ARM Exec Says 90% of PC Market Could Be Netbooks
Barence writes "ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that netbooks could dominate the PC market, in an exclusive interview with PC Pro. 'Although netbooks are small today – maybe 10% of the PC market at most – we believe over the next several years that could completely change around and that could be 90% of the PC market,' he said. East also said ARM isn't pressuring Microsoft to include support for its processors in Windows, claiming progress in the Linux world is 'very, very impressive.' 'There's not really a huge amount of point in us knocking on Microsoft's door,' he said. 'It's really an operational decision for Microsoft to make. I don't think there's any major technical barriers.'"
whether it's true or not is another thing
Netbooks are supposed to be those things too small to work like a real computer but too big to be really portable! How could Steve Jobs be wrong? Is it true that they are small enough to be more portable than a laptop but big enough to be more useful than a cellphone/PDA?
I wonder how long I will go on musing for, before I break down and buy one...
Ouch... that's a statement I wouldn't be happy about if I were a Microsoft engineer: We don't need you guys anymore to grow in this market. "They can jump in if they like, but hey, we got Linux, so we don't care." If I were Steve Ballmer, this would feel as a punch on the nose (Oh, and I wouldn't waste my time posting on Slashdot)
Does anyone seriously think that 90% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years? I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.
People still need processor power, big storage, large monitors, confortable keyboards and mice. Netbooks may be great for some users, but many other users just find them almost useless. I can't think of myself watching/recompressing/editing full hd video on a netbook. Programming of mostly any kind would also be a pain. One point: they're usually cute, and people buy them. In these cases, "buy" doesn't mean "use".
90% seems a bit optimistic, but with the dropping prices and improving performance of SSD technology and more energy efficient batteries/hardware, I could see the netbook become a small, rugged moderately disposable form of computing. I will definitely get one once my current computer dies because I love the Linux-friendly hardware and low cost.
Excluding gamers on the go (or anyone else that needs a lot of computing power on the go), I could foresee netbooks replacing conventional laptops over the next decade or so. It would be nice if more of them were designed as convertible tablets, but meh...can't have everything.
Alienware's new m11x will help bridge the gap between full size notebooks and netbooks, but the price will have to come down while keeping the upgraded power for netbooks to really take over.
Living With a Nerd
Sell out? Not sure what you mean by this. ARM sells (designs for) chips that can run Darwin, Linux, *BSD, RiscOS, Wince, Symbian, NewtonOS, and a host of others. If Microsoft chose to port Windows 7 to ARM, why would you regard this as ARM selling out?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Does anyone seriously think that 90% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?
When Linux netbooks based on x86 were gaining market share, Microsoft embraced the netbook by first keeping Windows XP Home Edition available throughout the Vista era and then optimizing Windows 7 for such ultra-low-cost PCs. Likewise, Microsoft could decide at any time to embrace ARM by porting Windows 7 to the architecture and making a thunk layer for existing CE apps, just like NT for x86 has a "WOWExec" thunk layer for 16-bit Windows apps and NT for x86-64 (XP 64, Vista 64, 7 64) has a "WOW64" thunk layer for Win32 apps.
um.... how? microsoft may get their act together and support the arm architecture. how does that involve arm selling out?
What East is really saying is, "Behold. I shall inflate stock values by making false and pointless claims."
ARM already has a huge part of the embedded market in cellular phones. He is trying to make the claim that no one needs computing power, so everyone is going to switch to the cheaper ARM microcontrollers, and they will get a lot of licensing money as a result. But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net. If you want to do anything else mildly processor intensive like watching a HD video, good luck. (Even Intel's Atom processor is essentially an overclocked 486.) If you want to watch a DVD, good luck--your netbook is probably a little too small for that DVD drive!
Laptops are pretty crude these days. Spinning drives, spinning fans, bulky operating systems originally designed for desktops that were adapted for the laptop instead of purpose-built.
The Palm OS stuff years back really made me wonder, especially when I got an external keyboard for my palm -- could you upscale something like this into a computer? It has more horsepower than my first desktop, the fancier palms could get on the net with wifi. What if you made a bigger screen and stuck the palm guts in that? At the time I figured the problem was cost and performance. Screens are half the price of a laptop so why would anyone want to spend several hundred bucks for a gimped device when they could spend a few more and get a full-featured laptop? But the iPhone had the right idea. Stripped down, customized OS for the phone. Leave the whole desktop OS design behind.
The hardware really has come a long way and basic user needs haven't become that much crazier. Putting an mp3 player in a car used to involve putting a freakin' PC in the car, now you either have an mp3/cd player in the dashboard or a line in for your standalone player. You used to need a pretty beefy machine for the time just to get online and read your mail. Cell phones have enough power for that now. And storage capacity? It's crazy.
