Qualcomm Wants a Piece of the PC Market

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Wants a Piece of the PC Market

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @03:11PM from the taking-the-battle-to-the-enemy dept.

jfruhlinger writes "Much of Intel's story of the past few years has involved its so far fruitless attempts to break into the smartphone and tablet market. But as it keeps trying, it may find competition on its home turf: Qualcomm, which makes many of the ARM-based chips in those smartphones and tablets, wants to make PCs, too. The advent of Windows 8 for ARM and Android will make this possible."

215 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmmm... by msauve · 2012-01-10 15:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

What goes around, comes around.

At one time, Apple pitched RISC (ala PowerPC) as the logical successor to CISC (x86). They were also an early investor in ARM (along with Acorn and VLSI). Intel, though, had the development resouces ($$$) to stave that off.

Sounds like it might finally be happening.

(Opinion: Too bad Apple has turned evil in the interim.)

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1. Re:Hmmm... by sd4f · 2012-01-10 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting about apple, never thought about it.
  I'm convinced intel have been too set in their ways with portable computing, that, realistically none of their offerings can be considered serious attempts and that's why they haven't penetrated the market, but that's all because the x86 chips just havn't been small enough to be efficient and use little power to keep devices going for a long while. In the end, apple will say whatever the isheep will want to hear to keep them faithful, but they wouldn't have gone to intel if it didn't bring a vast array of improvements. I don't think arm will bring a vast array of improvements over x86 to the desktop sphere, and you have to remember that x86 has that huge backlog of software and familiarity that would be hard to just push to the side.
2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  From an architectural perspective, 10 years ago RISC hardware could easily outperform CISC due to simplified superscalar hardware design(pipelining, out of order execution etc.), but this really is no longer relevant, at least in the PC/notebook arena.
  
  However, the extra transistors necessary to do superscalar operations on CISC versus RISC is relatively static, and naturally as the total number of transistors per chip increases, the relative overhead of the extra complexity decreases. Furthermore since CISC instructions tend to be more compact than RISC, you can get further speed advantages. For instance it takes less time to switch a process into memory and you have a higher instruction cache hit rate etc.
3. Re:Hmmm... by Nutria · 2012-01-10 16:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  but that's all because the x86 chips just havn't been small enough to be efficient and use little power to keep devices going for a long while.
  I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.
  Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
4. Re:Hmmm... by MichaelSmith · 2012-01-10 16:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  but that's all because the x86 chips just havn't been small enough to be efficient and use little power to keep devices going for a long while.
  I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.
  Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.
  Yeah, thats RISC.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
5. Re:Hmmm... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-01-10 18:09 · Score: 2
  
  I think that is exactly it. If I recall correctly pipelining came out first in the RISC area which helped a lot. It took a few years for the CISC chips to follow suit.
  Finding the parallelism needed to keep busy is hard at all levels. Instruction level parallelism down at the op level and task level parallelism at the core level. Small transistor count operations that can be data-paralleled for speed is all fine and dandy but finding enough chunks consistently to keep all of those parallel channels full is hard. Clumping things into more complicated tasks that can keep one section of the cpu busy for a while increases the likelihood that another one of "those" will come up soon especially if you allow for out of order execution. Similarly building up independent tasks (applications, clients to serve, etc) is the easiest way to consistently keep all the CPU cores busy. Everything else used to parallelism a logical task across CPUs involves more difficulty (deadlocks, cache coherency etc) in managing the parallelism well and an inherit cost of parallelism (and limit on performance increase a la Amdhal's Law).
  When transistors were large the time needed to move data around within the CPU was more significant, as the die shrinks the time needed to move things around shrinks and the more transistor width hops that can be made in a single clock cycle (so more of the "far stuff" is accessible in a single tick).
6. Re:Hmmm... by the_humeister · 2012-01-10 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the chip. Sandy Bridge, maybe. Atom, probably not.
7. Re:Hmmm... by the_humeister · 2012-01-10 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  More like 20 years ago. The other "RISC" chips started to drop off the map in the late 1990s. For general purpose performance computing, we're now left with x86, SPARC, and POWER.
8. Re:Hmmm... by the_humeister · 2012-01-10 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Dammit, meant 15 years...
9. Re:Hmmm... by TeknoHog · 2012-01-10 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.
  Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.
  Probably because the internal architecture is far from stable. Of course, they could write a new compiler for every chip generation, resulting in all kinds of fun for both developers and end users.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
10. Re:Hmmm... by amorsen · 2012-01-10 21:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry
  It isn't. Decoding was a major expense when RISC was invented, but transistors are cheap now. Even on a phone.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
11. Re:Hmmm... by SpazmodeusG · 2012-01-10 21:38 · Score: 2
  
  Removing the instruction decoder is a bad idea. The microcode is different for every CPU out there and it wouldn't be as fast without an instruction decoder in any case. CISC tends to be memory efficient while RISC tends to be processing efficient. Thanks to the instruction decoder, the x86 currently gets to store it's instructions CISC style while running them RISC style. If you had to write your code using the microcode directly you'd end up with ~100bytes of code for something as simple as the equivalent of the FSQRT instruction. That means cache misses and increased memory use.
  The instruction decoder doesn't even use much power in any case and is necessary for many modern CPU features. In fact many ARM CPUs have instruction decoders that support more opcodes than the x86 decoder (standard ARM instructions + THUMB + Jazelle, etc. tends to add up to more than what the x86 has to deal with).
  An argument could certainly be made that Intel could support a new instruction set on top of its current CPUs that's more memory efficient than x86 and i'd agree with that (although it'd require yet another run-mode and i'd hate that). But bare metal programming isn't really realistic or even any faster.
12. Re:Hmmm... by gman003 · 2012-01-11 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  Because the micro-ops change every generation, and the decoder is a tiny, tiny part of the chip anyways. It's not large and power-hungry.
  Seriously, you'd need at least six different binaries just for the processors Intel has released in the past five years (Presler, Core, Core 2, Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge). Maybe two more for the Atoms. And then several more for AMD compatibility - I'm not sure how much they've changed over time, but you'd need at least K8, K10, Fusion and Bulldozer.
  So that's a dozen different binaries just to get micro-op compatibility with the past five years of processors. Considering even older stuff remains relatively common (*how* many businesses and schools still have Pentium IVs?), there's no way anyone would try to release separate binaries for each of them.
13. Re:Hmmm... by fatphil · 2012-01-11 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Apple pitched PowerPC as their logical successor to 68K rather than x86. They'd already thumbed their nose at x86 with their 68k choice. (But yes, the 68K whilst vastly more orthogonal, and more easily decoded, than x86, so having some RISK-like traits, was still a CISC.)
  
  (Opinion: the POWER architecture rocks! (disclaimer, I've not only worked for Freescale Semiconductor, but also run linux/ppc64 as my primary OS).)
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
14. Re:Hmmm... by msauve · 2012-01-11 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Apple pitched PowerPC as their logical successor to 68K rather than x86."
  
  Apple did transition from the 68K to PPC, obviously. But the reason was that they (along with Moto/IBM) expected to be able to advance RISC faster than Intel could advance x86 CISC. 68K just wasn't keeping up, and PPC was expected to provide a "leapfrog."
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
15. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  I assume it's largely because the problem isn't about making sure newly developed code runs, it's making sure stuff compiled and distributed years ago continues to run.
16. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  True. To put things in perspective, look at an SoC in a phone. Look at the size of the CPU(s) in that SoC. They are small. Now look at the sizes of the instruction decoders. They are small, too.
  In fact, more specialized instructions can be more efficient when transferring program memory, thus saving power. DRAM is expensive power-wise.
  What power-saving technology affects the whole SoC, and not just the CPU? Process technology. Guess who has the most advanced process (by far). Intel.
17. Re:Hmmm... by fatphil · 2012-01-11 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  There is of course the idea of OIL (optimal inner loop) compilation, such that there's pcode in the binary, and it gets compiled locally for the target architecture upon loading. (And you'd only need one copy of the compiler, in the same way that there's only one loader.) Or of course you could just go the whole hog and JIT it.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
18. Re:Hmmm... by gman003 · 2012-01-11 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! And you could even implement it in hardware and microcode to make it even faster.
19. Re:Hmmm... by fatphil · 2012-01-11 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  As an obsessive about performance computing, I can assure you that Sparc never really got above the radar. There may have been a slight blip visible a while back, but I think that was just snot on the screen.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
20. Re:Hmmm... by nateb · 2012-01-11 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just put the compiler in the BIOS. OS uses it as necessary, boot disks jump to it by default. Add some onboard flash (which is probably the next revolution, as soon as someone writes an API for it,) and you have low cost hardware translation. Maybe.
  
  --
  -- Nate
Driverless PC by Microlith · 2012-01-10 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just what I can't wait to have, a PC that I can't get any drivers for or put anything but the singular blessed Windows 8 installation it came with on.
1. Re:Driverless PC by Darkness404 · 2012-01-10 15:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly, worse yet is the applicationless PC. If I'm running Windows rather than Linux, it is usually for some application that WINE doesn't work on, usually some poorly maintained ancient software that I simply can't find a replacement for, or gaming. An ARM based simply has no use. It doesn't matter if ARM is better than x86, if I have to use certain applications that only run on x86 and Microsoft has made no move to put seamless x86 emulation in Windows 8, why would I buy an ARM computer unless I'm looking to only run Linux on it, in which case why wouldn't I just buy a tablet or an x86 PC?
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Driverless PC by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-10 15:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I've long since believed that WINE is going to be the new API people write apps for. Especially for legacy Windows apps.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
3. Re:Driverless PC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  "Just what I can't wait to have, a PC that I can't get any drivers for"
  
  Why wait? Just run Linux.
  
  (ducking)
4. Re:Driverless PC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  Me too! I'm gonna load up LINUX on my COMPAQ PENTIUM 233 and run VISUAL BASIC 6 applications using Wine! 1998 was a best year and I wished it had never ended! (It was the last year I touched a boob.)
5. Re:Driverless PC by im_thatoneguy · 2012-01-10 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Because x86 PCs will be able to handle Metro apps and x86 apps.
  As Slashdot is often fond of pointing out, for 90% of users the capabilities of a PC are superfluous. ARM/x86 for lightweight apps and x86 exclusively for workstations.
  Personally I think x86 will simply squash ARM within 18 months and it's only going to be useful to stave off the current Android/iOS onslaught but as Windows 8 moves onto the phone Microsoft needs a portable application framework which can run on their consoles, phones and PCs.
6. Re:Driverless PC by sjames · 2012-01-10 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Linux should run on it, especially since the Android drivers are supposed to go back into the vanilla kernel.
7. Re:Driverless PC by gmhowell · 2012-01-10 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  (It was the last year I touched a boob.)
  That's why it's better to be a fat nerd instead of a skinny nerd. Sure, the fat nerd might only be touching manboobs, but that's better than not touching any boobs.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
8. Re:Driverless PC by Microlith · 2012-01-10 16:56 · Score: 2
  
  Not drivers, the custom modifications to the kernel for Android. Drivers for Android devices rarely ever make it upstream, let alone binary blobs the system depends on. Such blobs are almost always linked against Bionic and as a result useless with Xorg and other non-Android bits.
9. Re:Driverless PC by mcrbids · 2012-01-10 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you didn't notice the logical disparity between "API people write apps for" and "legacy Windows apps" ?
  In case it still isn't clear, a "legacy" app is one that was written years ago, while a "new" app is one that people are writing now. *cough*
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
10. Re:Driverless PC by sjames · 2012-01-10 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  That could take a while longer then, to reverse engineer the thing.
11. Re:Driverless PC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  Only on /. you can see people humiliatinng someone who humiliates himself.
12. Re:Driverless PC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  Qualcomm also makes the main processor of the Raspberry Pi. Yes, it needs a significant amount of proprietary drivers to even boot.
13. Re:Driverless PC by Lisias · 2012-01-11 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if use videogames for playing and Open/Libre/BR Office for working, I don't have any serious lockin on a X86 based Windows on the short run.
  Since I do not believe that Microsoft would commit the übber-mistake of not porting MS-Office to ARM platform, the real question is: why I would buy x86 for my small/medium business?
  Home computing is not the real incoming source of revenue for Microsoft. The real money are in business clients - big corporations, to be more exact.
  
