Slashdot Mirror


OLPC Set To Dump x86 For Arm Chips In XO 2

angry tapir writes with this excerpt from Good Gear Guide: "One Laptop Per Child is set to dump x86 processors, instead opting to put low-power Arm-based processors in its next-generation XO-2 laptop with the aim of improving battery life. The nonprofit is 'almost' committed to putting the Arm-based chip in the next-generation XO-2 laptop, which is due for release in 18 months, according to Nicholas Negroponte, chairman of OLPC. The XO-1 laptop currently ships with Advanced Micro Devices' aging Geode chip, which is based on an x86 design."

52 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Now with Shoulder & Elbow Joint Technology! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    OLPC Set To Dump x86 For Arm Chips In XO 2

    I'm sorry, I thought ARM is an acronym for Advanced RISC Machine (formerly Acorn RISC Machine). Why am I seeing it used as "Arm"?

    Or is there something I don't know about the processing power of two of my appendages?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Now with Shoulder & Elbow Joint Technology! by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or is there something I don't know about the processing power of two of my appendages?

      *flexes*

      Slashdot, I'd like you to meet Blue and Cray.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    2. Re:Now with Shoulder & Elbow Joint Technology! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear your fore arm is pretty powerful.

      A wise old mariner with powerful fore arms once said: "I yam what I yam."

    3. Re:Now with Shoulder & Elbow Joint Technology! by Frnknstn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Four ARMS? Were they arranged in a beowulf cluster?

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    4. Re:Now with Shoulder & Elbow Joint Technology! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Germany, where we usually write things together, if they describe one thing, we call that error a "Deppenleerzeichen" ("moron's blank"?).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:Now with Shoulder & Elbow Joint Technology! by laddiebuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depending on the style manual the journalist used, this is correct. For instance, if you read the BBC, acronyms are spelled with only the first letter capitalised -- hence Nato, Isaf, etc. This rule is not followed under some circumstances (probably depending on whether you can pronounce the word), so DHS, BBC, USA.

  2. Re:Now they can get the keyboard back by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

    A keyboard. How quaint. (cracks knuckles)

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. Re:Why is this highlighted? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was angry, but it seems to have calmed down now.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Full Windows on ARM by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA

    "Like many, we are urging Microsoft to make Windows -- not Windows Mobile -- available on the Arm. This is a complex question for them," Negroponte said.

    OLPC is in talks with Microsoft to develop a version of a full Windows OS for XO-2, Negroponte said. The XO-2 is still 18 months away from release, so "a lot can change with regard to Microsoft and Arm," Negroponte said.

    I don't really see this working. Windows has run on Risc before of course, but almost no one ported their applications to any of the Risc platforms. And a top of the line Arm (a Snapdragon or Cortex A8) is still less powerful than a bottom of the line x86 (Intel Atom), so it's not like you can run x86 binaries at an acceptable speed through emulation, like Dec tried with FX!32 on the Alpha.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:Full Windows on ARM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole excuse people use for running Windows is it runs their applications. Seeing as how they're all for x86, porting Windows itself is only 1% of the issue.

    2. Re:Full Windows on ARM by Verdatum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed, Windows Mobile (or CE or HPC) was a total rewrite, Even Windows 7 potentially has some DOS 1.0 code, but not WM. It took that much effort to get ARM working. It's actually a comparatively Sturdy OS, it just doesn't have enough decent software built for it.

      I had a MS-DOS EMU app for my HP Journada 720 (Windows HPC on a 255Mhz ARM chip), and for anything beyond rudimentary shell type commands, it was unusably slow.

      Linux + ARM however would be lovely. I've got all sorts of daemons crunching instructions on my Western Digital MyBook World NAS. Still, by default, I believe they lack an FPU. I wonder if they'd add a coprocessor...

    3. Re:Full Windows on ARM by doctormetal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That should only be the case for native applications.
      For pure .NET applications (fully MSIL) is should not matter as long as the runtime is available..

    4. Re:Full Windows on ARM by dfghjk · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Even Windows 7 potentially has some DOS 1.0 code..."