There will always be a need for as much crazy power as possible in a portable format but that will be a smaller niche of the market.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
"Sell out"? I'm no Microsoft enthusiast; but last I checked, it was pretty standard for chipmakers(or, in this case, ISA designers who licence to chipmakers) to cheer on pretty much any attempt, by any party, to run more software on their hardware. In this case, though, I think that Mr. ARM executive can just keep dreaming.
Microsoft's overwhelming strength, and considerable burden, is backwards compatibility. The market, especially the business market, is rotten with gross little bespoke applications(as well as big serious expensive applications, shrinkwrap and bespoke) that are win32 only and likely to remain so for years to decades. Microsoft's customers scream at them every time some change breaks something(and not just the little home users, whose whining is of limited consequence, the big thousands-of-seats guys). Even their move to 64 bit X86, once both AMD and intel had given it their stamp of approval and its future was basically assured, but with full 32bit compatibility, was slow and arduous. It isn't even past tense, really, the move is still happening.
If it were just a matter of porting the NT kernel and Windows components to ARM, I suspect that that would be in the realm of doable. It'd have to be worth their while; but doable. Dragging the third party ecosystem, which is a huge percentage of the value of Windows as a package, though would be an epic nightmare. Especially since, unlike 64 bit X86, this wouldn't be a one-way move. They'd have to be pushing for parallel offerings, ARM and X86 from all relevant vendors, for the indefinite future. Welcome to hell.
What it means is, "If Microsoft is willing to buy, we are ready to sell out."
Of course. It's their job to 'sell', and if Microsoft stepped in and said, 'Hey, let's get this OS working on ARM chips,' why would any manufacturer in their right mind say no? It's only a betrayal if your mission in life was to promote the Linux platform. And whilst on that topic, this is actually BETTER for Linux than simply a company trying to flog Linux because of some mission to hurt Microsoft or make Linux the new desktop. It's someone saying about Linux what most manufacturers have been saying all along about Windows. "It's good enough for us, why worry about the competition?" That is REALLY the place that Linux fanboys want Linux to be in.
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
My main laptop died this last summer, and I've been using my Netbook as my only computer since then (well, at least for work and some entertainment purposes).
As someone else pointed out, there are times I wish it had a bit more power, usually only when I go to Hulu or some such place, but other than that, it does everything I need it to do.
Hell, I even run Virtualbox with a WinXP instance on it for the rare instance I need to use a Win program and have no trouble with it.
My kingdom for a modpoint
Sell out? Not sure what you mean by this. ARM sells (designs for) chips that can run Darwin, Linux, *BSD, RiscOS, Wince, Symbian, NewtonOS, and a host of others. If Microsoft chose to port Windows 7 to ARM, why would you regard this as ARM selling out?
Microsoft wont just agree to support ARM as is. It will have conditions attached to it. It won't be something so explicit as a requirement to stop supporting the other systems. It will be more insidious. One tack will be to nullify the advantage of other OSes. By requiring a cache large enough for Windows or memory requirement that will nullify cost advantage of Linux. Another tack would be to create a small variant of ARM that is incompatible with the others. Then due to the market dominance and/or shady undisclosed deals and pay backs, the window only version of ARM chips will be subsidized from the monopoly windfall in the MSOffice franchise.
Eventually everyone will be able to say, "we tried, but the market wants Microsoft. It is all free market you see!", while conveniently forgetting the backroom deals and tilting of the playing field done in smoke filled back rooms. The MsOffice franchise that is churning up some 25 billion dollars a year in profit, flowing through secret contracts wrapped inside non disclosure agreements, distorts the free-market continuum just like a black hole warps the space-time fabric.
Remember the original 150$ Linux netbook. How Microsoft suddenly extended the WinXP life by 10 years and strong armed Asus. How the one lap top per child project suddenly decided to add a 2GB memory chip, raised the price and foundered completely. Microsoft is not a 800 lb gorilla in the jungle clearing. It is a supermassive blackhole that influences everything in the galaxy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What about the gamers, graphics designers, and other people who need higher power computers?
You're not going to get top performance from a netbook, you're not going to render, or edit high megapixel drawings/photos.
Don't get me wrong, I love my netbook, but there's not a remote chance that I'd ever only have a netbook. I always plan to have my high power comp, and then likely some sort of media PC for the living room. 90% seems lofty. A life with only one low-powered computer? Never!
"What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
i.e. including all those people who don't have PCs yet in this world of 6 billion people.