  --
  Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
14. Re:Driverless PC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  The PC is a platform and that is really the key. When I was doing low level (and even some bare metal) PC programming, I could count on certain things that define a PC beyond just the processor architecture. That's a huge part of the reason I could boot various distros of Linux, various versions of BSD, BeOS, Windows, different versions of DOS, etc. I don't see the various companies building ARM SoCs eager to get together and hammer something out nor do I see ARM themselves considering dictating a platform. Considering current IP laws and enforcement, it will probably be hard to copy something from another manufacturer for a defacto platform to emerge. Something like UEFI might help but we'll see.
  Android and Windows 8 might have created the conditions for this to happen, but Intel might have something with Medfield and they already understand the idea of a platform.
15. Re:Driverless PC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Cortex-a8 -a9 perf is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than i series cpus and even amds clock for clock. Its probably even lower than ppc. They only win at tdp atm, and dont seem likely ever to get up to per cycle perf.
  Further the bog std arm design isnt great given that qualcomm which is the only licensee to redesign cpu block from scratch and obtains a bit of perf over the arm design.
  Apple swiotched to x86 for a reason.
16. Re:Driverless PC by Microlith · 2012-01-11 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or like many ARM things, they are never reverse engineered and rot. And that's assuming they don't go and sign the boot process all the way down.
17. Re:Driverless PC by Narishma · 2012-01-11 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Broadcom, not Qualcomm, makes the Raspberry Pi's SoC.
  
  --
  Mada mada dane.
Not going to work... by Darkness404 · 2012-01-10 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sorry, but unless Windows 8 comes with a top-notch emulation platform to run x86 apps, this is dead. As much as I enjoy having an Android smartphone, having a PC running Android is something I DO NOT WANT. The main reasons why people want a full fledged PC rather than a tablet is for certain legacy applications (along with a real keyboard/mouse!) and such. If Linux hasn't been able to succeed on the desktop, then I see no reason why ARM would succeed. Plus, we all know that people are going to be talked out of this by your typical Best Buy salesmen and your average person who /thinks/ they are computer savvy but not really. When looking at a 1.2 Ghz ARM CPU vs a 2.2 Ghz x86 CPU their gut instinct is to go for the x86 even though it might be inferior to the ARM.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Not going to work... by leoplan2 · 2012-01-10 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  It will be a very difficult task to port x86 software to ARM...
2. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  Recompile it if it is C or C++.
3. Re:Not going to work... by leoplan2 · 2012-01-10 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  But not all software is in C or C++...
4. Re:Not going to work... by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  It will be a very difficult task to port x86 software to ARM...
  Why? Because people who write x86 software in higher-level languages tend to assume they can get away with unaligned references? Or because your definition of "x86 software" means "software written in x86 assembler language"?
5. Re:Not going to work... by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  But not all software is in C or C++...
  OK, so recompile it if it's in Pascal or Ada or Fortran or....
  The only software that you can't recompile (after checking for stuff that doesn't port) would be software in x86 assembler language; is there a significant amount of Windows application software out there written in assembler?
6. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 15:40 · Score: 0
  
  Notice how Office hasn't been announced for ARM yet. This is millions of lines of code written over 20+ years - It's likely that there are tons of low level hacks to get performance (when doing this actually mattered). I can imagine lots of inline assembly routines and such.
7. Re:Not going to work... by c0lo · 2012-01-10 15:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If Linux hasn't been able to succeed on the desktop, then I see no reason why ARM would succeed
  Depends on the price, I guess.
  Replace Linux with Android, get a price under $50 (even if display-less) and you have a desktop good for browsing, social networking and communication (Skype). As for the price: if Raspberry PI can, I think it is possible put a bit more RAM for the price.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
8. Re:Not going to work... by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-01-10 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Emulating x86 on ARM seems to be the worst way to compansate for the lack of apps. And is it even possible? I mean, even discounting the usual losses due to emulation, x86 chips are usually much more powerful. Even if it were possible to get decent speeds, it wouldn't be feasible, since emulation (especially when high-level, which I'm assuming would have to be the case) usually causes annoying compatibility problems. Look at Wine. It's great work, doesn't even have to emulate different hardware and is not always a joy to use. If we're talking about a possible shift to ARM, Debian already has a humongous amount of software for it. Maybe Ubuntu could be used for a few vendors, though if I had to bet, I'd pick a mix of Windows 8 (~80%) and Android due to familiarity with the system, even if it's on a new architecture. Vendors aren't usually smart.
9. Re:Not going to work... by exomondo · 2012-01-10 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you've got C/C++, Java and .Net (obviously the latter 2 don't need a recompile) then you've probably got the majority of consumer-level software.
10. Re:Not going to work... by Darkness404 · 2012-01-10 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. We had this fad back a few years ago, it was called "netbooks" that sold for low prices but almost immediately people started complaining about that they didn't run the applications they needed.
  
  Plus, Android is absolute crap on anything that isn't a smartphone. On smartphones? Its decent. On anything else? Not so much. Even on tablets most Android devices seem rather "forced" and hacked together on the best days.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
11. Re:Not going to work... by symbolset · 2012-01-10 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately OnLive and about a thousand other people have got that covered. Just because you need Windows apps doesn't mean you have to actually have it running on your devices.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
12. Re:Not going to work... by Darkness404 · 2012-01-10 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  People want their applications. People want their familiar programs. If we learned anything from the entire netbook experiment it is that people don't like change. A version of Windows that won't run their normal Windows programs will soon be forced out of the market. If Linux couldn't succeed on the desktop than ARM will not be able to. Linux had absolutely everything going for it back in 2007-2009, a user friendly distribution (Ubuntu), the dominant OS was crap (Vista), cheap hardware (netbooks), lots of top-notch software for it (Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.), by then codec problems were nearly 100% resolved (DVDs and MP3s were easily played) and the start of "web apps" and Google Docs meant that a lot of things could be done via the internet rather than installed on a hard drive.
  
  Linux had every possible thing going for it and yet it failed. Because as soon as people booted it up, got used to it but then figured that X didn't exist for it (where X was some proprietary program, usually unmaintained and a niche software program with no OSS equivalent) people left it for Windows.
  
  The exact same thing will happen with Windows 8 for ARM. If you can't get your applications running on it which is always the biggest migration factor, you won't end up keeping any users.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
13. Re:Not going to work... by rsmith-mac · 2012-01-10 15:55 · Score: 2
  
  You should note that Win8/ARM won't run "desktop" style applications anyhow, so an emulator won't do you any good. The only applications it will run are Metro applications, which are already going to support ARM. ARM + Windows is Metro from day 1, so you need only be concerned with new applications.
14. Re:Not going to work... by hendrikboom · 2012-01-10 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine ARM is going to be up against the same problems as the Itanium.
15. Re:Not going to work... by c0lo · 2012-01-10 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. We had this fad back a few years ago, it was called "netbooks" that sold for low prices but almost immediately people started complaining about that they didn't run the applications they needed.
  Not enough screen-space, rather. I used one, great for Skype-ing, but couldn't do much of browsing because of the screen-space.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
16. Re:Not going to work... by exomondo · 2012-01-10 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Notice how Office hasn't been announced for ARM yet.
  Where were you a year ago when they did exactly that at CES?
17. Re:Not going to work... by Formalin · 2012-01-10 16:07 · Score: 2
  
  So long as it runs facebook and porn, most users won't notice.
18. Re:Not going to work... by dgatwood · 2012-01-10 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Wine is frequently buggy precisely because it is not an emulator. It is an attempt to create a set of compatibility libraries that shim between Windows APIs and a completely different OS. It's a miracle it works at all, given what a Herculean task that is.
  If Microsoft wanted to emulate x86 on ARM, they'd probably do exactly what Apple did when they emulated PowerPC on x86 (which, incidentally, worked remarkably well for most apps): include a complete copy of the actual x86 Windows libraries, run it all in a dynamically recompiling emulator, and translate the few dozen system calls where the apps and libraries actually call down into the kernel. And boom. You're done.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
19. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  A tablet is a full fledged PC. It may not have a keyboard but other than that it is just like any laptop in the market.
20. Re:Not going to work... by 0123456 · 2012-01-10 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  ARM + Windows is Metro from day 1, so you need only be concerned with new applications.
  Why would anyone run Windows if it won't run their old Windows apps?
21. Re:Not going to work... by the+linux+geek · 2012-01-10 16:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This has been debunked over, and over, and over again.
  
  http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-desktop-apps-will-run-on-windows-8-on-arm/10756
22. Re:Not going to work... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-10 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter, the OS could even intercept and handle unaligned references - very slow, but potentially useful for compat purposes.
23. Re:Not going to work... by rsmith-mac · 2012-01-10 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Normally Mary-Jo Foley is right on the money, but not in this case. Microsoft has made it very clear that ARM devices will only be able to acquire applications from the Microsoft Store (they're doing the Walled Garden) and that the Microsoft Store will only offer Metro applications for download. The desktop tile is enabled on ARM devices in some builds because of the shared codebase, but you won't find it on the retail version.
24. Re:Not going to work... by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter, the OS could even intercept and handle unaligned references - very slow, but potentially useful for compat purposes.
  ...which I think SunOS did on SPARC (and may still do, but I'm too lazy to go look at the OpenSolaris source to see what SunOS 5.x does).
  Or, alternatively, if the compiler can determine that an access is potentially unaligned, it can generate "safe" code. I seem to remember at least some SPARC C compiler or compilers having an option to make them generate unaligned-safe code for all pointer dereferences.
25. Re:Not going to work... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-10 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Or, alternatively, if the compiler can determine that an access is potentially unaligned, it can generate "safe" code.
  I think that would be pretty tricky. I mean, no standard conforming C or C++ code can do unaligned access by definition, so if someone does it, they're firmly in the realm of U.B. already, and you can only guess. You'd need whole program data flow analysis to see where the pointers come from, and flag any case of reinterpret_cast or analog that may produce an unaligned result. I think that may end up being too pessimistic, and generate slow code for cases where it's not needed in practice. The runtime solution has the nice property that it doesn't penalize code that does not do such nasty things.
  By the way, VC++ actually has a non-standard __unaligned specifier for pointers that can be used to explicitly mark unaligned access for the compiler where desired. IIRC, it was originally put there for Itanium, but could be used just as well for ARM.
26. Re:Not going to work... by corychristison · 2012-01-10 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  I am betting you haven't tinkered with Android 4.0 then...
27. Re:Not going to work... by 0123456 · 2012-01-10 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, no standard conforming C or C++ code can do unaligned access by definition, so if someone does it, they're firmly in the realm of U.B. already, and you can only guess.
  Unaligned accesses are probably rare, but I don't see why you can't do them in a C or C++ compiler.
  char bitmap24bit[ 3 * 1024 * 768];
  int pixel = (*(int *)(bitmap24bit + ( ( 1024 * y ) + x ) * 3) ) & 0xffffff;
  Enabling packed structures in gcc should also cause lots of unaligned accesses.
  I remember years ago when we first ran into a CPU which couldn't handle unaligned accesses we had to fix up a number of crashes in the software we were writing at the time. And that wasn't even developed on x86.
28. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  When looking at a 1.2 Ghz ARM CPU vs a 2.2 Ghz x86 CPU their gut instinct is to go for the x86 even though it might be inferior to the ARM.
  That's a good point. How about if they list an "equivalent" metric, similar to what most CFL bulbs list to compare with incandescents?
29. Re:Not going to work... by 0123456 · 2012-01-10 17:07 · Score: 2
  
