Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shifting Apps To ARM Chips Could Save Laptop Batteries

Posted by timothy on from the but-does-it-run-windows dept.

An anonymous reader writes "When is an Intel PC not an Intel PC? When it moves applications such as Internet browsing and email on to an ARM processor because it can get longer battery life. And according to a story at EE Times, this hybrid Intel-ARM processor approach is being taken by PC makers as prominent as Dell. The problem for Intel: Why would you switch out of 'all-day' mode and use the Intel processor? The problem for ARM: lacking support from Microsoft for Windows; the applications it runs for the PC have to do so under Linux."

8 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Not a problem by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem for ARM: lacking support from Microsoft for Windows; the applications it runs for the PC have to do so under Linux.

    Not a problem for everyone. I've already got an ARM-based Linux running on a NSLU32 NAS head - 32Mb RAM, 32 Mb flash. If I could get a lightweight laptop with a modern ARM chip, I would be over the moon.

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    1. Re:Not a problem by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I completely agree. I haven't run Windows on my personal machines (outside of a virtualize instance) in five years. Windows software simply isn't a limiting factor for me, or for a lot of folks who want netbook-style computing devices.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    2. Re:Not a problem by rbanffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      About 10 years ago I had an IBM z-50. It was about the size of one of the larger Eee's and sported a MIPS processor. At that time (with late 90s battery and display technology) it offered a decent computer (I made it run NetBSD later in its life) with a 10 hour battery life.

      A decent laptop built around one of these low-power processors could last a week on a single charge and a big enough battery.

      As for desktops, how many ARM cores, FPUs, vector units and cache can be put on a Core i7 die?

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
  2. Hybrid machine just like Acorn Computers by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reminds me of the days when Acorn Computers were around with their RISCPC - A machine that was ARM powered, but you could also attach an x86 processor.

    This is so 1990's!

  3. Good but.. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Frankly I would love an ARM based notebook except for just a few issues.
    1. Flash. Like it or not Flash is everywhere and I have not seen a Linux ARM version.
    2. Java. I need it and JavaFX could be a nice alternative to Silverlight/Moonlight.

    I see Flash as the big issue for most people. I would love to see ARM back on the "desktop" even if it is on the laptop. A ARM with a good GPU really would be a nice netbook system.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. Does it matter still ? by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm wondering if, the the overall scheme of things, the price we pay for the x86-ness of Intel and AMD's CPUs is that high. All their CPUs are basically RISC things, with a very optimized x86 compatibility layer running on top. Is that layer that expensive performance-wise ?

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  5. Re:And this is how Linux will win. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    True; but WinCE is pretty sharply dissimilar to Windows proper. MS has put a good deal of effort into making it look somewhat windowish; but it remains an alien freak. Similar enough to make you fall into Windows habits, odd enough to constantly frustrate those habits.

    Honestly, an appropriately skinned version of Linux would probably be more familiar to most users than would WinCE.

  6. The CPU is not the biggest consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The display uses far more power than the CPU, so the benefit of adding a second low-power CPU will only be realized with a different display technology that has much lower power consumption for a static image.