      What? You realize that Windows 7 lineage traces to Windows NT which ran on non-x86 processors, right? No DOS code.

      I guess if by "potentially" you meant zero potential then that's right.

    5. Re:Full Windows on ARM by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I may be kind of cynical, but it seems ot me the OLPC project is now saying they recognize a lower power, less expensive processor would be a major benefit to their stated goals...but they can't (or really don't want to) adopt it anyway unless Microsoft® gives them the "okay", since they've effectively abandoned already-capable-of-running-on-ARM Linux for Microsoft.

    6. Re:Full Windows on ARM by ciggieposeur · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose it depends on whether any of the vm86 mode in Windows 9x made it into Win2k and beyond.

      If any of the 16-bit ASM code behind the various int 21h DOS calls was retained in the real-mode emulation layer then one could say modern Windows still has DOS code still in it.

    7. Re:Full Windows on ARM by kat_skan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790]
      (C) Copyright 1985-2003 Microsoft Corp.

      C:\>where command.com
      C:\WINDOWS\system32\command.com

      C:\>file c:\windows\system32\command.com
      c:\windows\system32\command.com; DOS executable (COM)

      C:\>

      That's Server 2003, which is the most recent version I've got handy. The assertion that there's some legacy code in Windows 7 somewhere is a reasonable one.

    8. Re:Full Windows on ARM by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've seen surprisingly few pure .NET desktop applications on Windows. Most use P/Invoke and/or COM interop in more than one place, often to call some third-party C++ library.

  5. Its irrelevant anyway... by nweaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The OLPC project is dying. Four years ago, you didn't have the netbooks. Now you do.

    Shifting to ARM will simply ensure the death of the OLPC project, because being able to run real windows is an underappreciated benefit of x86.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Its irrelevant anyway... by timholman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shifting to ARM will simply ensure the death of the OLPC project, because being able to run real windows is an underappreciated benefit of x86.

      Or for that matter, being able to run OS X. For example, by all accounts the Dell Mini 9 can be turned into an excellent low-cost Hackintosh.

      But you are correct about the effect of the netbook market on the OLPC project. The OLPC was a visionary idea, but visionaries rarely outlast the revolutions they help create.

    2. Re:Its irrelevant anyway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure the scope of the OLPC is not for commercial use. Why would anyone care if it runs Windows? It's a computer. It's better than nothing.

  6. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by alannon · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would mean no Windows. ARM is not an x86 architecture.

  7. Does Ubuntu run on ARM? by pwizard2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to recall seeing something awhile ago that Ubuntu is being ported to the ARM architecture. If the port is ready, using it would be a much better proposition than begging Microsoft to make a custom Windows OS for the XO-2, IMO. What would stop Microsoft from deliberately crippling the OS (and making it practically useless as a result) like they did with the starter editions of XP and Vista? Those were meant for the same type of market demographic as OLPC, after all.

    --
    "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    1. Re:Does Ubuntu run on ARM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know there is something called debian which runs on all sorts of architectures. And this debian resembles ubuntu somewhat :P Relevant link: http://www.debian.org/ports

    2. Re:Does Ubuntu run on ARM? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing at all. What's the incentive for people to use an OS from an manufacturer who deems them worthy of crapware?

      Masochism.

    3. Re:Does Ubuntu run on ARM? by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft wouldn't need to artificially limit an ARM port of Windows to only allow three applications to run at a time, since there would only be about three applications available for the platform.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Does Ubuntu run on ARM? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if Microsoft bends over backwards, and dedicates half their resources to the ARM port, it'll still be crippled. Not because "OMG M$ suxx0rs!" but for the same reason that always comes up in windows vs. linux flame wars.

      Applications.

      Perhaps the largest argument in favor of windows on x86 is that virtually every bit of legacy software that somebody or other absolutely cannot live without for whatever reason runs on it. There is zero chance of most Wintel legacy software ever being ported to ARM(not to mention drivers. Given how much the x86/x86-64 transition sucked, it is pretty much impossible to be optimistic about an x86/ARM transition).

    5. Re:Does Ubuntu run on ARM? by MoxFulder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is basically a weakness of proprietary software in general...

