Slashdot Mirror
Windows Already Up and Running On ARM Architecture
syngularyx writes "Over at Microsoft's MIX Developer Conference in sunny Las Vegas, Microsoft has demoed a new preview build of Internet Explorer 10 (which you too can take for a spin, if you feel so inclined), and also dropped a little premature Easter egg – the build of IE10, and the underlying Windows OS, were both running on a 1GHz ARM chip. Sneaky."
But... But... But...
/rimshot...
How are they going to make it compatible with all those viruses and trojans out there?
Except that is Android does run on iOS hardware, good point.
http://www.idroidproject.org/
Gone!
What amazes me is how many of the young 'uns here are surprised, whereas we old guys remember when MSFT brought over Dave Cutler his big thing was portability and he had WinNT running on just about every chip out there.
So I wouldn't doubt they've kept a division of MSR going with an up to date portable version of the NT code base. what I don't see how they can keep from getting bit in the ass on is if they name it Windows people are gonna expect Windows apps to work which of course they most assuredly WON'T, not without a recompile that most companies simply won't do.
that is one I will hand to the F/OSS guys, if they want to run F/OSS OSes on the old Motorola 68k or any other chip they can do so if they spend the time recompiling it for the arch. Too much of Windows value is tied up in third party code that will simply not get off x86 anytime soon, and without it windows is pretty much worthless. After all people aren't gonna buy Windows licenses just to play Solitaire.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In fact I'd say this is one of those companies where such innovative ideas usually go to die, as they often "might windows or office cashflows".
Having worked at Microsoft, here's my take.
Microsoft's products must be compatible with a huge variety of hardware and software configurations, with at least 10 years of backward compatibility. Yes, Microsoft has redundant projects and a lot of prototypes that never see the light of day. But it's better to kill an internal ARM build than to release a version which won't play nice with existing environments.
Believe me, Microsoft has a lot of smart engineers, programmers and researchers. Most people have NO IDEA of the level of talent that exists in Microsoft Research. At the same time, Microsoft is a huge company which must cater to the interests of businesses which insist on using IE6. Thus, it generally can't afford the luxury of breaking compatibility for the sake of agile development.
Of course, this is one side of the story. Management also makes mistakes.
If you must remember something, consider this: Microsoft doesn't want ARM Windows to be like Vista.
Pure .NET apps should work though, which will assist Microsoft in eliminating non-managed languages.
Pfft. That's nothing. My browser release goes all the way to 11. It also supports the "beating-a-dead-meme" tag.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
He's calling bullshit the fact that Windows has no infrastructure for an ARM release. They already showed off Office for ARM months ago.
OS is short for operating system. Flash has nothing to do with the operating system.
I know Slashdot has gone downhill in the last ten years, but are you sure you're on the right site?
Windows firewall programs aren't really firewalls, for the most part. They're more like ACLs for API calls involving sockets.
That's why when you run a Windows "firewall" program you don't generally see things like IP addresses, masks, protocols, port numbers, and state information. If you do, it's buried in the menus someplace, not the core function of the program, and likely added as a limited afterthought. They're definitely not a great example of bloat but they are certainly more resource-intensive than something like iptables and the relevant *nix kernel support.
The few times I have used a Windows sytem in the last several years, it was most disappointing. Where you could just write a few rules to cover your needs, now you have to go through a tedious list of programs and incrementally enable each one that may want to use a particular protocol after, of course, having some system tray pop-up distract you from whatever you were trying to get done. Depending on the "firewall", you may have to do it again when you upgrade/update the program since the executable has changed.
Really the only justification for this is the terrible host security of so many Windows systems, which leads to the hope that a strange executable the user has never seen before that wants to use the network might get noticed. It's one of the least efficient ways to operate a firewall. The need to enforce permissions that apply to system calls (of any kind, whether they are related to sockets, disks, etc) should be a core OS function that requires no third-party utilities. The need to regulate network traffic is a different problem that would properly have a different solution.