  The only software that you can't recompile (after checking for stuff that doesn't port) would be...
  ..software you don't have the source code for.
  Like every proprietary Windows app that I own.
  Sure, the developer might recompile it, but then they'll expect me to buy another copy for ARM. Why would I want to do that?
30. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, it's brutal. You have to type "./configure" and you have to type "make". Nobody has time to do both of those things.
31. Re:Not going to work... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-01-10 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't and it won't from what I've saw on MS talks. Win 8 is meant to be a (not yelling just plain text emphasizing :-)) PLATFORM SWITCH + backwards compatiblity not platform switch + BACKWARDS COMPATIBLITY.
  ie: your old stuff on an x86 platform will continue to work just fine. Your new stuff will work on both x86 and ARM. But old stuff non-ARM will not work. The idea (wishful thinking) is everyone is supposed to switch to Metro Style apps if at all possible running on the WinRT (Win32 is on the path to depreciation/isn't the "standard" API anymore) and you'll likely get Win Phone support for free or very cheaply. That said ARM will have .Net 4.5/common API with x86 so you could port your existing program to the new .Net or recompile your C++/Fortran/Pascal (with all the fun macros necessary to support different architectures) and run. So either way you are likely going to need some work to rebuild your app and for moderate sized apps/anything you can possibly dream of a user using a tablet for you probably should think about putting the effort into making it a WinRT/Metro style app.
  I think MS finally clued into the power of a cross platform platform (a la iPad/iPhone/OS X) versus lots of redesign for each platform. That said: I hate the touch centric model. Great for a novice computer user or someone in an awkward position (laying back on a couch, in a moving car, etc) but for everyone else expecting quick interaction keyboard and mouse are the way to go.
32. Re:Not going to work... by failedlogic · 2012-01-10 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that but Intel is a behemoth opposite their closest competitor/rival: AMD. AMD is staying afloat. Unless they make the margins Intel is making on its chips or they can sell millions of PCs / tablet a year, I don't think this will work out well for them. There's also a lot of incentives and product placement for HP, Apple, etc online and in retail stores like Best Buy. Sorry but who is going to buy the Qualcomm ARM Windows 8 system. Intel and AMD are the brand people recognize. Besides the only growth market right now seems to be iPad tablets.
33. Re:Not going to work... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-10 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  My point was not that it's impossible to write C/C++ code that will cause unaligned access on some implementation. Rather, that any such code inherently causes undefined behavior according to the letter of the corresponding language standard.
  E.g. your example code invokes undefined behavior according to either C or C++ standard. The reason is that it the alignment requirement for char is 1, so bitmap24bit can be aligned by the compiler on any random byte boundary. And the alignment requirement for int is unspecified, but can be anything up to sizeof(int). And casting a pointer from char* to T* is only legal if the alignment is correct for the target type; e.g. in C99 (6.3.2.3/7):
  "A pointer to an object or incomplete type may be converted to a pointer to a different object or incomplete type. If the resulting pointer is not correctly aligned for the pointed-to type, the behavior is undefined."
  C++ has different wording to the same effect. It also provides std::aligned_storage<T> to work around this limitation in a portable way when you need it.
  
  Enabling packed structures in gcc should also cause lots of unaligned accesses.
  Same thing: there's no such thing as "packed structures" in either C or C++ standards. Most if not all compilers have some language extensions to allow for them, but they are not standard, so behavior of any pointer to a field of such a structure is firmly implementation-defined. E.g. VC++ docs for the corresponding compiler feature (#pragma pack) explicitly state that taking an address of a packed member and then trying to read/write anything through it may crash.
34. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  A tablet is a full fledged PC. It may not have a keyboard but other than that it is just like any laptop in the market.
  Cool, it's like a laptop but useless.
35. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  Why would anyone run Windows if it won't run their old Windows apps?
  Why not? Android and iOS have done fine without having to have a library of apps available pre-launch.
36. Re:Not going to work... by ozmanjusri · 2012-01-10 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Emulating x86 on ARM seems to be the worst way to compansate for the lack of apps. And is it even possible? I mean, even discounting the usual losses due to emulation, x86 chips are usually much more powerful.
  For the moment, true. However you don't need to do full x86 hardware emulation to get good results. Longsoon chips are MIPS based, but include hardware-assisted x86 emulation.
  If someone like Qualcomm were to produce an advanced multi-core Snapdragon (a la Tegra) with a similar set of instructions, I have no doubt most productivity software would run well enough to be usable.
  
  Hardware-assisted x86 emulation
  Loongson 3 adds over 200 new instructions to speed up x86 instruction execution at a cost of 5% of the total die area. The new instructions help QEMU translate x86 instructions by lowering the overhead of executing x86/CISC-style instructions in the MIPS pipeline. With added improvements in QEMU from ICT, Loongson-3 achieves an average of 70% the performance of executing native binaries when running x86 binaries from nine benchmarks.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
37. Re:Not going to work... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-01-10 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Hell you forgot all of the labors of "make install". But seriously not everything is portable even thought that is the point of higher level languages. Also win8 arm won't run treditional desktop apps iirc only mettro is allowed. At the least then you may have to rewrite the Gui. Also win32 and directX probably won't be the same in the arm version just like the xbox version is different. it would be minnor but that is still 20+ years of legacy software to rebuild/write/debug and hell looking at last monthes code may leave me wondering what the hell I was doing.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
38. Re:Not going to work... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-10 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  If Microsoft wanted to emulate x86 on ARM, they'd probably do exactly what Apple did when they emulated PowerPC on x86 (which, incidentally, worked remarkably well for most apps): include a complete copy of the actual x86 Windows libraries, run it all in a dynamically recompiling emulator, and translate the few dozen system calls where the apps and libraries actually call down into the kernel. And boom. You're done.
  The problem is that most architecture transitions are done for reasons of performance. A 500MHz Alpha running x86 programs under FX!32 could run them faster than the then-competing 200MHz Pentium Pro. Apple replaced PowerBooks with aging single core G4 processors with MacBooks with dual core Core-architecture processors at close to 50% higher clock speeds.
  Emulating an x86 processor on a 1GHz ARM processor will yield performance similar to that of a 400MHz Pentium II, and the extra load will cause battery life to suffer significantly. Considering that battery life is the primary purpose in using ARM to begin with, that seems like a non-starter.
39. Re:Not going to work... by narcc · 2012-01-10 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, those windows tablets last year were x86, not ARM.
  Microsoft didn't demo Office for ARM until a few days ago.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
40. Re:Not going to work... by the+linux+geek · 2012-01-10 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  When have they said that ARM devices will be Microsoft Store-only?
41. Re:Not going to work... by narcc · 2012-01-10 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind, I was completely wrong about the Office for Arm thing.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
42. Re:Not going to work... by crutchy · 2012-01-10 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  i use windows 7 at work, and to get legacy 16 bit apps to work i had to install the stupid win xp mode vm, and some don't even work with that (esp those with dongles).
  
  the success of win 8 for ARM will depend more on microsofts business tactics than anything to do with demand or practicality.
  
  if there are no reasonable alternative (due to shady oem deals) then windows users will put up with what they're given.
  
  for someone who doesn't care about the os and just wants to do their job, linux is hard to learn (because it isn't windows), but this is of course not the case for someone new to computers starting out on linux.
  
  microsoft will no doubt make some kind of dodgy thunking mechanism, which will be a pain in the ass, but will enable microsoft to claim compatibility
43. Re:Not going to work... by crutchy · 2012-01-10 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  old stuff on an x86 platform will continue to work
  
  old stuff non-ARM will not work
  Isn't x86 considered "non-ARM"?
  
  Will my old x86 programs work on ARM or will they not?
44. Re:Not going to work... by crutchy · 2012-01-10 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  you don't have to recognize a brand to buy it... most people have no idea what brand microcontroller is driving their tv, set top box or microwave. intel is only a big fish in microprocessors. microcontrollers are gradually becoming as powerful as their microprocessor cousins, and in the microcontroller industry, freescale is pretty hard to top, but i doubt many would have even heard of them (although their parent company, motorola, would no doubt be familiar).
45. Re:Not going to work... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-01-10 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nope not without recompiling/fixing whatever problems arise, or in the case of .net porting to .net 4.5.
46. Re:Not going to work... by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think MS finally clued into the power of a cross platform platform (a la iPad/iPhone/OS X)
  The UI toolkits are different in Mac OS X and iOS; it's not as if you can just move an app between the platforms with little change.
47. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 19:20 · Score: 0
  
  Precisely. Without legacy apps, why use Windows at all?
48. Re:Not going to work... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-01-10 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Ah your right my bad. How similar are they? Both use Obj-C cocoa. Articles I've found say that UIKit is based on Application Kit which is the UI versions for iOS and OS X respectively. Of course things are more than just a UI but still lots of transferable skills if not complete binary compatibility. This might be a case of MS copying something with a slight improvement. MS is of course famous for promising something only to drop the feature by the time of final release so I guess we'll see how truly pain free WP->arm win 8->x86 win 8 really is for Metro.
49. Re:Not going to work... by hedwards · 2012-01-10 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, what happened was that MS started leaning hard on ASUS and the other manufacturers to knock it off. Those devices were perfectly fine for what they were and what they cost, but almost immediately they were replaced by XP versions that were half as functional and another hundred dollars more expensive.
50. Re:Not going to work... by hedwards · 2012-01-10 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, what other options are there? Seriously, the lack of native support for 32bit software pretty much killed off Intel's first stab at 64bits at the start, it just took a while for those initial contracts to run down. It was a good idea in some ways as it dealt with the legacy infrastructure that had cropped up, but greatly underestimated the time it would take for the ecosystem to make it reasonable to go 64bit only. Apple had something in place both times that it switched architectures to deal with that problem.
51. Re:Not going to work... by stooo · 2012-01-10 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  unaligned references?
  " The ARMv6 architecture introduced the first hardware support for unaligned accesses. ARM11 and Cortex-A/R processors can deal with unaligned accesses in hardware, removing the need for software routines."
  
  --
  aaaaaaa
52. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  They have said that ARM devices will be Metro-only and they have said that Metro apps will only be available from the Microsoft Store. They have also said that they will be less restrictive than Apple in what they let on the store and they may also have other options for Developers and Corporations, so perhaps it won't be completely Microsoft Store only, but from the point of view of your average consumer it will be.
53. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  is there a significant amount of Windows application software out there written in assembler?
  Not a significant percent of all software, but things like game console emulators wouldn't be portable. I personally wouldn't write an entire program in assembly (nop that I know anyone who would), but I've used inline assembly in C an uncountable number of times.
  A common issue is that simply porting from one architecture to another, without customizing, doesn't take into account subtle differences (usually between the compilers) and is a recipe for poor performance. Especially for games.
54. Re:Not going to work... by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  unaligned references?
  " The ARMv6 architecture introduced the first hardware support for unaligned accesses. ARM11 and Cortex-A/R processors can deal with unaligned accesses in hardware, removing the need for software routines."
  Thanks; I guess my information was out of date. I'd have looked it up in the instruction set architecture documentation, but as I'm not a "registered ARM customer", I can't see the instruction set architecture documentation....
55. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  ARM can do unaligned since quite some time (since ARMv6 at least - we are talking about Cortex-A-class CPUs here).
  Obviously well-written code would still try to avoid it, but it's not necessary.
56. Re:Not going to work... by MrHanky · 2012-01-10 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because you can get something like the Asus Eee Pad Transformer with a real OS to run real apps, not some crippled consumer bullshit like iOS and Android. Well, that's what I hope for, anyway.
57. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  Not really. We had this fad back a few years ago, it was called "netbooks" that sold for low prices but almost immediately people started complaining about that they didn't run the applications they needed
  Most "ordinary" people I know was just fine with the first generation of netbooks, non complained that they couldn't run any software "they needed". But they started to complain when they couldn't replace their old, worn-out netbooks with new ones that didn't come with MS Windows(*). MS Windows make the netbook unusable slow, give it short battery life and make it twice as expensive, and also large and heavy weight (Windows XP need more pricey/clunky hardware). The Windows XP UI also demands larger screens, which made the new generation of netbooks to large to put in your pocket. Installing Linux on their newly bought made-for-windows netbooks was also never an alternative, since the netbooks usually had some undocumented piece of hardware that lacked supporting Linux software. I know that later generation Linux-based netbooks was/is available in some countries, but in most countries (in EU at least) the use of Microsoft Windows have killed the market. Also, nobody likes computer screens that act likes mirrors with the wrong lighting conditions (here too, large screens make this problem worse), especially not on a supposedly portable computer like the netbook, where you can't control the lighting conditions as well as on a stationary computer.
  So, if the market had been able to continue to buy, small (pocket, womens handbag or backpack friendly), light and cheap Linux based netbooks, with good computer screens and battery life, I think the "iPad" market opportunity would never had occurred. Unfortunately, the makers and resellers of netbooks instead offered, despite all complaints from costumers, to large for a pocket and a bit to clunky for a bag, a bit to heavy to lug around and a bit to expensive Windows based netbooks, with screens unusable under most normal lighting conditions and poor battery life.
  (*) They didn't complain about MS Windows, they complained that their replacement netbooks was not usable as their old netbooks, but that was caused by MS Windows, and probably by Microsoft pressing netbook resellers to only sell netbooks made for Windows.
58. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 22:01 · Score: 0
  