This is all just my personal opinion.
It's a question of if people want it.
Just look around you, my Subaru is more than what most people need but it's one of the smaller cars on the road on average. Most people should be able to get away with eating 2200 calories or less a day but look at our fat asses and tell me that it's happening. Most people should be able to get by on a handful of TV channels and a modest collection of DVDs but we have hundreds of channels, On Demand, more DVDs in our homes than books... etc etc etc.
Modern culture likes comfort, modern culture likes the big is better lifestyle. Most people aren't going to adapt well to the next step up from the Speak and Spell. Even those who do begrudgingly adopt to it aren't really going to want it and, if they can afford a little better, will reject it with whatever bullshit logic they need to use to justify something a little more luxurious.
People have this obsession with hording and with being able to show that their possessions are bigger, stronger and faster than anyone else on the block. Computers are part of this culture of possession and no amount of benchmarks and proof of concept are going to change that.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Try this on your atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5gYSgqka1A&feature=related
I think it just makes nonsense out of your performance argument.
This is all just my personal opinion.
That said, I can't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU & AMD is attempting their own, and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler, much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely won't be running Windows and wouldn't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they're the c. 1.5% that use linux.
What he said in the article was that it doesn't really matter whether ARM is used for the application process because there are already several ARM-based microcontrollers running the wi-fi, hard drive, camera, etc. The application processor is an opportunity for more growth, but the overall growth of the netbook market benefits ARM no matter what.
I don't see how 90% of PCs are going to be replaced by netbooks with tiny portable screens, though. Those are totally unusable for stuff like sustained office work. Maybe we'll all just use docking stations, but wasn't a key feature of netbooks the lack of peripheral complexity?
Visit the
This will require fast, cheap and energy efficient cpus, and if well could not be netbooks, ARM and other non-intel (i.e. TI's OMAP4) cpus should have a good portion of the market in that scenario,and probably a lot will be somewhat linux based (android, moblin, maemo,etc)
conveniently forgetting the backroom deals and tilting of the playing field done in smoke filled back rooms.
That is the usual place to carry out backroom deals though, so it's hardly surprising that people forget about it. What would be memorable is if they carried out these backroom deals through the medium of skywriting. Or perhaps interpretative dance...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Wow...
I don't think that expanding the Cache and ram on the ARM would hurt Linux or OS/X at all.
ARM doesn't make chips. So yes Microsoft could buy the right to make ARM CPUs and make their own flavor of ARM just like Apple, nVidia, TI, and Marvell have.
I think your fears are a bit miss placed at this point. Also since Microsoft has been floundering in the Mobile market for years I don't their is all that much to fear from them.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
i didn't get into laptops because they are too small. My fiance has a netbook which was handy on vacation a few times, but it's still too small and underpowered for me use as anything but a browser. For that i have an iPhone which is much, much smaller.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I think you are confusing chip manufacturers with computer makers. MS got Asus, not Intel, to sell Windows XP on their netbooks. Intel, OTOH, designed a chip (the Atom) that could not support the current MS offering (the exact opposite of what your post would suggest they'd do). Now, MS has supported XP long beyond its life expectancy. I can assure you, it is not easy or cheap for them to do this; software development costs typically follow a bathtub curve and XP got out of the tub long ago. All this whole XP on netbooks deal proved was that people didn't mind paying an extra $50 for the same ol' familiar OS. And, as much as I'd hate to say it, people didn't want netbooks. They wanted a small laptop. Also, Intel have been fantastic contributors to Linux.
Given that, as far as I can tell, the only difference between a laptop and a netbook is size, what he's really saying is that laptops are going to get smaller.
Or that, a lot of people who didn't buy laptops before, on such grounds such as price and size, would start buying the new /smaller/ devices.
The absolute number of classic PC and laptop won't change much. But a fucking big new propotion of the population would start buying the netbooks.
Don't think "Laptops are displacing desktops at the workplace".
Think the way PDA were a new market that didn't cannibalise laptop users, but made a whole new batch of people buy the devices.
Or think the way the Wii didn't lower the success of PS or Xbox, but got successful in reaching a whole new market of casual gamers who would never had bought hardcore-oriented machines.
(Or what Apple is hoping to achieve with the iPad : the device for the couch at home, missing in the line-up between Macs - at work - and iPhone/iPod - on the move)
There are a lot of young people, who don't really need a PC given their work or studies. But they would appreciate being able to go on-line for socializing.
Currently their smartphone's screen is a little bit smallish. Dead-cheap simple small netbooks would be the way to go
(and would enable them to do some small editing on the cloud / GoogleDocs while on the go).
