
|
| Product names aren't formed by common usage, they're
| defined by the company which creates them.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| >'Doom for trackballs' would not run on trackballs,
|
| I wouldn't put that past Doom porters :D
| monocasa wrote:
| I seem to remember hearing a rumor that WSL was originally
| intended to be a WSA, but that failed internally for some reason
| so they cleaned it up just enough to run console applications and
| shipped it as WSL1?
| noisem4ker wrote:
| Yes. More than a rumor. Look up Project Astoria.
| monocasa wrote:
| The rumor was that WSL1 was the leftover codebase from
| Astoria, not that Astoria existed.
| my123 wrote:
| > that failed internally
|
| Was available in public beta on Windows 10 Mobile Insider
| Preview.
| monocasa wrote:
| I mean there were public betas of Longhorn too, and I'd
| consider that failed internally as well.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| Longhorn became Vista no?
| monocasa wrote:
| What got released as the Longhorn beta is before the
| 'development reset' that then became Vista.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| Interesting that it's the Amazon App Store. I assume they
| couldn't get Google Play and picked the second largest Android
| store?
| dpark wrote:
| I can't imagine that Google was willing to play ball on this.
| Google has aggressively leveraged their control of their
| properties to block Microsoft in the past (e.g. YouTube on
| Windows Phone). I expect that Microsoft reached out to Google
| about Android support on Windows and Google promptly said that
| they aren't going to give up a Chrome OS advantage.
|
| Disclosure: I work at Microsoft. But I have no insider
| information on this.
| madrasi2022 wrote:
| Very disappointed that Microsoft recently killed all support
| for office android apps on Chromebooks asking users to use
| the web version instead (which has all sorts of limitations
| even considering the android apps having limited
| functionality in the first place but atleast allowed offline
| access and some quick non-web features)
|
| So now we get Microsoft trying to get android apps into their
| own devices instead. I would say Google should insist that
| support for office apps come back into chromebooks if they
| want any sort of support but no they wont as they are saying
| "we are happy chromeos is a great option for office
| (web)apps"
|
| The windows "cloudbooks" were never worth a look - I guess
| this is how large companies behave. (I have no hatred towards
| any tech / company - use android / linux / chromebooks /
| windows all the time - just bizzare that well functioning
| android apps are now being taken out of chromebooks)
|
| references : https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/news/microsoft-
| ending-chrom...
| dpark wrote:
| > _I would say Google should insist that support for office
| apps come back into chromebooks if they want any sort of
| support..._
|
| Given that Microsoft is using the Amazon App Store, it's a
| safe bet that Google is not providing any sort of support.
| If Microsoft could use Google Play Services, I imagine they
| would.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| From what I remember, Google have specific conditions when it
| come to YouTube which ads is one of those conditions. I
| recalled Microsoft have a YouTube app didn't shows the ads
| which violated their term of services. Amazon did similar and
| that lead to corporate war against Google since Google put
| their foot down.
| dpark wrote:
| Microsoft rebuilt the YouTube app following Google's own
| guidelines and it was still blocked. At least that's my
| recollection.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| I managed to find the article that discussed about this
| second rejection [0]. And Microsoft response to the
| second rejection [1], I have to use Wayback since MS
| returning 404 for their blog.
|
| [0] https://www.engadget.com/2013-08-15-google-blocks-
| windows-ph...
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130816024629/http://blo
| gs.tech...
| DoctorOW wrote:
| To clarify, I'm not surprised Google Play didn't work out.
| I'm surprised they picked Amazon specifically.
| chipsa wrote:
| I mean, if it's not Google, what's the alternative?
| selectodude wrote:
| Amazon seems to be the store of choice for "non-sanctioned"
| Android things. It was the official store for Blackberry
| when they put their Android emulator on their phones too.
| marinhero wrote:
| You can still sideload the Google Play Store and install apps
| from there. It just requires a couple of extra steps.
| [deleted]
| jccalhoun wrote:
| google has announced their own version for games.
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-brings-androi...
| chipsa wrote:
| Google Play has specific restrictions on what it can be bundled
| with (it can be sideloaded latter without issue right now).
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Maybe Microsoft wants to keep Windows their advertising sandbox
| therefore working with the largest advertising company in the
| world wasn't seen as wise. Whereas Amazon's whole thing is just
| about ecosystem building/device tie-ins, so there's less
| conflict of interests (Microsoft after all doesn't make many of
| the devices or services Amazon does).
| halotrope wrote:
| I was wondering with WSL already: why is it not called "Android
| Subsystem for Windows" but the other way around. Is there a
| historical reason for it to be called that way?