  Replace Linux with Android, get a price of about 100$ (display-less), and you get an SmartTV set-top-box.
  And you can buy it right now in many places.
59. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  And the alignment requirement for int is unspecified, but can be anything up to sizeof(int).
  Nitpick: It must be a number which divides sizeof(int). So if sizeof(int)==4, it cannot have an alignment requirement of 3.
60. Re:Not going to work... by gnasher719 · 2012-01-11 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It will be a very difficult task to port x86 software to ARM...
  Been there, done that, not a problem at all (> hundred thousand lines of code). The difference between x86 and ARM is much less than the difference between x86 and PowerPC.
61. Re:Not going to work... by Svartalf · 2012-01-11 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, hate to disillusion you... Android's nothing more than the Android app framework sitting on Linux with an Android themed directory structure. WebOS was nothing more than the same story with WebOS being replacing "Android" in that statement. Tizen's the same thing as WebOS in that respect. If Google had skipped using Bionic and used glibc, many would have got this a bit better. If it helps think in terms of Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, and Gentoo (and a whole host of others...)- those are all considered "Linux". What makes any of the aforementioned any different?
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
62. Re:Not going to work... by Svartalf · 2012-01-11 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Really?
  http://www.slashgear.com/windows-8-on-arm-wont-run-x86-apps-microsoft-admits-16180415/
  http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-windows-8-run-x86-apps-arm-tablets-or-not-173498
  There's tons more quoting Microsoft officials on this- ZDNet's the only one that says what you're saying. Reality is, in order to accomplish what you're talking about there, you're going to need a bit more oomph as emulation of the X86 on ARM's not exactly what one would call "stellar" and you're going to need that to make what you're talking to work. It might be doable if you were talking 2+ GHz A15's- but we don't have those yet and at that level, you're actually better off moving on to something else.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
63. Re:Not going to work... by flirno · 2012-01-11 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Until you add a keyboard and a mouse...and a external optical drive..and then its just a modular laptop.
64. Re:Not going to work... by 0123456 · 2012-01-11 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because you can get something like the Asus Eee Pad Transformer with a real OS to run real apps,
  
  Exactly. Why would you install Windows when you can run a real OS and you'll have to replace all your old software anyway?
65. Re:Not going to work... by Svartalf · 2012-01-11 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Only in the sense of trying to get Windows on to it in the desktop context. ARM's not going away any time soon- it's used all over the place, just not in desktops and notebooks right at the moment.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
66. Re:Not going to work... by MrHanky · 2012-01-11 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you think Windows isn't a real OS, you probably wouldn't recognise one anyway, and you certainly wouldn't be able to get one running properly on an ARM system.
67. Re:Not going to work... by Svartalf · 2012-01-11 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but that doesn't change the reality of the GP poster's remarks. As long as it will do faceplant and pr0n, many, if not most users will never notice.
  And at least some seem to be doing that with the current crop of Android tablets, citing that it does all of what they need while travelling when a keyboard's added either by dock or by bluetooth. And, I'd have to agree. There's two differing products that do good for what Office does on Android. There's several Facebook-centric apps, and a whole host of others that do well and the browser works for many of the other things. There's even Flash, though that's still lackluster (more because Adobe's not figured out how to make their toy fast...). Doesn't matter if it's a modular laptop or tablet (I've viewed the tablets as modular laptops anyhow...don't need the keyboard? WHY drag it along with it's extra power consumption? Don't need the CD/DVD drive? Why drag it along?)? I'm thinking not.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
68. Re:Not going to work... by hendrikboom · 2012-01-11 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, of course. That was the context I was writing in.
  Thanks for the clarification.
69. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Replace Linux with Android...
  Fuck you...
70. Re:Not going to work... by the+linux+geek · 2012-01-11 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I never said that ARM would run x86 software, which is what your links dispute. I merely said that ARM would support the traditional desktop UI, as has been demo'd and stated by Microsoft repeatedly.
71. Re:Not going to work... by snadrus · 2012-01-11 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Best-Buy is selling Android 3 tablets right now with USB connections allowing Keyboard and Mouse. Alternative Office apps work, more business apps go non-IE6 web-based, and legacy goes away. Between online application purchases with rankings & the sales pitch of "Quad-core" ARMs or lower power bills, I think Android desktops have a chance as the superior, virus-free, and unified experience.
  
  --
  Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
72. Re:Not going to work... by fatphil · 2012-01-11 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say you can split the whole family of distributions into two types. Firstly, ones where the linux OS is bundled with the standard GNU or BSD style command line tools, and then everything else is entirely the freedom of the user. No standardised window manager, widget set, desktop environment, presumed dbus services, etc. I guess Gentoo and Debian fall into that category.
  
  Then there are the "we've coordinated the whole GUI for you" distributions, which covers the rest. A sub-class of these are the ones that add additional restictions such as "we've chosen your screen size for you" (Such as the Maemos).
  
  In general, in the former context, poeple view the "OS" as just being the kernel and shell. However, in the latter, in particular in the sub-class, the "OS" is viewed as including the whole GUI too.
  
  So unfortunately there's ambiguity and even equivocation in these kinds of discussions. First you need to agree what you mean by the terms before any sensible discussion can begin.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
73. Re:Not going to work... by symbolset · 2012-01-11 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  They're on display at CES. /. did a story about them. $79 for Android on a stick with FullHD, dual core, 512MB RAM.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
74. Re:Not going to work... by symbolset · 2012-01-11 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. There's over a billion Itaniums installed and people are calling it out every five minutes for "Fragmentation"? That doesn't seem likely.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
75. Re:Not going to work... by symbolset · 2012-01-11 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Point of order: Desktop PCs do not always come with a keyboard and mouse. Almost all tablets support BlueTooth versions of these devices. Sadly, you can't get the Unicomp keyboard in a bluetooth model - but there are plans out there to convert one if you're handy. The google search for that is, I believe "god's own bluetooth keyboard" (without the quotes).
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
76. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Precisely. Without legacy apps, why use Windows at all?
  Why did anyone use Android or iOS or OSX?
77. Re:Not going to work... by hitmark · 2012-01-11 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they can do like the Amiga, and set up a x86 daugherboard?
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
78. Re:Not going to work... by hendrikboom · 2012-01-12 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Lovely processor. Innovative design. I wish it had made it to the so-called desktop, i.e. Windows, which, if you recall, is the subject of this thread. But it didn't, because to run the decade-old legacy software it would have had to interpret the legacy 32-bit instruction set and be really fast at it. That's the obstacle it shares with the ARM. I don't recall the Itanium instruction set in detail, but I had the impression that the Itanium instruction set is better at emulation than most other architectures. So ARM will presumably have a tougher time of it.
79. Re:Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  You evidently haven't seen any major software which relies on performance (gaming, etc). They all use assembly for very critical things.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 15:32 · Score: 1

Did that mean (Windows 8 for ARM) and Android, or Windows 8 for (ARM and Android)?
Are you a dumb compiler that can't parse faulty english using human language skills and context analysis? Fuck off.
...but not the piece that makes PCs. by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 15:37 · Score: 3, Informative

But as it keeps trying, it may find competition on its home turf: Qualcomm, which makes many of the ARM-based chips in those smartphones and tablets, wants to make PCs, too.
The article linked to says

The company is talking with PC makers about building thin and light computers based on its Snapdragon chips, Jacobs said during a keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show.
which isn't quite the same as "Qualcomm ... wants to make PCs".
The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by CajunArson · 2012-01-10 15:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Before I being, bear in mind, the whole annoying mantra that x86 will NEVER compete with ARM in low-power applications has just been shot out of the water: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones
I've been hearing ad-nauseum about how all ARM has to do to destroy x86 in the desktop market is to flip a couple of bits and they'll have "good enough" performance while using zero-point energy that produces free power and unicorns since about 2006. In the meantime, the exact same people who say that ARM is "good enough" rip dual-core Atoms for being too slow (while the single-core Medefield I just linked to is faster than dual--core A9's in the Iphone 4S and Galaxy Nexus, while using less power).
I've also heard about how the A15 will completely blow Intel away when it finally shows up blah blah blah (I heard the exact same story about the A9 cores btw, and Intel is still in business).
What I have yet to see is ARM *really* ratchet up performance... and no, I'm not saying that they need to beat Ivy Bridge... I'm saying they need to *approximate* a mobile 1.8Ghz Core 2 from about 2006 to get that "good enough" performance. I have yet to see that chip, and for all you fanboys out there, the A15 is *not* that chip (it'll likely finally beat a single-core Atom from 2008... but remember the single-core Atom was never good enough to begin with!). Intel has closed the gap for x86... it's a done deal, and no amount of "ARM is magical" will change the laws of physics.
ARM has *NOT* closed the performance gap with x86, and when you add in all the cache, real memory controllers (not those jokes used in current ARM designs) and I/O controllers needed to do real work, your ARM chip will end up using just as much power as a competitive x86, no matter how many forums you go on to brag about the superioirity of the ARM instruction set that doesn't even do 64 bit, and which you never even write assembler for anyway.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
1. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by symbolset · 2012-01-10 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm eagerly looking forward to these devices. I have high hopes for this platform. But we need real-world samples of a production device in independent labs please. Until then we can't compare them to the shipping devices of their era, because their era has not yet begun. Intel has promised a lot of things over the years that never came to market.
  One of the things that might prevent this from coming to market is pressure on OEMs to avoid Android on x86, if they want to get Window 8 platform development assistance. The OEMs can push back since these platforms don't run Windows, but most of them would not dare.
  It will be interesting to see if Intel can get an OEM not only to promise and to develop this, but to manufacture, aggressively price and sell it.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
2. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by Haxagon · 2012-01-10 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, as noted in the internal Intel Medfield slideshow, the biggest issue there is thinness. There's a lot of hardware required to maintain that Atom, along with a battery. I'm surprised that Intel was able to get their mobile dreams realized, though. Here's hoping they pan out, I suppose. You seem very defensive, though. Calm down, the only thing to do in this case is wait for products with Intel chips to come to market.
3. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by Required+Snark · 2012-01-10 16:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Starting your argument by referring to the opposing opinion as "fanboys" does not help your position, it weakens it.
  There are market and structural forces that are driving x86 and ARM into competition. First, because of smart phones, ARM has a huge installed base. No matter what Anandtech says, I don't see a lot of x86 pushback in that area. Ignoring technical considerations, ARM has won that battle, just the same way that x86 won the desktop/laptop battle. (Note the use of past tense.)
  Another important component is the number of players in the x86 vs. ARM competition. For x86 there is Intel, AMD and VIA. Any others are truly niche players. Even though ARM manufacturers all are licensed, the range of products and room for innovation is far greater in the ARM world because of the shear number of vendors. To succeed with an ARM product you have to stand out from the crowd, so innovation and price/performance are required to just stay in business. Even if a big player fails that will not change the dynamic.
  So x86 "fanboys" should be happy about the ARM, because without the competition Intel would do what all other monopolies do: build products that are overly expensive, poorly performing, have built in obsolesce, and insure lock in, i.e. Microsoft. If it were not for ARM, it is very unlikely that the Intel ATOM would even exist. AMD is having trouble eve breathing, and VIA is small change. Without competition from ARM the x86 will die a slow death.
  So smart phone and tablet manufacturers want to expand their market. One way is to expand the low end, and the other way is to invade the high end. It is inevitable that both will happen. Therefor ARM based products will end up competing with x86 products, and they will have success. The only question is when it will happen and how much market share they will take.
  Microsoft has figured this out, because Windows 8 will do both. In this case I think they know what they are doing, even if they usually have their head in the sand. As long as ARM Windows 8 supports the core Microsoft apps, for a huge fraction of the customer base it makes no different what CPU they have. And there will be Windows 8 ARM hardware that says "Intel Inside". They can't afford to give up on that part of the market.
  It's not about "fanboys". At some level, it is not even about technology. It is about market forces.
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
4. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by 0123456 · 2012-01-10 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  In the meantime, the exact same people who say that ARM is "good enough" rip dual-core Atoms for being too slow (while the single-core Medefield I just linked to is faster than dual--core A9's in the Iphone 4S and Galaxy Nexus, while using less power).
  I don't know about the new ones, but older dual-core Atoms can't play HD H.264 without dropping frames. The dual-core 200MHz ARMs I worked with a few years ago could do that, because they also had some hardware decoding assist built in.
  What does the average user do on a PC these days that an ARM can't do just as well? My i5 laptop is much more powerful than an ARM, but spends most of its time idle... and when I do something complex like playing H.264 video it hands off most of the work to the GPU.
  Now, I do CPU-intensive work on the laptop, which is why I wanted an i5. But if you just browse the web and play the occasional video then an ARM with video assist hardware is plenty fast enough. An Atom without video assist hardware is not.
  (And before anyone accuses me of begin an ARM fanboy, I have three Atom systems here which are all fine for what they're used for... but the only one which does play HD video is the one which offloads the work to the Nvidia GPU)
5. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-10 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't GP's link to AnandTech review precisely this kind of independent testing? Sure, it's a reference device, not a production one, but provided it's the same size and weight, what's the difference?
6. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by symbolset · 2012-01-10 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  It matters. And the review is not to AnandTech's usual rigorous and respectable standards. Like I said, we've seen a lot of these reference designs over the years and been disappointed when they didn't come to market, or were hidden under a rock. If Intel can't get anybody to make the thing then it does not matter how good it is. Intel is not designing this stuff for their own amusement.
  I want to believe. Show me.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
7. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by GreatBunzinni · 2012-01-10 17:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  First of all, this Intel Medfield thing is, at this point, nothing more than a publicity stunt, specially its power consumption. To put it in perspective, Intel's only official statement with vaguely objective numbers puts Intel Medfield with a power usage of over 2W. This isn't particularly bad when compared to Intel's previous offering.
  Yet, once you compare it with today's ARM-based products, it still can't compete. Let me explain.
  If you put it in perspective with today's real world ARM-based systems, you will see that they all have a less than 1W power usage. You can check link which you provided to AnandTech's article on Intel Medfield to learn that. So, this might not appear much, but it demonstrates that Intel Medfield is a power hog that drains at idle at best over 2x the power required by ARM systems at peak demand. Intel's official figures puts Intel Medfield with a idle power usage at around 2.3 Watts. With ARM-based systems, the idle power is at worse around 40mW. That is, according to Intel's marketing department, Intel Medfield uses 60x the power that ARM-based systems use at idle. Is that what you describe as shooting a claim "out of the water"?
  Then you go on boasting Intel Medfield's performance. Yet, what you don't understand is that synthetic benchmarks don't matter in the real world. All that matters is that a computer is able to perform some task with an acceptable level of performance. So, a user may not notice any performance difference between two systems whose WhateverMark is over 200% apart. Why would it matters if a system is able to play three or five concurrent HD video streams if a lower-spec system is quite able to play only one HD video stream? After a certain point, performance is irrelevant, as Intel's Atom line demonstrates.
  So, knowing that Intel Medfield's computational power is irrelevant and knowing that Intel Medfield's future best-case propaganda power requirements are huge when compared with today's ARM products, why exactly are you claiming that Intel's tomorrow showcase product even competes with yesterday's ARM systems?
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
8. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-10 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  We'll see once K800 comes out - which should be soon enough.
9. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  Woah, slow down buddy. No need to get so bent out of shape. ARM probably isn't going to kill Intel, but I don't think Intel is going to make serious roads into the mobile space either.
  Intel's comparison of their unreleased chip against existing chips, one of which is almost a year old at this point, is a little disingenuous. By the time Medfield ships, newer, faster ARM chips will be out and it seems unlikely that Intel will have such a large advantage. Also, new ARM chips will either be manufactured on a 32 or 28 nm process which should bring the power usage down as well. They also face the challenge of app compatibility. There probably won't be a problem with all apps, but any ARM-specific code either won't run or will need to be translated to Intel instructions, degrading performance.
  Consumers aren't going to be happy if their favorite app no longer works and developers may not care about adding support, especially if the number of devices is small. Interestingly enough, this is about the same reason why ARM isn't going to quickly break into Intel's market. Neither company has a presence in the other's space and getting there is going to be a pain in the ass. That said, if the endeavor to gain a foothold motivates each company to produce better products who am I to complain?
10. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by symbolset · 2012-01-10 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not just being mean. I really do have high hopes. I submitted the LG phone article, but it was rejected - probably for "too early".
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
11. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-10 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  the problem with x86 is it banks all its performance on multi-core, which is pointless and wasteful for most desktop apps. i have an i7 and most of the time 5 of the 7 cores are idling, but the program that is chewing up 100% of one core is slow as shit.
  