Now, will ARM's hopes of finding a new market to exploit get realised ? Hard to tell but I suspect this might work.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
...ARM Exec Wishes 90% of PC Market Could Be Netbooks
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
If the netbook market becomes large enough, Intel will simply make whatever investment is necessary to outcompete ARM in the netbook sector.
Intel already sold XScale to Marvell, and as I understand it, Atom already has much of its die area dedicated to x86 compatibility cruft.
What East is really saying is, "Behold. I shall inflate stock values by making false and pointless claims." ARM already has a huge part of the embedded market in cellular phones. He is trying to make the claim that no one needs computing power, so everyone is going to switch to the cheaper ARM microcontrollers, and they will get a lot of licensing money as a result. But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net. If you want to do anything else mildly processor intensive like watching a HD video, good luck. (Even Intel's Atom processor is essentially an overclocked 486.) If you want to watch a DVD, good luck--your netbook is probably a little too small for that DVD drive!
After spending a while in Japan (and observing their net/electronic pattern usages), combined with purely anecdotal observations on communication and usage patterns of people here in the US and in my beloved 3rd world country of origin, it is fair to say most people are fine with a device that lets them e-mail and twitter and upload pictures on facebook, google for stuff, read the news and job sites, maybe run MS Office or Google Apps, and for the savvyy video conference with skype (which is how my grandma who lives in a little town up in the mountains got to see my newborn baby for the first time after getting Internet over dial-up.) Shit, even some of the Xingu people up in the Amazon have internet access now!!!! Anyways, go back to the topic...
The average electronics consumer WILL NOT use that type of device to run DVDs (there are super-cheapo portable DVDs for that) or run gcc, Mathematica or a LAMP. They don't need a super-duper CPU and the latest and greatest graphics card.
We, what we call "powerusers") certainly want a mighty gadget that can run everything we want in one device. But we do not represent the average electronic consumer.
Typical people, the average electronics consumer of 2010, whether here or Japan or south of the border, on the other hand will be happy to have an iPhone/BlackBerry, the smallest possible laptop/netbook that can do the job without much jitters and a portable DVD player (comes handy for entertaining your kids while you are busy with your laptop/netbook while having breakfast at Panera or wherever they sell breakfast with free wifi).
Warren East is re-stating the obvious (and inflating stock values), but that's his job. What we are missing here, is our ability to objectively judge the merits of his claims, not from our point of view as l33t hax0rs, but from the shoes of the average consumer - they are the ones that constitute the market (and the opportunities therein), not us.
Yeah right. Two people in my office have Netbooks and both complain about how they aren't powerful enough to do what they need. To top that, the only time they use them is when they travel so they can get mail, access Google docs, read PDF documents, and use IM.
I purchased one for my 11 year old daughter for Christmas cause she wanted one. All she does is complain about how slow it is and how much trouble she has watching videos and voice chatting with her friends. I tried to install a Canon Pixima iP6600D printer. I had to try three different ways to install it and finally got it installed, yet it still won't print.
...otherwise hardware vendors would fail. By us here I mean the folks who assemble computers from individual parts because the stuff sold pre-assembled is garbage hardware with garbage bloatware pre-installed. So I don't see how 90% of the PC market will ever be portable platforms, let alone netbooks.
mmmm...forbidden donut
But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net. If you want to do anything else mildly processor intensive like watching a HD video, good luck.
Modern ARM processor, such as the hyper popular OMAP serires or the nVidia Tegra do have this luck !
The OMAP package comes packed with SIMD extensions, a DSP unit, and a GPU (from PowerVR) including a core supporting hardware video decoding.
The Tegra is a multi-core ARM Cortex A9 (like the OMAP-4 generation) which, among other stuff, packs a freaking GPU from freaking nVidia.
Thank to this, most netbooks (powered by OMAPs) can currently (or will once Tegra hit the market) play HD video.
If you want to watch a DVD, good luck--your netbook is probably a little too small for that DVD drive!
What's the point of using a small device if you have to lug around a big case full of discs ?
As pointed by other reader, the HD movies are most likely to be streamed from the web / stored on an USB key.
In most countries with proper legislation (say Switzerland), users will probably format-shift their library to something compatible (just the same way people encode their CD libraries for ther MP3 players).
In the USA, due to the broken DCMA laws, this might be harder to achieve legally - on the other hand, with the rise of "always-connected"-ness (pervasive WiFi and 3G), online rental/streaming solution might flourish. Then again, the USA is also a country with broken data plans, so hitting the monthly download limit might be a problem.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Linux applications (usually open-source) are considered highly portable and just a recompile away from running on ARM or whatever.