      We've had x86_64 for what, 6 years now? Windows XP got ported pretty fast, but driver support is still awful since most hardware vendors haven't bothered to port their drivers. And true 64-bit app support is even worse.

      On the other hand, the Linux kernel got ported to x86_64 shortly before the physical processors were actually available. I was running a full-blown Debian distro on it a couple months later. All the apps were open-source and the kernel makes great efforts to design device drivers for portability, and so for distro maintainers it was largely a matter of just recompiling the packages.

      What lags behind in 64-bit support under Linux? Surprise, surprise, it's closed-source stuff like Flash and video drivers.

      Closed-source software develops a massive amount of inertia against architecture changes. With open-source, as soon as one developer decides to recompile for the new architecture, maybe tweaks the code a bit, you're off and running.

  8. Time for OS X by macs4all · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember clearly that /. reported that Steve Jobs had originally agreed to license OS X to the OLPC project for free (as in beer), but that the offer was refused.

    Since it is a well-known fact that Apple has had OS X working on an ARM architecture in the iPhone and iPod Touch for nearly 2 years now, it would seem a no-brainer at this point for OLPC to take Apple up on their offer.

    1. Re:Time for OS X by fpophoto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then Apple better get some work done. The most failure prone piece of software currently on my ipod touch is Safari.

    2. Re:Time for OS X by macs4all · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you honestly think it would be MORE work than porting XP to ARM? Or Ubuntu (which I gather has NOT been sucessfully ported to ARM yet). I believe there are embedded Linuces that do run on ARM, but those are not "desktop" distros any more than you claim that the iPod Touch/iPhone version of OS X is. So, what's your point?

      I never said that it would just be a matter of downloading the iPod Touch firmware into an OLPC machine and rebooting. But remember this: We're talking about a FUTURE product, not an existing one. If the decision were made to go with OS X, don'tcha think that the OLPC engineers and Apple's could come to some hardware consensus that would make porting OS X a simple(r) task.

      Say what you want about Apple and NextStep/Rhapsody/OS X, but I believe that most slashdotters will agree: It is a VERY platform-agnostic OS. After all, versions of OS X already run on at least 3 vastly-different CPU architectures now (PPC G3, PPC G4/G5, x86, ARM10 (IIRC)). Do you really think that Apple isn't up to the task of adding a 4th, 5th, 6th in a reasonably short period of time?

    3. Re:Time for OS X by deanston · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I paid $200 for my XO in the G1G1 deal. 6 months later I paid $200 for my iPhone 3G. The iPhone has 8 times the capacity, Wifi so easy a kid can configure it, and is hands down a better 'computer' than the XO in my opinion. Sure, it doesn't have Python, but coding on the tiny keyboard was a pain anyhow.

      Apple has been making computers for education long before Negroponte. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes ahead again. Think of all the educational apps that can be built with the iPhone SDK and distribute for free. Never, EVER, spurn Apple while Jobs is still alive. He'll make you eat your words.

  9. Cue Transmeta... by geekmux · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...oh yeah, nevermind.

    Damn.

  10. Re:still pissed at Intel.... by glop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, actually the netbook makers such as Asus are trying to move towards ARM-based machines with Linux so that they can reach much lower price points.
    In some way it makes more sense than the x86 Linux offering they had: why pay for x86 compatibility if the users aren't going to be able to install Word or the windows drivers for the printer they just bought? You might as well go fully incompatible and buy cheaper chips that use less power etc.
    As nobody had predicted the success of netbooks and the reasons of that success are not completely clear, it makes sense to try the ARM approach just in case it's going to be very successful.
    I believe that some people run AmigaOS on their netbook by the way ;-)

  11. Poor OLPC by bbasgen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Like many, we are urging Microsoft to make Windows -- not Windows Mobile -- available on the Arm. This is a complex question for them," Negroponte said. OLPC is in talks with Microsoft to develop a version of a full Windows OS for XO-2, Negroponte said. The XO-2 is still 18 months away from release, so "a lot can change with regard to Microsoft and Arm," Negroponte said.