  What I have yet to see is Intel *really* ratchet up performance - per core. Having multi-core is only great for apps designed for them, but most programs aren't multi-threaded in any useful way to take advantage of them. what good is performance if its only a benchmark figure? if my computer doesn't boot quicker and/or my programs don't run faster, then as far as the user is concerned there is no increase in performance.
  
  I'm no arm fanboi (i prefer avr or stm), but there is a lot of crap that you need for microprocessors that takes up valuable space on a mainboard, and its not so much the devices themselves but the interconnects between them.
  
  microcontrollers will eventually rule the world over microprocessors not because of performance, but their integration.
  
  eventually you will do much of the stuff you currently do with a pc on your television, and all the stuff in the box (mainboard, etc) will be incorporated into your tv or a/v receiver (they already connect to a lot of things and include things like wifi). intel won't survive this trend if they keep pursuing performance alone (they will be limited to niche high performance markets between supercomputers and microcontrollers).
12. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by jawtheshark · 2012-01-10 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  i have an i7 and most of the time 5 of the 7 cores are idling
  You have a very weird i7. There are two types of i7s, namely dual-cores and quad-cores. I know what you're going to say: "But, but, I see 8 CPU graphs in my task manager". That is called "Hyperthreading" and definitely aren't real cores, just extra instruction queues. Back in the P-IV days (when Intel started using it, the hyperthreading technique is older), you had one core and a second queue. On a hyperthreaded CPU it is (nearly?) impossible to get a situation in where all queues are filled up (that would be 100% on each "CPU").
  So, assuming, you have a 4 core i7 (Not an 7 core), and 3 of them are used, you are actually using the CPU quite a bit more than you thought.
  Finally, you come out with the old canard that applications aren't written for multi-core CPUs. In a sense that's true, because many problems aren't parallelizable and worse, may problems (especially on a desktop) are I/O bound. At the point of this writing, my CPU is waiting for me, because I'm typing and I'm slow in comparison to my computers CPU. You also neglecht completely that your operating system is optimized for multiple cores and it does make sure different applications get used on different cores. According to ps, I have 176 processes. Most of them are waiting for input, but if one does need to to some heavy lifting, it gets it and I have a second core (as I'm typing this one a Core 2 Duo) to do my quaint slow things. Given many many processes (on all modern operating systems) run in background, the advantage of many cores is evident.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
13. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-10 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  whether you call them cores or instruction queues or cowbells doesn't really matter that much. according to the article you linked, seven "logical" processors appear to the host operating system, and i don't think this semantics confuses the intent of what i was trying to originally get across.
  
  at the end of the day, the user is tricked into thinking their computer is faster than it actually is because much of the resources is inaccessible to a single process (hence most of the grunt in the processor is wasted in idle).
  
  your operating system is optimized for multiple cores
  that's fine. multi-threading has been around for a long time, but i don't "use" an operating system (humans don't even really multi-task that much on a computer beyond listening to music while using something else - having multiple windows open isn't really human multi-tasking, and doesn't require significant processor grunt). processor grunt only counts for applications that are processor-intensive. without finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, 3D modeling/CAD, early games (most are GPU-driven now) etc, Intel wouldn't have a market at all. nobody needs a 3GHz+ processor to play freecell (even if they had 100 instances of it running at once because you can only actually "use" one at a time).
  
  I think you're basically saying that hyper threading is a crock of shit, and I agree with that.
  
  It's weird that you seem to start criticizing my "old canard" that applications aren't written for multi-core CPUs, and then you proceed to agree with it. Obviously a multi-tasking operating system is designed to create a new thread for each process, but its not common to run multiple processor-intensive applications at the same time. I might have CAD, 3D modeling, FEA, Access, etc, all open at the same time but as you eluded each of these are idle the majority of the time while waiting for user input.
  
  thanks for the terminology correction. i do normally like to try get things like that right.
14. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by jawtheshark · 2012-01-10 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Let's say that the main problem I had was with "7 cores".... That's what prompted my reaction. If you'd have said 8, I'd shrug it off as another person not getting hyperthreading. What you have is 4 "real" cores, and 8 "logical" cores. I don't see where your idea of "7 cores" come from except from the stupid "Core i7" naming.
  Thing is: the operating system alleviates the fact that many tasks are not parallelizable. The fact that they are idle is not a problem. Modern processors will be saving energy at that time, while still having enough oompha when needed. That is a "good thing". The inevitable car analogy: if you have a Porsche, you are rarely to never using the full 300++HP engine, normal cruising uses 20HP at cruising speeds. Yes, 20HP. Doesn't mean those remaining 280++HP aren't useful.
  If your computer is at a load of 8.0 (in Linux terminology, one process on each logical core at all times) at all times you have a problem. You need a quicker CP or more cores, depending on the task at hand.
  Personally, my main desktop is an Atom D525 and load is between 0.4 and 1.5. Given it has 4 logical CPUs (that darned Hyperthreading again), it still isn't maxed out. I am, however, fully aware that I will hit a performance wall if I'd suddenly decided to do stuff that this CPU is not made for.... like CAD.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
15. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by julesh · 2012-01-10 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  while the single-core Medefield I just linked to is faster than dual--core A9's in the Iphone 4S and Galaxy Nexus, while using less power
  Both of the benchmarks they ran are single-threaded, so you can only say that it's faster than a single core of those processors.
16. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by gl4ss · 2012-01-11 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  arm's huge installed base is not compatible with each other at all... the os side there is just so fragmented and so are their chips.
  yes, windows8 "will do both" but that's just _lying_. but that's like saying that windows phone could be run on medfields because there's no native code for the user programs. saying that windows8 will do both is exactly the same as saying that windows 7 does both because windows phone 7 runs on arm - it's just branding them under the same umbrella - if it doesn't run counter strike IT'S NOT FUCKING DESKTOP WINDOWS. and what's it worth, windows has done "both" in the form of windows ce for a looong, loooong time now. and x86 market has competition regardless of arm, ever since amd got k6-2 into the game and even more furious competition after that.
  apple might be the company to really bring arm to desktop. because frankly they don't seem to really give a shit about pushing the performance envelope at all, as long as safari renders pages choppily and itunes runs they think it's golden.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
17. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-11 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Let's say that the main problem I had was with "7 cores"....
  fair call. the 7 core thing was probably because i'm typing this at home rather than at work where the i7 actually is. i keep an eye on the task manager when using autodesk inventor for assemblies with 10,000+ parts in them because i'm interested to know why things are slow, but its actually more to keep an eye on memory usage (had to upgrade recently to 16 Gb because it was beginning to page to the hard disk at 12 Gb).
  
  if the OS could somehow parallelize the opening of 10,000+ part files so that Inventor is more responsive, then great. but it's really up to Autodesk to multi-thread Inventor more, not the OS vendor. it's also limited by hdd access speeds, fsb speeds, etc.
  
  you might say that having multiple cores is great because the OS runs those 160 odd processes in your task manager in parallel, but if you look in task manager, pretty much all those processes aren't using the processor at all, with the idle process using 99%+ of the processor most of the time, so it would work just as well with one core.
  
  to use your porche analogy, if you are limited to legally driving at 100 km/h or 110 km/h (which you are in Australia) then buying a porche that can do anything higher is a retarded waste of money if you only bought it to go fast. if you needed lots of power for towing a semi-trailer, then you would be retarded for buying a porche but for different reasons. if you buy a porche because you think they make you look awesome, you need your head checked, but anyway...
  
  if i had the choice of getting a single core CPU running at 6 GHz or a 4 core CPU with each core running at 3 GHz, I would go for the single core every time, because even though there is more cumulative grunt in the quad, i can't access that grunt where i need it so much of it is wasted (like buying a family size pizza when you can only eat a small).
  