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| It is "[The] Windows Subsystem for [running] Android"
| meibo wrote:
| Windows NT is historically made up of several subsystems that
| use this naming scheme, so they decided to go with it again.
| lzybkr wrote:
| It's about trademarks - see
| https://twitter.com/richturn_ms/status/1245742145119510529
| ksec wrote:
| OH Thank You. Now I feel much better. Still dislike the name
| but my brain is much easier on me knowing there is a valid
| reason behind it.
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| Windows first, because Microsoft wants their OS to not give any
| lime-light to Linux or alternative OS's.
| endtime wrote:
| If they felt that way, they probably wouldn't be building the
| thing in the first place.
| mariusmg wrote:
| I think they are just following the naming convention started
| (a long time ago) with "Windows Services for UNIX".
| easton wrote:
| Does this mean WSL will be enabled by default on Windows, or at
| least that you can enable it without admin rights? That would be
| handy for draconian corporate environments.
| jaywalk wrote:
| No. What would lead you to think that's a possibility?
| easton wrote:
| Because WSA (I believe) is implemented as a WSL distro, so
| you'd need the feature installed for it to work.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Seems a bit odd to tie a developer only feature to a consumer
| app store. Makes it feel like WS* will move towards a
| streamlined consumer facing feature.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I don't think it's a developer-only feature. My point was
| more that WSA and WSL are separate and even if WSA becomes
| a default feature, that doesn't mean WSL will.
| withinrafael wrote:
| If you're looking for a quick way to determine if your favorite
| app will run well in WSA, check out this table I created (and the
| community contributes to).
|
| https://github.com/riverar/wsa-app-compatibility
| ethanpil wrote:
| Two interesting notes that I found here:
|
| 1) This also utilizes a VM for the Android system, like the Linux
| one.
|
| 2) "Unlike traditional mobile form factors, Android apps running
| on Windows 11 can be freely resized, should be responsive in
| their resizing, and can be snapped using Windows
| actions/gestures."
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I was under the impression that Google had already worked out
| resizable windows in Android to allow for more flexible form
| factors and the Android layer on ChromeOS, so that might have
| been mostly a freebie.
| nikolay wrote:
| I tried it in a VM with 4GB RAM and it does not work as it needs
| more memory.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| If you do that it seems you have to do nested virtualization
| sexy_panda wrote:
| These titles are so confusing.
|
| I thought it could run windows applications on Android.
| vikramkr wrote:
| I think they're just following the naming scheme from WSL
| saghm wrote:
| A new name following a confusing scheme is still confusing
| rsynnott wrote:
| This confusing naming goes back over 20 years:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
| sexy_panda wrote:
| I know WSL, but I was still confused. Maybe I'm just tired.
| neogodless wrote:
| I need a new Windows subsystem.
|
| Which Windows subsystem do you need?
|
| I need the Windows Subsystem for Android.
|
| I'm not away of any Android Subsystems that can run Windows (or
| Windows applications). But these are Windows subsystems, so
| that's OK.
|
| _shrug_ I personally don 't find it confusing. If there was a
| way to run Win32 applications or Android, it could be Win32 on
| Android, or the Android Subsystem for Win32 Applications.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I guess they think of it as "[a] windows subsystem for
| [running] android". Or put in a different way "android running
| on a windows subsystem".
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I suspect this is due to trademark laws. I've often seen
| policies that say "you can write 'yourthing for Trademarked
| Thing' but not 'Trademarked Thing yourthing'", e.g. when it
| comes to inofficial clients for a platform.
|
| I think they simply applied the same principle here.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I hadn't thought about that, but it seems likely. I remember
| when Reddit decided to enforce their IP rights more and
| forced all applications with Reddit in their to change to
| something that either didn't use the name Reddit at all or
| only used it at the end in the form "for Reddit"
| tyingq wrote:
| I think it was called "Windows Subsystem for Linux" because
| they were originally emulating Linux syscalls (and some other
| kernel features) with Windows calls in WSL1. Now that WSL2 is
| all hypervisor-based with VMs, the name doesn't mean anything.
| But it has some momentum and name recognition, so they stick to
| it both for WSL, and now WSA.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's one single quote away from being unambiguous.
| Windows' Subsystem for <whatever>
| LinAGKar wrote:
| That doesn't explain the order
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Next is iOS?
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Yesterday I commented here [0] that having a phone running NT
| (because it maintains a strong ABI compatibility) with an Android
| Userland (for app compatibility) would solve the 3 years support
| window most android phones have (because of patched kernels the
| devs won't care to update and recompile to the latest version).
|
| I wonder how well this subsystem could run on existing phone
| hardware. There are, after all, Nokia phones that are running NT
| kernels (the last windows phone on the market).
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30079874
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-26 23:02 UTC)