After porting the Windows OS and relevant libraries to ARM, what is stopping the software makers from doing "just a recompile" and have it run on ARM as well?
OS-X supports generic binaries: compiled to run on both PPC and X86. I don't see why Windows would be so different as to not allow that.
WinNT existed for more than just Intel, and has evolved to what is now Win7. MS has all the source code, they have thousands upon thousands of programmers in their ranks including many of the world's best I'm sure, and plenty of cash to throw against it.
There is no reason MS can NOT bring Windows to ARM, including compilers to help their developers to easily and relatively painlessly go multi-platform. Linux can do it, BSD can do it, Solaris can do it, Apple's OS-X can do it, Microsoft's Windows can not?!
First of all, the price gap between netbooks and notebooks is narrowing. Second, having all your apps online, as is the case with netbooks, users are at a disadvantage when they have no internet access. Third, there are just some types of apps that there is no online equivalent for.
Man, they are so evil!
There is nothing(other than economic calculation) stopping them from making ARM a future option. And, given MS's general style, if they did have an ARM option, they'd roll in the necessary updates to visual studio, and otherwise try to encourage the developers.
The problem is the past. Vendors who are out of business, or have EOLed given products, or who would(not unreasonably) want more money to deliver ARM versions of their existing X86 products. Horrible internal apps hacked together in VB6 by somebody who has since retired, or shoddily built by contract outfits. Even with Vista, a tiny compatibility break compared to an ISA change, caused much weeping and gnashing of teeth about this stuff. Heck, they had to build a fully, virtualized "XP Mode" into corporate editions of 7 just to get the legacy customers to shut up.
Linux went multi-platform comparatively easily because(while it is in many respects deeply conservative) the linux community doesn't really care about binary compatibility. If the source isn't there, available for update as long as interest persists, it is considered dead. If you want binary compatibility, you can go cry, or pay somebody to build it for you. Mac went sort-of multi platform comparatively easily because Steve doesn't much care about the past(one of the things that makes him interesting to watch is his willingness to murder products and technologies that he considers to be outdated, even if they are popular and successful. Look at the imac and the floppy drive, or his termination of the iPod mini, a hugely successful product, in favor of the nano) and because its platform moves have always been from less powerful to more powerful platforms. Rosetta and the classic environment were a (mostly) viable option for legacy PPC stuff because the new intel chips were a whole lot faster than the old PPC ones. An X86 emulator on an ARM netbook would be ugly.
In the long term, Microsoft could indeed make ARM an option(and, it seems, that their real long term plan is for everybody to be targeting the CLR in any case); but to actually sell a "Windows on ARM" product, they'd have to beat their legacy market, a tough task.
At work: need a real display and a real keyboard. So: no netbook.
At home: need a real display and a real keyboard. So: no netbook.
Elsewhere: Ok, yeah, I can see it. But within this niche, I think quite a few people are going to see netbooks as too large; it needs to fit in their pocket.
It ain't about CPU power; it's about the physical size of the case it's inside of and ergonomics. Things that are designed to be portable always be make compromises that make then less desirable when portability isn't needed.
But even though I don't see netbooks taking over, I don't see why ARM couldn't have a fighting chance. I think "lame" CPUs really are usually enough (and they just keep getting better) for most day-to-day stuff; at least Intel's previous-generation Atoms are, in my experience. If ARM can get into the netbook market and make that a viable platform for the software to run on (and that mainly just means getting ahold of driver sources, so that they can be recompiled) then at that point, there's no real reason you can't have an ARM CPU on your desktop. Sure, some people won't want it, saying that they need their Phenoms and Core i7s, but most people will be ok with it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I've used an XP netbook (ASUS EEE) on several research cruises; the thing is a tank. I turn it on Sunday night, plug in the GPS, start the apparatus, plug in the data logger, and start the data monitoring and analysis software. It runs flawlessly non-stop for five days (typically until Friday night); while on the cruise (with seas ranging from calm to 10' waves) I can perform preliminary processing with R and SciPy routines, format the data, and save it to a built-in SD card as a back-up without having to leave the apparatus. When docked, I can link up to the marina's WiFi and check email etc. What I can't do is perform high-end GIS analysis, watch Blue-ray movies, or comfortably type the next great American novel; then again, that's what the desktop at the office and the laptop in my ruck are for. Netbooks are great if you need one, superfluous if you don't.
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
...hammer manufacturer claims everything is a nail....
love is just extroverted narcissism
One attraction of ARM is that if you can find a fab you can get what you want. This is precisely its advantage over X86. Everybody makes "small variants" for their special purposes. And everybody wants out from under MS/Intel.