  and so i'm still waiting for that 6 GHz core... hint hint Intel (where's that darned Moore when you need him?)
18. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-11 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  although even with a 6 GHz CPU, the bottlenecks would be in FSB and HDD access etc, so I guess one is rather pointless without the other
  
  sigh
19. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-11 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  and hence the reason why microcontrollers will win out, because when a 6 GHz micro comes out (eventually), everything else will be designed around it, except maybe the HDD access problem, but connection between north and south bridges, memory etc will obviously be increased because they are on the same die and you're less affected by voltage drops across lengthy copper tracks
20. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by jawtheshark · 2012-01-11 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Truly said like someone who never drove a sports car. It has other advantages, and they are not in top speed... But whatever, you are entitled to your opinion.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
21. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by jawtheshark · 2012-01-11 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  I forgot to say: you just want back the single-core machines because you forgot how it was before. Personally, I jumped on the "multiple core" bandwagon in 2003, before any dual cores were even on the radar (at least in the x86 world). I bought myself a (real) SMP machine. It was a revelation, as you could finally do something else while one of your cores was pegged. Sure, if you have a single task, doing a single thing and you don't care that you can barely do anything else, then indeed single core is the way to go. Usually, that's not the case, at least not for me. I'd always prefer dual-core over single. Now, the argument for more than two cores is weaker, but I don't even own machines with more than two cores. Well, okay, I have a quad i7, but I don't use it. My nettop does the job just fine.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
22. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by symbolset · 2012-01-11 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think this was intended to be a fun play on "Android Army," which has been a common term for a while. "Android Nation" is more like it these days, as the headcount trends to exceed the US population by May.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
23. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by symbolset · 2012-01-11 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the 400,000 Android applications will run just fine: they're just bytecode. No doubt Intel will have their own Atom Zone like nVidia has their Tegra Zone, with full dev kits for native code and drivers for their special parts, and killer apps for free or sale that leverage these. Because that's a clever idea. And of course they'll run right over to Tegra Zone, build an app list, and dispatch the crews to negotiate with the developers for whatever it takes to get a port to their platform (prerelease hardware, on-call support engineers with highest level access, coding assistance, marketing and financial incentives...) - because Intel knows that a couple killer apps go a long way.
  Who's in a bad way is the OEMs that try to start from scratch without that 400,000 app non-native code ecosystem on WoA.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
24. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-11 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  two cores would be fine, but for most people one of those could be clocked at maybe a couple of GHz at the most.
  
  there wouldn't be too many people requiring two or more high performance CPUs simultaneously for more than a few seconds at a time
  
  i remember what is what like before: software running on single core machines was about as slow as their equivalents today, because their current equivalents are more bloated and inefficient than their predecessors (more useless libraries, features and eyecandy, as well as programming laziness and commercial lack of interest in producing quality software if they can sell buggy versions and let the consumer find the bugs for them). maybe not generally, but for me this was the case. i've never personally had the need for multi core, but i have one because they are the norm - i have an amd dual core at home. i run debian with conky on a gnome desktop, and i can see core usage on two fluctuating bars and at most only one ever peaks at 100% at a time.
  
  it would be more efficient to run most things on a low performance core, and high load tasks (the active program) operating on a separate high speed core. even multi-tasking operating systems only have one task "active" at a time. there are cases where you might be doing a couple of hard disk searches simultaneously, but having two bleeding edge cores at 100% are still going to butt up against front side bus blockages (or HDD transfer rate limitations), and better programming features like indexing in RAM are probably better solutions to these problems than throwing more CPU grunt at them anyway (RAM is often another wasted feature of modern PCs, even with Windows' prefetch/readyboost).
25. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by crutchy · 2012-01-11 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  It has other advantages, and they are not in top speed
  i would have been interested to hear some of them
  
  if i was going to blow a heap of money on a car, i would personally go for something a little more comfortable and easy to drive.
  
  i'm not much of a luxury car expert, but maybe a bentley (imho)
26. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by jawtheshark · 2012-01-11 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Better control, acceleration ... and oddly enough comfort is another one, but comfort is highly subjective. I strongly prefer a hard drive over soft and cushy.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Re:i hope CNBC falls back in love with them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 15:54 · Score: 0

Kind of like every time Bush spoke, out came "nukular."
Re:i hope CNBC falls back in love with them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 16:02 · Score: 0, Funny

ur mum's face is stagnated.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're an idiot.

you're completely pathetic.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

MichaelKristopeit = stagnated
2012? by Haxagon · 2012-01-10 16:02 · Score: 1

The year of the WINE desktop!
I want to make one too by dontgetshocked · 2012-01-10 16:20 · Score: 1

Where can I sign up to start making them myself?
2012 will be the year of the ... by Locutus · 2012-01-10 16:33 · Score: 1

Windows on ARM PC and we can't forget the year of Linux on the desktop. Yeah, right.

Qualcomm folks must be smoke'n something good to think Windows on ARM is going to be worth a hill of beans. It'll probably be just as good as Windows on the OLPC XO was, at best.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
1. Re:2012 will be the year of the ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, I think it's the pundit writing the article putting the Windows 8 line of thought in there. Qualcomm's all about selling chip tech, ranging from CDMA and LTE to the actual SoC's that you see in the phones and tablets. It should be noted that Qualcomm was one of the original players in Android and other mobile Linux variants- and is one of the larger players in this space, even if you know little about what they're doing at this time.
2. Re:2012 will be the year of the ... by Locutus · 2012-01-11 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  sure and then why did Paul Jacobs say that Snapdragon would allow PC makers to produce “the lightest, thinnest PCs,” at his CES keynote and specifically mention Windows 8?
  
  I would not doubt the ignorant press pundits are putting all the Windows 8 spin on things but if you've been around the tech sector for a while you also know that corporations are also run by ignorant people. ie you've seen them do things like license Java to Microsoft and think Microsoft is going to abide by it. Or sign licensing deals for Linux with Microsoft and think it's about interoperability and not a patent protection racket. Just to name a couple of obvious ones.
  
  What these pundits and corporations are missing is the fact that PC manufacturers are beholden and afraid of Microsoft and will not so anything to upset them. It was made painfully public a few years ago when the head of the Taiwanese Manufacturers Association specifically stated the members were afraid of Microsoft and that the PC was off the table for them regarding anything but Windows(ie Linux). He stated that non-PC devices were ok(phones, tablets, embedded).
  
  Besides, Microsoft will not want laptop or even netbooks running Windows 8 on ARM until they know their MS app store is fully loaded and people know what Metro is and that Windows applications will not install on a Windows for ARM PC. They would be foolish to let the public get that confused and no doubt the press would be even more confused. Windows 8 for ARM will most likely be all about tablets and phones for the short term.
  
  I would not doubt Mr Jacobs has already heard from Microsoft regarding his error.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
They can't even duck thrown chairs yet by fragMasterFlash · 2012-01-10 16:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Given the rumors surrounding how poorly Windows 8 is running on Qualcomm silicon I wouldn't bet on them doubling down on microsoft products anytime soon.
1. Re:They can't even duck thrown chairs yet by Required+Snark · 2012-01-10 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  I read the article: it's only a rumor that Balmer flipped out over poor performance on a Qualcom Windows 8 prototype system. No actual facts are apparent.
  Windows 8 is only in an early state. Qualcom and Microsoft are both very motivated to expend resources to make this happen. Between the two of them, they can make it happen. It might be late and over budget, but it will happen.
  I despise Windows software as much as any Unix/MacOS geek, but I can be objective. This will happen. It might die for other reasons. but both companies have extremely strong motivation for seeing this is the market place. Badmouthing based on rumors is a waste of bandwidth.
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
2. Re:They can't even duck thrown chairs yet by rahvin112 · 2012-01-11 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Early? Were in beta right now. It's supposed to be released in May of 2012, that's 4 months away if you can't count. It's not early, at 4 months to release they aren't changing anything but bugs at this point. Performance is a pretty fixed metric at this point.
Online apps by sgunhouse · 2012-01-10 17:10 · Score: 2

With even Microsoft's emphasis on online apps these days, it shouldn't matter what processor a system has. They made their bed, I guess they can lie in it.
As far as emulators, everyone recalls the PC emulators available for the PPC Macs. They did work, but the system they were emulating was slow by standards of the time. You could in principle emulate any processor on any other processor - but would it be worthwhile?
1. Re:Online apps by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-10 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  As far as emulators, everyone recalls the PC emulators available for the PPC Macs. They did work, but the system they were emulating was slow by standards of the time. You could in principle emulate any processor on any other processor - but would it be worthwhile?
  Rosetta didn't suck too badly - it ran Quicken 2007 adequately on my MacBook Pro. ("Ran" because I dumped it in favor of Quicken Lite^WEssentials when Q2007 couldn't manage to avoid corrupting one of my credit card accounts.) Unlike the PC emulators, it didn't have to implement the raw hardware - it just had to run usermode code, and it translated system call arguments and results. Dunno how hard it'd be to translate x86 machine code to ARM machine code; if I remember correctly, ARM processors aren't guaranteed to support unaligned accesses, so sufficiently-safe translations of x86 memory-reference instructions might be complicated code sequences. (I'd look it up, but the fine folks at ARM have decided to make their instruction set architecture manuals only "available in [PDF versions] to registered ARM customers". Intel are a bit nicer, as are AMD.)
2. Re:Online apps by gnasher719 · 2012-01-11 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  ARM processors aren't guaranteed to support unaligned accesses, so sufficiently-safe translations of x86 memory-reference instructions might be complicated code sequences.
  
  About three instructions to perform a 32 bit load from an arbitrary address vs. one instruction if you know it is aligned. Store will be a bit more. On an iPhone for example, you can tell the compiler that a 32 bit integer is (potentially) unaligned and it will use three instructions, if you don't tell it but it _is_ in fact unaligned, then you get an exception, and the OS fixes it, taking several hundred cycles.
Not enough screen space was intel's fault by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 17:49 · Score: 1

The limited screen space on netbooks was intel's fault. Basically intel restricted the "netbook" to 1024x600 resolution to avoid cannablizing their high-margin "notebook" market. It wouldn't sell atom processors to vendors that violated this restriction and actively discouraged any atom processors w/o their own integrated graphics (by pricing the stand alone atom processors more than the combination chipset package which required signing the "netbook" restriction agreement). Although intel got dinged for this anti-trust behavior, it was basically too late for the netbook market.
1. Re:Not enough screen space was intel's fault by c0lo · 2012-01-10 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Mmmmh! Maybe...
  * as the owner of one of the first Eee700, I can tell that 800x480 is just awful for anything but Skype.
  * I can see later models of eeePc featured a 1366x768 resolution. Where they on an AMD cpu?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Not enough screen space was intel's fault by Socialism+is+win! · 2012-01-10 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  When the revolution has been prosecuted, all CPUs will be approved by The People's Committee for Maximum Computing Morality. The People will not be denied the products they want at the price they are willing to pay!
  
  --
  You say potato, I say produce of The People's Collective Farm
Great for Linux folks by Malvineous · 2012-01-10 17:56 · Score: 2

Given that I already run Linux on non-x86 architectures I've long awaited for an alternative CPU to use in my desktop PC. x86 has a lot of baggage from the need to be backwards compatible with an architecture developed in the 1980s, so scrapping all that and reusing the transistors for something more performance oriented would be fine with me.
1. Re:Great for Linux folks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  By "performance oriented", do you mean "more efficient", or are you saying that Arm bests x86 FLOP-wise?
  Personally, when I upgrade to a new system, it is generally because my "hot" system is no longer fast enough (by relative market standards), and it's the higher end I'm aiming for when I dust off my wallet. The old stuff gets relegated to low-performance duty, or donated. But my perception of Arm-based systems is that they are there to provide the bare minimum CPU power necessary to function as hardware-makers/media-giants want them to function, and no more. I mean, if Arm increases the general-ness of the general computing and does it with more efficient logic, I welcome the competition, but if all we're getting is a reduced instruction set and integrated hardware restrictions, there's very little appeal to any proponent of general computing.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by crutchy · 2012-01-10 18:28 · Score: 1

probably a windows 8 user
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-10 18:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