    They jettisoned Sugar, and they keep courting Microsoft. So sad. I wish the article would have explored the "open source" hardware concept. No idea what the heck that means from the article or for OLPC:

    OLPC can't implement all its ideas in XO-2, so it ultimately wants to "open source" the hardware design to other PC makers for use in building devices, McNierney said. He hopes that opening up the hardware design will spur the development of a "rich family of devices" that accelerate the adoption of the XO-2 technology.

  12. Re:Negroponte's Revenge on Intel by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I doubt that the OLPC project is feeling warm and fuzzy about intel; but I don't think that that is the reason for ARM vs. Atom.

    Thing is, to fulfill its objectives, the XO-2 has to be cheap, really cheap, to make. Atom based netbooks, even for the lowest spec models, in a highly competitive free market optimization process, have essentially failed to crack the $200 mark. Most are $300-$400. The OLPC guys really want less than $100. At this point, a $200 Atom netbook has already been cut to the bone, very little left(you might be able to cut out the ethernet jack and VGA; but you'd need to add the wireless mesh chip, and the more rugged case, it'd be a wash). Expecting that branch of development to halve in cost in the near future is pretty implausible.

    That, rather than bitterness, is most likely the real reason. ARM is available, from a variety of vendors, at price/performance points that scale relatively smoothly from highish-end microcontrollers to modestly powerful laptop chips. x86 isn't(not yet, anyway).

  13. No successor by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact that AMD is not planning a successor to the Geode processor used in the XO-1 probably influenced this decision, at least in part. In 18 months, there may not be any Geodes remaining.

  14. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by Patoski · · Score: 2, Informative

    Windows CE runs on ARM. Granted, CE doesn't have the level of application support you'll find in other versions of Windows though.

    --
    G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  15. No Change by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OLPC is in talks with Microsoft to develop a version of a full Windows OS for XO-2, Negroponte said.

    So you'd get all of the disadvantages of Windows, while simultaneously loosing the only real advantage it has, plentiful software. Smart.

  16. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by wastedlife · · Score: 3, Informative

    WinCE (What were they thinking when they picked that name???) does not run standard windows apps. Since this is the reason many stick with windows, it kind of kills that whole aspect. WinCE is the core behind Windows Mobile and some embedded systems, and would not likely work well in a full laptop.

    --
    Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
  17. Re:Now they can get the keyboard back by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello, computer.

    --
    Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  18. Don't blame Bill for this one by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If this change means Uncle Bill can no longer hijack the OLPC project, I'm more than good with the concept.

    The XO was a product of the western media lab -

    custom hardware, FOSS and a western - constructivist - philosophy of education bundled into an all or nothing package for the third world education minister.

    His alternative was the Classmate - a straight-line path to the higher grades, the trade school or college, the job market -

    for the students who had a real shot at making it that far.

  19. Oh dear God no by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a developer who ports Windows CE to devices. All day, every day. Teach classes on it even. Been doing it since CE 3.0. Currently on 6.0.

    CE makes a passable embedded/PDA device, but there is no way in the world you'd want it on a laptop.

    It just isn't made for that kind of a setup. No native compilers, no swap file. Expensive license restrictions. It's less like a computer and more like a gadget in terms of overall feel.

    Use Linux instead.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Oh dear God no by hacksoncode · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, it would not be the first time someone has built a WinCE laptop. I believe it was HP that tried this trick many years ago (I worked on a peripheral driver). It wasn't a success, but it wasn't a brick, either.

    2. Re:Oh dear God no by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It wasn't a success, but it wasn't a brick, either.

      I remember those kinds of CE devices from that era. You're right. Not a brick, not a success. Definitely something in-between.

      I just can't see CE as a desktop OS, no matter how small. You need Platform Builder to tweak the OS. No swap file, so you have a hard limit on memory. No native compilers. Maximum number of processes is 32, unless you run CE6 where they bumped it up to 32k.

      Try to imagine Openoffice running on a CE device, what that would be like. Unusable, if you could even get it to port I'd guess.

      I just look at CE and think "gadget". The MS office apps are teensy and nearly unusable. Same for the web browser.