The disadvantage of being US-centric is that a lot of people on Slashdot don't realise that outside the US there is a whole different ball game and it is bigger than the US market. The Nokia N900 is a Euro-computer descended ultimately from the Acorn Risc machine. South Korea has cultural and linguistic affinities to Finland. The weight piling up against Microsoft outside the US is increasing every day, and European computing is starting to take a different direction.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I don't believe 90% either, but who knows.. maybe desktop PC's will seem quaint and ridiculously large before too long.
PC's in general are mass market. They outsold TV sets in the US in recent years!
I don't know how large the assemble-it-yourself crowd is, but note for example that there are only 1 milllion programmers in the USA compared to a (TV buying) population of 250-300 times that, so the hard core gees crowd probably really is a very small percentage of the whole PC market.
What he's saying is that 90% of computers are used casually only. An ARM or Atom based netbook or nettop has more than enough resources for email, web browsing, office document creation and so forth, with ARM holding a large advantage over Atom in energy efficiency.
There's almost nothing that I do that requires an x86 CPU, and for the little that does, I can live with an older laptop/desktop. I would absolutely love an ARM laptop with a 15" screen and a battery to last 10h+.
Uhm, to you and the GP ... you do realize MS already has software that runs on ARM processors ... RIGHT?
Win7 isn't running on ARM because THAT WOULD BE FREAKING RETARDED. They have a compact/embedded OS for this, just like all the other people who are successful at using ARM processors for end users.
Only an idiot would want their desktop OS ported to a device that is clearly NOT a desktop device.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yea, its not like anyone else recently has moved their entire OS and application set to another processor architecture and provided backwards compatibility ...
If only there was a reference model of someone else doing it ...
It can be done, Apple did it, without recompiling 3rd party software. They weren't the first. NT ran on other architectures before, and there was a time when running x86 on an Alpha was as simply as starting the software and letting the system software handle porting it to the new processor architecture.
In short, your reason for it not happening is bogus and there are examples to show its bogus. Some old examples and some recent.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Maybe what Mr. East meant to say is that 90% of the computing market (ie anything as capable as a smart phone and above) will be non desktops. That I can believe, and probably wouldn't even question it if I were told that today. That segment includes smart phones, MIDs, UMPCs, tablets, netbooks, and laptops. Even if we exclude laptops, the former 5 combined make up a respectable portion of the market. But smart phones and MIDs are not PCs, and UMPCs and tablets only make up a tiny portion of the market. That essentially leaves netbooks by themselves.
Damn.
At 3:30 on that video. . , I think I just saw the future.
The laptop and the netbook I picked up last Summer, and even the PC's I've been running over the past few years are all about to fall into the same category as my Dad's old stereo system. -Where the shape and weight of a given device will no longer be determined by space requirements of the technology packed inside. Every square inch inside my Dad's old amplifier was strategically taken up with vacuum tube electronics whereas the modern gear I could buy as a teenager was mostly empty space inside sleek plastic boxes with big shiny knobs. Empty calories.
Which probably means that it won't be long before netbooks and laptops are craptastic princess-pink or G.I. Joe themed items complete with dirty finger prints available at garage sales or brand new clattering around in the calculator section at the local Office Depot. The laptop you are using right now, while it is (most likely) a humming, energy hungry heat monster, will nonetheless ooze solid-state build quality and a healthy heft when compared to the next generation of light-as-air junk tech.
And when I think about it. . .
A lot of super-popular electronic media technology has come and gone over the last thirty years. Tape decks? Gone. Portable CD players? Gone. VCR's? Gone. The humble telephone? Changed beyond recognition. Here's a quiz: What's the one piece of technology which has stayed the same throughout that whole period?
That's right! Headphones and the 1/8" audio jack. Apparently we've arrived at perfection with audio gear. Everything else has changed.
I wonder what the final expression of the video display will end up being. . .
-FL
...so I will be happy to load Debian on any ARM netbook.
http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/
For me the challenge is that there are not any mainstream manufacturers that have one available yet here in the US for me to try.
I plan on using it as a fun web surfing and email system. Maybe open office,evince for the ocassional attachment. ...Hopefully soon?
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
It can be done, Apple did it, without recompiling 3rd party software.
Apple were moving from slower RISC CPUs to faster x86 CPUs: RISC emulation/dynamic recompilation is easy compared to emulating x86 CISC software on a slower RISC chip.
NT ran on other architectures before, and there was a time when running x86 on an Alpha was as simply as starting the software and letting the system software handle porting it to the new processor architecture.