It doesn't matter as that turkey is gonna bomb so hard it'll finally make MSFT Bob look good!
Think about it friends, the way to know a thing is to understand it, now why do people buy Windows machines? Why to run WINDOWS programs of course! And guess what don't run on ARM? The 25 damned years worth of X86 Windows programs that everybody buys fricking windows for in the first place!
I can tell you what is gonna happen because i saw a dry run of it last Xmas, a local merchant was selling "Windows tablets!" and it looked like XP, but had in the corner a little "Compact Edition" label. Do you think ANYBODY knew what the fuck that meant? Hell no, they can't keep up with all the Windows versions anyway! So many bought the things and took them home, tried them and when they found they wouldn't actually run WINDOWS programs on a "Windows Tablet" they were brought back EN MASSE. The merchant ended up having to stick a sticker over the Windows part and sell them for a loss as a generic tablet.
And THAT dear children is what is gonna happen with Windows 8, Ballmer is trying to force a cell phone OS onto the desktop which doesn't have touch screens for 99.5% of the units being sold and at the same time fool developers into thinking "Hey if I write for Win 8 i can sell anywhere!" which of course is complete horseshit as X86 and ARM devices are about as different as mopeds and semi trucks. one you have to be ultra light and give a shit about resources, the other? Meh they got multicores and assloads of RAM anyway right?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Ballmer is hated enough by the engineers they are gonna let the sweaty monkey hang himself by his own stupid ideas, otherwise somebody would have called captain obvious to save the day. Everyone knows since he has been CEO its been one clusterfuck after another with only the fact they brought in the office guys to gut Vista and rebuild it from the ground up into a decent OS keeping them from back to back flops. I mean look at his track record, rushing X360 with a fatal flaw costing billions, Zune, killing playsforsure for Zune market, kin, WinPhone looks to be another WinMo flop, hell i could probably go on all day. Any company that is stupid enough to waste resources on Windows 8 development deserves to fail. the smart money says everyone sticks with Win 7 which will hopefully get the monkey FIRED and bring in someone like Ozzie that has a brain. Lets face it if he wasn't billy's little buddy he'd already be shitcanned, he's cost them dump trucks worth of money trying to be Apple.
Final prediction? Win 8 total flop, win 7 sells like mad as people scramble to keep from getting stuck with win 8, OEMs demand downgrade rights to 7, Ballmer fired. The last one not a sure bet if Billy gets involved but surely another Vista flop will have the board revolt.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:...but not the weight that makes PCs. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 18:57 · Score: 0

The "thick and heavy" market is already cornered.
HTPC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 19:09 · Score: 1

I was just going to comment but then I noticed "PC" is the laptop. So PC is the multi-purpose "tool" used for something else than browsing and email? It can't be a a laptop as laptops don't usually have the muscle (it's possible but with $$$). So usually that leaves the desktop because we don't need mini computers in the modern era.
The thing I was going to comment was: How well this supports HTPC configuration, i.e. RAID (for storing big amounts of data), TV cards and 1080p HDMI. I guess badly as RAID is the "server" component, TV cards are the "desktop" component and 1080p movies are not really the most common use case.
ARM suffers from the same problem every risc has by luminousone11 · 2012-01-10 19:17 · Score: 1

Every RISC cpu is great for a particular level of complexity. And ARM is great for in order, no speculation, no branch prediction, ultra power sipping designs. Through smart use of their instruction set they have made themselves great for ultra low power, low IPC, low frequency platforms. ARM for a PC misses the point of why x86 has been successful, its easy to tack crap on the side without resolving to use of "co-processors", and the less commonly thought about advantage of x86 the fact that x86 instruction code is basically a hardware interpreted byte code at this point. No modern x86 actually runs x86 is breaks it down or decodes it into a RISC setup that is suited to the particular level of complexity of the current generation/transister count/die shrunkenness/frequency. If anyone truly cared to replace x86 they would design a fixed width CISC instruction set chip where the instructions are purposely designed to be a little higher level then risc and layed out in a way thats easy to decode into whatever the chip is actually doing the work in, so that when the next generation of chips come out you don't have to throw the whole thing out and start over like RISC has continually done over the ages.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by mcrbids · 2012-01-10 19:24 · Score: 2

You know what? This makes sense. I wish I had mod points.
Microsoft is right now locking horns with the "innovator's dilemma" and are fighting hard to avoid it. A new computing platform has emerged, the mobile market, and despite having a 10 year lead on it, Microsoft managed to miss the boat so badly that they make more money on patent licensing on their competitor's product (Android) than on sales of their own.
Windows 8 is their attempt to merge their Desktop environment (their strength) with the mobile market. (their complete failure after too many attempts to name)
Can they do it? Dunno. But realize that there was a time when Microsoft was the "Android" and IBM with its *nix mainframes was the "desktop". IBM mainframes still own their respective marketplace, and IBM is still a massive technology provider.
Android won't destroy Windows anymore than Windows destroyed *nix. It may take Microsoft a while to realize this.

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Retards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 19:37 · Score: 0

It's about decreasing the monopoly x86 has had on the desktop and laptop scene for decades, and its not targeted at the masses anyone who thinks that they are going to move soley to ARM is a fucking retard. Another reason is to have an alternative to x86 its been 20 years and they have yet to change the architecture for the better(x86_64 doesn't count they simply added the ability to support more ram). having ran linux on non-x86 arch's(specifically arm and ppc) I prefer them over x86 and would like to have the option to not use x86. No you aren't going to be able to run all of your applications immediately that shit has to be ported first so quit bitching. The biggest difference in the two architectures is the amount of time that was spent in learning about them(referring to software devs) simply put all of your shit is on x86 because thats been the favored arch for so long, hopefully this go round they won't put all their eggs in the same god damn basket.
That may be changing... by brucmack · 2012-01-10 20:29 · Score: 1

It looks like Intel's new Atom SoC is going to be given a shot in the smartphone space: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones.
1. Re:That may be changing... by Svartalf · 2012-01-11 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, probably more along the lines of business tablets that need X86 and some warped version of Windows. Medfield allegedly has an idle power that is 2-2.5 times higher than the peak for a dual-core A9 configuration typically used in phones. If that's really the case, it's going suck seriously with only about a 2-4 max idle lifespan for the devices using them.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
FP by Hognoxious · 2012-01-10 22:15 · Score: 2

Why would a lawnmower manufacturer want to make PCs?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:FP by weirdo557 · 2012-01-11 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  because they're familiar with cutting-edge technology *rimshot*
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-10 22:56 · Score: 1

The problem is that under gates MSFT knew what they were, they were a consumer and business OS manufacturer. But then here came Ballmer and his entire strategy, if you can call it that, as CEO has been "What's Apple doing? Ohh me too!" and its been a disaster. if he wants to go after the consumer market on mobile he needs to split that group off from the core OS and office group so they can innovate without being tied to selling Windows and Office.
I mean have you TRIED windows 8? you really should as its very revealing, it totally sucks ass on anything that isn't a touchscreen! Its a fricking WinPhone desktop! So what you have is a desktop designed for an interface 99% of their customers WON'T have so that's a massive fail, they are porting it to an arch that is the EXACT opposite of X86 which means all their software, the ONLY thing that gives Windows a lock on the desktop, is completely gone, and finally just to really fuck up their market they are calling BOTH the X86 AND the ARM versions the same damned thing! Now how in the fuck is the average windows consumer, who doesn't know a CPU from a HDD, gonna know which one runs what? Answer, they won't which is why this is gonna be a fail of truly titanic proportions folks.
If I didn't know better I'd swear apple had snuck in a ringer as this is gonna torpedo Windows sales better than anything they could dream of! people WILL be afraid to buy it after their friends tell them horror stories about "ZOMFG I bought Windows and it wouldn't run Windows stuff ZOMFG!" and for business tying a boat anchor to the entire OS by adding a ton of little always running "craplets" as i call them will be right out not to mention since the whole thing is tied into IE you might as well call it the second coming of ActiveX so they'll be staying on win 7, this is gonna make their stock nosedive and make the OEMs so pissed you mark my words they'll DEMAND downgrade rights and it'll be Vista all over again!
But if this braindead idea isn't proof that MSFT needs a new CEO badly i don't know what is, I mean how damned obvious does the stench of failure have to be before Ballmer gets a whiff? Who in the hell thinks having a version of Windows called Windows that doesn't actually run programs for Windows is a smart idea? The saddest part is Ballmer thinks developers are so retarded they will fall for it and write all these apps for Win 8 after ignoring WinPhone and WinMo, BWA HA HA HA HA developers aren't that stupid and they'll just ignore this like WinPhone and keeping writing for droid and iOS, so its all for nothing! They are gonna blow all that money for absolutely fricking nothing!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:i hope CNBC falls back in love with them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 23:39 · Score: 0

I'm afraid of your tiny penis. It looks like a turtle and it creeps me out.
Put on some damn pants you nutjob.
Re:ARM suffers from the same problem every risc ha by pjc50 · 2012-01-10 23:53 · Score: 1

"No branch prediction" is completely false for modern ARM processors:
http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a8.php
Re:ARM suffers from the same problem every risc ha by julesh · 2012-01-11 00:05 · Score: 1

And ARM is great for in order, no speculation, no branch prediction, ultra power sipping designs.
The Cortex A9 core is dual-issue, out-of-order, speculative, and uses 2-level dynamic branch prediction. This doesn't seem to have adversely effected its power consumption in relation to previous designs, and it doesn't appear that the instruction set has made this difficult for them to implement.
Your post demands "suspension of disbelief" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 00:14 · Score: 0

The beginning bullshit makes me laugh & per my subject-line above is why with you opening like this:

"Starting your argument by referring to the opposing opinion as "fanboys" does not help your position, it weakens it." - by Required Snark (1702878) on Tuesday January 10, @11:32PM (#38660200)
Who the F are you & who do you *think* you are? The "expert"?? I know not.
Classic 'suspension of disbelief' is required to even go on reading your utter crap!
That's where you go wrong!
Starting with that line of complete BULLSHIT on your part makes me laugh, & demands "suspension of disbelief" because you're no expert on the subject @ hand. Far from it.
(Acting as if "your words are God's" (they're clearly not, especially with your "market forces" bullshit next)).

"It's not about "fanboys". At some level, it is not even about technology. It is about market forces." - by Required Snark (1702878) on Tuesday January 10, @11:32PM (#38660200)
Hate to tell you this, but YOU NEED A CLUE: Markets are driven by demand, & what helps create it? Word of mouth from users, and yes, fanboys out online.
The same fanboys get word-of-mouth out and reviewers do the rest.
End users use the internet to get such word-of-mouth & reviews. That helps drive demand, which in turn, is the "main motor" of markets - giving people what they want, but making them pay for it = profit.
1. Re:Your post demands "suspension of disbelief" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  I smell APK...
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 00:17 · Score: 0

I can think of one success story for Windows 8 and that is if they manage to merge Windows Phone into it and have it become a common system across all platforms.
If Intel manage to get the power requirement and heat generation of their x86 chips down a little bit more (even at the expense of some performance) then I can imagine windows tablets and phones that can run legacy windows applications (when connected to a keyboard and mouse and possibly a bigger screen).
I think there is a huge market for a device that you can carry anywhere which runs full Office and all of your business apps with "lite" versions that run on the Metro platform for when you are on the train, plane etc. It would be like the Motorola Atrix but with the benefit of all of the legacy windows software to back it up.
I can also totally see this as a place where Dell and HP can enter the smartphone market, as consumers are less likely to be bothered with such functionality, and business users may well be prepared to have a slightly less "sexy" device if it had the functionality instead.
MS don't seem to be mentioning this at all though, they just seem keen to make everything "Metro" which I personally think is going to be a mistake.
MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by unixisc · 2012-01-11 01:23 · Score: 1

This is absolutely right! Remember in the 90s, when Microsoft introduced NT for RISC platforms like the Alpha & MIPS, they never ported their major programs there, like Office, nor the bulk of their apps. That made the MIPS version almost a non-starter (Silocon Graphics itself gave up very quickly, and NeTpower soon abandoned MIPS for Pentiums, while DeskStation abandoned MIPS for Alphas), while Alpha struggled to emulate Windows programs on an emulation software called FX!32, which of course just eliminated the sole advantage Alphas had over Pentiums - performance. Years later, Compaq pulled the plug on it, while NEC pulled the plug on NT/MIPS.

If Microsoft had, at that time, made Windows a portable platform and ported all their apps to all their Windows platforms, it would have ensured success of Windows on all platforms, and apart from making RISC platforms popular, would have made Windows ready to fly on any platform, w/ ready apps and all that. Microsoft of course didn't, those RISC platforms failed, Windows remained an Intel only OS. In fact, given that MIPS spans a wide variety of processors - from low power to top performance used in Silicon Graphics servers, had Microsoft ported everything to that, they'd have had a platform today, which, though not ARM, would have easily run many, if not most Windows programs, and there could have been spins for all sorts of devices - tablets, phones, laptops or anything else.