      It's like the difference between .NET and .NET Embedded. You just can't do very much with the embedded version - most of the interesting and useful stuff is missing.

      That's the impression CE gives me. If you want to run some small embedded user interface program in kiosk mode, sure. Fine for that. But I just can't see anyone getting any desktop-type work done on one. The OS seems simply too paired down to be that widely useful.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
  20. Re:Negroponte's Revenge on Intel by Improv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suspect power consumption has more to do with it (although given that battery cost is a significant cost of a system, reducing power may reduce cost too)

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  21. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

    The level of support?

    It flat out won't run x86 code.

    Whereas debian and other linuxes have full distros aimed at ARM.

  22. Re:still pissed at Intel.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The latest ARM SoCs from Freescale cost $23 in bulk, including 1GHz CPU, GPU, and a DSP that can decode H.264 at 720p. They run Linux and will soon run other free operating systems. In terms of power per Watt and power per dollar, they beat anything Intel has to offer, by an order of magnitude in some cases. There's a reason most of the netbook manufacturers have ARM releases planned for the next few months.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  23. 2 Questions by XMode · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok I have 2 questions..

    Firstly, WHY would Microsoft ever want to port XP to anything? This is an OS they have been desperately trying to kill off so they can get people buying their new ones. If anything is going to be ported its going to be Windows 7, and I personally cant see that going well.

    Secondly, even if you HAD a port of windows on ARM, you'll get about the same number of Apps that you did when windows ran of the Alpha, ie, none. So why would you bother? "Being able to run all the normal software people use" is Windows ONLY selling point these days, and that nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the developers.

    Given the whole OLPC Linux to Windows switch fiasco, i'd be surprised if they get anyone seriously interested on helping them with a Linux port and you'd probably find a few people trying to actively hurt them for it.

    Absolutely amazing idea (some may say world changing) but the implementation was very pore and badly managed. 2/10 would not shop again.

  24. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by Nursie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But it needs an interface made for non-programmers (not going to happen anytime soon) and a new name. Then it can stand a chance against Photoshop

    1. There was a project to do this, gimpshop, but I don't know how successful it was.
    2. This little topic always makes me slightly angry. How many of the people saying "Gimp is no photoshop" actually paid for photoshop?

    It must be one of the most widely pirated apps out there, yet somehow every man and his dog seem to complain it's one of the things stopping them moving to Linux. Always confused me. When the choice is FOSS or piracy, I personally prefer the FOSS option, even with worse interface. Though I'm pretty sure Adobe see the rampant piracy as a (microsoftian) mechanism to maintain dominance, and won't go after it too harshly.

    (I am aware that if you use it professionally then the license allows you to have a home copy as well, I just don't think that anywhere near as many people use it professionally or pay for it as claim it's important to them).

  25. Re:still pissed at Intel.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even a 400MHz Pentium2 will run circles around those 1GHz ARM CPUs.

    Nowhere near true. Clock for clock, the Cortex A8 has similar performance to the Pentium-M.

    That's the point, really, isn't it? ARM chips need special hardware DSPs for just about ANYTHING you want to do.

    No, but it's more power efficient. A 1.5GHz Pentium M can't decode 720p H.264 without dropping frames, while the DSP on a typical A8-based SoC can handle it easily in around 200mW. Doing the same thing on something like an Atom CPU would take around 2-4W. You're talking at least an order of magnitude power difference for doing the same task, which in a mobile device is very important.

    Yes, because most people don't do anything computationally intensive with their netbooks

    Exactly, and for the things that are computationally-intensive it makes more sense to have dedicated silicon that can handle it in a fraction of the power consumption. That's why most of the shipping ARM SoCs have a DSP and a GPU on die.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  26. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by powerlord · · Score: 2, Funny

    WinCE (What were they thinking when they picked that name???

    That it went together with their other products of the time? WinME and WinNT?

    "Yes! You too can harness the speed of WIndows across our whole Family of products! CE-ME-NT!"

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  27. Re:What does this mean for their WinXP models? by emilv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the contrary, I know a few non-techie people that use The Gimp on Windows with a Wacom tablet. They are happy with The Gimp, both because it's free and because it's a good tool to work with.