And it sucked unless your application spent most of its time inside Windows rather than doing anything at all CPU-intensive.
Getting decent performance out of emulation typically requires about 10x the CPU performance you're trying to emulate, so only a maniac would try to emulate a modern x86 CPU on an ARM.
Is ARM 64-bit? By which I mean, can an OS create a process of larger than 4GB in size? (Or can it even use more than 4GB of memory in total?)
I was on public transport the other day, there was a leaflet advertisement from a consumer electronics high-street shop, selling TVs, DVD players, PCs etc, and there was a €500 PC (US$ 700) with 8GB of memory. So assuming in 2 years, every (Intel) PC you buy off the high street has say 8-16 GB of memory, ARM computers (90% of PCs according to the guy) are going to look pretty stupid with a 4GB limit.
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's totally 64-bit? But Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so, and I can't find much evidence one way or the other.
And it's not the case that "nobody needs more than 4GB" either, a) every PC will just have that much memory, and b) Because of that, programs will start to use that much memory. i.e. there is often a speed vs memory trade-off, and if everyone has GBs of memory, there's no point making your program run slower to fit in 100MB of memory.
And further, "nobody needs more than 4GB", well I mean in a way nobody needs more than 100MB I would say (10 years ago my desktop machine had 128MB, could do word-processing, internet browsing, etc.) But have fun running modern software on a 128MB computer! The same will happen to 4GB computers.
Anyone know?
Yes Netbooks are more portable, but are they really better at doing anything than a laptop?
They're better at being affordable, they get better battery life, they are more portable. Which brings us to...
They do have portability going for them, but is that enough for most people?
I have a Phenom II X3 720 desktop with 4GB RAM and a GTS 240 card. Before that my big machine was a Compaq laptop with a Core 2 Duo and a Quadro chip. I sold it and bought three netbooks for the same amount of money. That sounds kind of egregious, but they fill different needs and do different jobs.
The software often really feels shoe-horned into the devices,
Right now I'm typing this message on the cheapest and smallest of the three, an Asus 4G Surf (EEE 701 with 4GB SSD.) It runs Jolicloud, AKA Ubuntu Netbook Remix plus some doodads. I've been able to stuff every bit of software I would like onto the machine. It does everything it needs to do without compromise, albeit not always at the best speed. Boot time is pretty great for running Jaunty, as you might expect. It uses a GNOME-based desktop.
and web pages don't like fitting into the pixel count such devices usually have.
That part is very true. On the other hand, my other netbooks have better displays; the largest one is an 11" gateway with an LED-backlit 720p display. No problems fitting webpages onto that one. It's basically a subnotebook, though. However, you'll have far more problems fitting webpages onto an iPhone, which is the next step down, and even my EEE 701SD at least provides a [barely] touch-typeable keyboard.
Right now I'm in Panama, so the portability is an absolute must. I think the real question is whether current netbooks have enough portability. I'm hoping for something only twice as thick as a Kindle, and even more importantly, something fanless. Keeping the vents on the bottom of a netbook clear while sitting on a bed in a hotel room is impractical at best. Where is my fanless ARM-based system?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Only an idiot would want their desktop OS ported to a device that is clearly NOT a desktop device.
You mean like most people looking to buy netbooks these days?
I don't think you realize how big ARM is. Hint: they're bigger than Intel -- almost every embedded CPU out there is an ARM design. For every x86-compatible CPU shipped, hundreds of ARM CPUs are. They've got a sufficiently large install base that if anything, they will be the ones dictating terms to Microsoft.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
In 1997 DEC's own guys said that the FX!32 system could run an x86 NT4 application on a 500MHz Alpha about as fast as that application would run on a 200MHz Pentium Pro. Given that they were DEC guys; but not DEC marketing guys, I'd assume that the (unnamed) application chosen was flattering but not an outright lie.
Given that ARM cores are generally weaker, even the nice ones; but cheaper and lower power than X86s, I shudder to think how such a system would work for a situation where legacy X86 code was being run on some weedy smartbook.
No one has mentioned the other "800lb monopolist" in this story...
Inte£.
Do you think they seriously want ANY competition to their x86 hegemony/monopoly?
They brought out that POS Atom to try and compete in the embedded market and extend the x86 lock-in.
They ruined the OLPC's original plans because they were scared shitless that AMD would gain marketshare and mindshare.
Inte£ got M$ in major trouble with the "Vista capable" fiasco...
Don't forget there is room for more than 1 evil empire...
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net.
Completely false.
You seem to forget that computers get faster with time, exponentially. Today's netbooks are more powerful than laptops of a few years ago.