Honestly it's a fucking inelegant mess but it avoids the BIG SCARY OH NOES!! of requiring users who want to adjust a firewall to know a few things about how networks and firewalls work (sort of like the way we expect people who want to tinker with an engine to have skill as a mechanic and no one calls that unreasonable) or, failing that, to hire/consult someone who does. Like most of the culture surrounding Windows really. For those people who like it this way, use what you like and I say more power to you. To me, it's downright suffocating. I'd much, MUCH rather spend a few minutes reading up on networking, learn it one time, and do it the simple/elegant way from them on, rather than continuously do everything the hard way solely to avoid a little reading.
This set of priorities, more than anything else, is the difference between Windows "computing as a product" and many other systems. You can spend a great deal of time looking at differences in design and technologies without having a satisfying understanding of why things work out the way they do.
As far as antivirus goes, it's a terrible substitute for a good security system that doesn't treat the user like an illiterate idiot. I'm wondering how much worse the malware problem has to get before more people are willing to admit that antivirus is at best a band-aid and does not address the problem of security. Usually things have to become some big-ass crisis before people are willing to say "you know, the way we've been doing things doesn't work, maybe it's time to try another approach." Until then, those who said all along that something is not sustainable, is moving in the wrong direction, and lacks long-term viability are ignored and marginalized. Too often, that's the way it works.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
So... I will surprise everybody.
WIN8 running very very well already on ARM processors.
They rebooted WIN8 to the originally planned WIN7 micro kernel.
Win8 is a one microkernel with multiple interfaces to be booted up within 3sec.
1. It can be traditional PC
2. CAN be Tablet
3. Can be WInphone (Bye bye WInphone 7... if you didn’t realize it was/is just a research and UI project)
4. It runs inside TVs (Hello Samsung!)
5. Runs in the cloud.
6. It is the embedded.
The same Win8.
The Winphone 7 software delivery packaging implemented and further enhanced for consistent solution delivery.
One development toolkit to develop solution across all platforms.
You think it is not true. You don't believe that MS can pull this off. They already did it!!! Just they have learnt from Apple. SILENCE! You will be shocked.
People talking about the backward comp ability as an issue. This is NOT a problem anymore because of what MS done in the virtualization.
The virtualization is part of the kernel and can natively virtualize anything to achieve backward compability.
Have you ever thought what this Really really means? You should have goose bumps...
"Seduced and abandoned?" Not hardly. MS makes their OS for the processors it feels there is a market for. In the NT days, they decided to try it on some other platforms, since it was portable. Problem was hardly anyone was buying. Yes, yes your employer got on board, well one company is not enough to make a market for this kind of thing.
You are also incorrect about support, NT 4.0 supported Alpha, MIPS, PPC, and x86. With Windows 2000 they were dropping support for MIPS and PPC due to massive lack of interest, but initially planning on keeping Alpha support. You could get it in beta. However, Compaq announced they were dropping Windows on Alpha, so MS dropped it with RC1, since that was the last major vendor that gave a shit.
That means they supported Alpha versions of Windows NT from July 1993 (Windows NT 3.1) to June of 2004 (the date they stopped support for NT4) and they were releasing new updates for the OS until November 1999 (SP6's release date). That is not an insignificant timeline. They didn't exactly role it out and kill it a year later.
The thing is Alpha was dying by the end of 1999, when Windows 2000 was launched. Like I said, Compaq stopped supporting Windows on Alpha (and they owned DEC at that point). In 2001 they sold Alpha to Intel, killing all development for it.
So either you are pissed off because you made a bad decision, and got bitten for it (if it got orphaned in one year, you were selling your products in 2003, which means Alpha had been officially dead for two years) or you are just making stuff up because you dislike MS (given that your statements do not fit the facts).
So, what'll happen with Windows on ARM (presuming they release it, could be just a test or for embedded applications)? Well that'll depend on the market. If there is strong demand, they'll keep making it. If nobody wants it'll they'll phase it out.
Same shit with IA-64. MS supported that in Windows 2000 Server, and has continued support for it with Windows 2008R2. However demand has been declining, so they've said 2008R2 will be the last Itanium version unless anything changes. They didn't support it for one version and drop it, they supported it as long as there was demand, and if demand picks up again, so can support. It also isn't like they make it a surprise. They've announced support is stopping, however 2008R2 will be supported at least until 7/10/2018 (that is their guaranteed date for support, they can extend it). So it isn't like there isn't some time to make a change.