The same claims could be made of desktops - they're more powerful than laptops, at a cheaper price. But the fact remains is that laptops now outsell desktops, because today's laptops are more than enough for most people.
And how long do you think people are going to still be using DVDs for? You might as well sneer at laptops not including a floppy drive... Given the popularity of video mp3 players, it seems people are already preferring DVD-less solutions.
East won't be pressuring Microsoft to build (desktop) Windows for ARM in any way with his statements.
Anyone with enough Windows experience will remember that Microsoft used to have SPARC and Itanium builds of Windows but decided to dump them and stay in the x86 camp. I'm not saying that was a good or bad decision on their part, but it will make them less-inclined to start supporting other platforms again.
I doubt that there's enough processing power, market interest or other incentives to make Microsoft consider porting (desktop) Windows to ARM - they've already got Windows CE/Pocket PC for that platform in any case (crap, though it is).
Microsoft's great 'screw you' to the internet is being unable to run multiple versions of IE, even if one of the versions requires a VMish type environment. This means that people who require IE6 for some app that has suffered bitrot for years cannot run another IE browser. That is important because many places would not support an non MS shipped browser. Which means websites cannot drop support for IE6.
meh
I "could" also have a beach house in malibu. Too bad I don't. What a dumb statement. Netbooks kinda fail for a lot of tasks.
As web apps get richer, it becomes less important to have anything other than a web browser.
That depends on to what extent "richer" includes offline support to cover the time between when you're at one Wi-Fi hotspot and when you're at the next. As of right now, native apps tend to have better offline support than web apps. Otherwise, at some point, you have to add the data plan for 720 USD per year. I'm just glad I can do most of what I need to do in Ubuntu Karmic on my Eee PC 900.
"Fit to width" function of Opera deals with the problem of webpages no fitting quite nicely, usually (plus this browser is generally very snappy, Opera Turbo proxy also helps a lot)
So I'd say netbooks don't even really have the problem of "not the best speed". For every sensible thing one wants to do on a netbook, there's still modern software that will be light enough.
One that hath name thou can not otter
And that's the ONLY game they ever play. Not because it takes them so much time, no (though it often runs in the background when they are doing other stuff in the room/etc.); they're just not much of a "gamer".
You're far from typical. Get over it.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Microsoft supported many different platforms with their Windows NT versions in the past. Early incarnations of the XBox360 SDK shipped with a PowerPC based Mac running a modified Windows XP.
Microsoft has produced compilers for x86, MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, Itanium and others. They have ported NT based operating systems to different platforms as well. The issue that the ARM guy is forgetting is that Microsoft produces Windows CE for ARM because they choose to. The other platforms we supported through other agreements. I remember reading some outrageous figure on a shareholder report from DEC in the old days which had them paying over $100 million to simply continue development and maintain the Alpha AXP port of Windows NT, Visual Studio and Office.
I have ported major applications to different platforms including most of these processors and often simply on X Windows. The fact is, even when the instruction sets and operating systems are almost identical, there are ALWAYS issues.
ARM would not be the hardest port that Microsoft will have performed of Windows. The systems are technically very similar, however it would require Microsoft to maintain and support a second high-volume platform. They had huge problems with Pocket PC across multiple chip platforms in the past and eventually everything ended up on ARM.
Imagine the millions of e-mails they'd receive "WinZip doesn't work on my Windows 7 based netbook" or "When I try to play this YouTube based video on my netbook, it tells me I need Flash, but Adobe says they don't have a version which runs on it."
Let's also point out that there are NOOOO powerhouse ARM systems which can be used for running Visual Studio with a debugger and tools. Even now, my little machine for compiling a tiny 500,000 line project is a Core i7. If I had to do the same work on an ARM, I'd kill myself. Sure, I can remote debug, but that SUCKS!!!! when developing desktop apps. So, no, I wouldn't bother porting my code to ARM based Windows, not until there was an ARM on par with my Core i7 or my 8-core Xeon to work on.
Microsoft could employ some technology similar to Apple's Rosetta, but Microsoft spent YEARS in the past trying to do that on the Itanium and the Alpha platforms and it proved to be a waste of time. Besides, you end up having to ship "fat binaries" supporting the host machine AND the emulated machine making Windows twice the size.
Let's not forget that Microsoft's compilers for x86 are EXCELLENT. If they're not good enough, Intel's and Portland Groups are FANTASTIC. GCC for x86 is Wonderful. ARM compilers still suck and Intel doesn't even bother making them anymore now that they sold XScale to Marvell.
Tell you want ARM guys... enjoy your "NetBook OS"'s. I'll keep waiting for my pocket sized x86 2Ghz machine.