But they didn't, and now, they are struggling to be in 3rd place in the tablet market - something they'd not be had they all these years ensured at least that all their own apps run on RISC. By letting their Windows on RISC die, their wounds here are pretty much self inflicted. Now, they want to re-create a Windows on RISC, but why would devs select them over Apple or Android?

If Microsoft wants Windows 8 tablets to succeed, their only way to do it is to make their tablet platform the Atom and the Fusion, and let Intel & AMD provide the target CPUs for that segment, so that they can at least get their apps to run. It will have to be something where their apps will be the same as before, except that in addition to keyboard and mouse inputs, it will recognize touchscreen inputs. Otherwise, I don't see Microsoft doing better than even RIM or WebOS (whoever ends up owning it) in this segment.

As far as Windows 8 for the desktop goes, if their resource consumption this time is less than Windows 7, that would be the only reason to switch. Also, they have to provide a way (read: tinkering w/ registry settings is not a way) to have the Windows 7 UX if one wishes - don't make it a choice b/w just Metro and the old Windows 2000 classic.
1. Re:MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by hairyfeet · 2012-01-11 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't have worked friend because unlike apple its the third parties that make or break Windows and they are all on x86. That is why MSFT has to jump through flaming hoops for compatibility, because without the third party apps Windows is dead dead dead. Sure there may be a few offices that only buy Windows to run MS Office and an IE intranet but there are a hell of a lot more running Quicken/Quickbooks, sure there may be a few home users that only run IE on their desktop but again a HELL of a lot more have "must have' third party apps, be it some game, or tool, its ALWAYS something which is why Linux can't gain traction on the desktop because of the tens of thousands of windows apps folks use every day. I can tell you working SMB and consumer that on average there is about 30 apps installed on the average Windows desktop and with the exception of Office it ain't MSFT software they are using, its everything from some picture app they got with their camera to some game they bought at Wally world, even my customer that never likes to install anything has to have his Corel and Solidworks along with a couple of video transcoders and a DVD maker app that he's had for years because for him those are "must have".
  But this is of course ignoring the elephant's corpse in the room stinking up the joint which is They are calling both ARM and x86 Win 8 "Windows 8" which somebody needs to put in a call to captain obvious because who can't see the fail there? From what has been leaked the MOST they are gonna do is put "Win 8 tablet Edition" or some such which as i illustrated with the "Windows tablet" people don't have a fucking clue what the difference between ARM and X86 is, much less know that one CPU doesn't run software written for another and frankly why should they? For 30 damned years with the exception of the niche OSes you named which were NEVER sold to the public at large "Windows is Windows" and even XP X64 had WoW compatibility layer so as far as the user was concerned it was just WinXP, no different than the other one. this is gonna cause massive confusion because people won't know which is the "safe" Windows and which is "the one that won't run shit" so when in doubt they simply won't buy at all.
  Mark my words the OEMs will see their numbers crater and will demand downgrade rights, just like they did with Vista, and people will be buying "Windows 8" machines that come with Windows 7 and a "hey if you're stupid enough to try it here's the disc' just like they did with Vista. There was a time when i had Vista discs piled up on a spindle simply from people saying "You want this shit?" and having me use their downgrade rights if they got a machine with Vista. this will be even worse because the retailers are gonna have shitloads of Win 8 ARM tablets returned en masse when the users find they got the "don't run shit' version and will take a bath on it. the ONLY ones that will make out on this deal is geeks like us, simply because we'll be able to snatch these ARM tablets up like Touchpads all over again but I doubt it'll make the OEMs very happy and MSFT stock is gonna tank. Mark my words 3 months after Win 8 is released their stock will be down a good 15%, possibly more. it'll be Vista all over again but even worse.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
2. Re:MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  This post is so dumb and wrong, I hardly know where to start.
  First of all, MS did port Office to NT/RISC, it was practically the only software that ran there. Second, RISC PCs failed mainly due to vendor politics, high price & mediocre performance, etc. and not really because of Microsoft.
  Finally, as MS has proven time-and-time-again, their problems with tablets have been mainly UI and portability. It had nothing to do with the OS not being ported to RISC. (WinCE runs on all those platforms and the tablet/mini-PC products still sucked ass.)
3. Re:MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by unixisc · 2012-01-11 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  At that time, if you recall, Microsoft was competing w/ every major ISV out there - be it w/ Money against Quicken, IE against Netscape, Office against Ami Pro and WordPerfect Office (those days, Open Office was Star Office and mainly an OS/2 app), and so on. If it suddenly started developing all its apps for, say, the MIPS, and started pushing it as the perfect Microsoft solution, other ISVs would have gone there simply b'cos they too would have wanted a part of that action. It was totally different from today, particularly since MS was the ISV that mattered. The third party apps you referred to are more often than not customized solutions developed for companies, and anyone who would have bought these would have had their share of Alpha or MIPS based apps as well.
  
  Having said all that, I agree w/ everything else you wrote above.
4. Re:MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by unixisc · 2012-01-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, all that Microsoft ever ported to RISC was Word and Excel. The things that would have benefitted most from it - Access - was never ported. Nor was PowerPoint. And you are right - that was the only software of Microsoft that was ported to it - as far as the Workstation version went. No MS Money, nothing else that would have even begun to enable anyone to demonstrate that a variety of solutions existed for it.
  
  Also, prices of these boxes varied, and was high w/ OEMs like DEC and SGI, but reasonably lower w/ other vendors such as DeskStation. I dunno about the vendor politics there, but as far as performance goes, the reason that was an issue was that nothing was ported. Expecting Alpha to run Pentium apps faster than Pentiums was unreasonable - the performance advantages that the RISC platforms promised was applicable if both platforms ran native applications. The improvements Intel made did ensure that their CPUs could run their native apps faster than anybody. However, if you had Windows apps optimized for RISC, the latter would have blown the Pentiums out of the water.
  
  Your last point is fine, but I was talking about applications, rather than the OS itself being ported to RISC platforms. If WinCE sucked, that would be true regardless of platform. But original point was that had Microsoft ported all their Windows apps to all the Windows platforms, they'd be in a much better situation in terms of apps support for things like the tablets, than they are today.
5. Re:MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by hairyfeet · 2012-01-11 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that theory is twofold: One SMBs and the other gaming which if you'll remember at that time gaming allowed a much more "bare metal' approach that those other arches either didn't allow do to thanks to their memory models or would have required major hoop jumping and in SMBs MSFT has never had a credible product to compete with Quickbooks/Quicken and they would have been screwed trying to get the bazillion and one VB apps converted to a completely different arch as VB simply wasn't written to be portable. Money competed more with Turbo Tax and other home finance software, it wasn't anywhere close to QB where a single girl (and its ALWAYS a girl, you'd think they had a union or something) could run an entire SMB from payroll to inventory to taxes, all from a single workstation, and on the home front once DOOM came out it was all over, with everyone trying to squeeze that last FPS out of the hardware and trying to convert that entire hardware/software marriage to a completely different arch would have been hell. It isn't like today where they'd have tons of exp coding for PowerPC based chips you know, all the tools, the hardware, the entire gaming ecosystem which popped up virtually overnight was based around the x86 chip.
  So I honestly don't think the outcome would have been any different as the entire ecosystem would have had to change with it and instead somebody would have come out with a better x86 and that would have been the end of that. Just look at Intel who've tried to kill x86 three times now, the last time with Itanium all it took was AMD to say "Hey we'll sell you x64 which will run all your old stuff AND let you have tons of RAM!" and Intel was screwed. if the mighty chipzilla can't get the market to change what makes you think a software vendor like MSFT could do any better?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
6. Re:MS makes Windows unworkable outside Intel by exomondo · 2012-01-11 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is absolutely right! Remember in the 90s, when Microsoft introduced NT for RISC platforms like the Alpha & MIPS, they never ported their major programs there, like Office, nor the bulk of their apps. That made the MIPS version almost a non-starter
  I don't buy that argument, MS were in heavy competition in almost all areas of desktop applications and none of those competitors saw viability in RISC platforms for their products either.
Re:ARM suffers from the same problem every risc ha by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 02:07 · Score: 0

>> And ARM is great for in order, no speculation, no branch prediction, ultra power sipping designs
All of which makes them an excellent choice for real time development, the power sipping being a bonus. However I have used a Gumstix Overo on a Tobi as my workstation on days when I have left my laptop at home and have been able to work just fine... so I fail to see the problem with an ARM based PC (if you are running Linux and a Linux user that is).
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by MightyYar · 2012-01-11 03:37 · Score: 1

Think about it friends, the way to know a thing is to understand it, now why do people buy Windows machines?
I'd answer: because that is what is installed on a $300 Dell.
The days of bringing home the office suite from work are over for most people, thanks to DRM.
I don't think ARM windows will be much of a hit with corporations, but I don't think people in general will even know the difference - they will just buy whatever is on the app store. Plus, some enterprising company will come out with an emulator. Since most of the UI won't need emulation, it might even have a chance at not sucking performance-wise.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
George M. Howell = admitted trolling asshole on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 03:54 · Score: 0

Informing others about this scumbag punk gmhowell (who thinks it's cool to harass others online, with his diabetic fatass pal tomhudson).

"I've been trolling people for 36 years. Why would I stop now? I've also never denied trolling you. Why would I?" - by gmhowell (26755) on Sunday April 17, @05:03AM (#35846218) Homepage
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2087330&cid=35846218

"I never denied trolling you" - by gmhowell (26755) on Tuesday December 14 2010, @01:55AM (#34543612) Homepage Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612
gmhowell posts journal on trolling myself, years ago now -> http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"The best thing about trolling APK?" - http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk
QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk
---
gmhowell says he will stop next below (after I got on his case) too:

"But seriously, I may stop" - by gmhowell on Thursday June 16, @09:38PM (#36470452) Attached to: The best thing about trolling APK?
and

"Hmm... Maybe oughta lay off for a while." - by gmhowell (26755) on Thursday June 16, @09:38PM (#36470452) Homepage
I took him @ his word, & then laid off on retrolling he, but?
gmhowell starts up YET again (now by AC posts only)!
Proof? Ok, this week -> http://slashdot.org/journal/276148/now-this-is-entertaining
---
gmhowell's part of the "trolltalk.com" crew (a domain tomhudson, a total scumbag troll actually keeps no less).
gmhowell hangs around with (or is just another alternate registered 'luser' guise tomhudson keeps) tomhudson, a known troll
(tomhudson = a miserable fat diabetic wreck too that can't program for shit & *thinks* she can but hasn't been noted for it in anything in publication in the realm of the computer sciences, fact)!
Example:

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

"BTW - if you're going to tell this guy to stop spamming his hosts file crap, make sure you do it anonymously" - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16 2011, @11:45AM (#35840680) Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680
---
(This "trolltalk.com" pack of weasels? Heh - They're all "scumbags of a feather that flock together")
---
gmhowell & crew from trolltalk.com also CHEAT THE MODERATION SYSTEM HERE, & others noted it also -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2236608&cid=36442386

"I do whatever amuses me at the moment. Sometimes that i
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by gl4ss · 2012-01-11 03:57 · Score: 1

it's stupid anyways. windows for arm is going to be just wp7(or 8, but the point being it's just the vm shit) for big screens. but the tech media happily ignores this as they can sell "arm is going to kill x86" stories if they do.
so it's zune for desktop. who the fuck is going to buy that? bigger screens androids will sell more units in coming years though sure, but so what, they're for different uses - I really doubt people are going to flock to them to do android _development_ on them. why would you when you can buy kickass pc's for pennies? apple will push arm increasingly as well because their new target is media consumption and lock-in-happiness instead of media creation.
the x86 windows 8 will do just fine though. it's just an update to win7 and the possibility to run metro launcher, which nobody is going to use except the windows media center guys.
if microsoft is stupid enough to brand arm-tablets and arm-ultrabook-laptops running on zune-windows as "windows 8" remains to be seen though. that would be a major, major fuck up.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
"AMD is having trouble eve breathing" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 06:22 · Score: 0

Is that why they have made 90 million profit alone over the new Fusion apus they have started selling recently ? and made it over a month ?
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 07:00 · Score: 0

Nice rant, but stupid. What will happen is this:
Windows 8 will come with a 'non-touchscreen' setting. This setting will give you a traditional Windows desktop with a few enhancements over Windows 7. They won't be particularly awesome enhancements because most of the changes to Windows 8 are obviously for touchscreen devices. It may be a little faster though since it has to run on slower hardware. If they do it right they will have a competitive tablet OS. Like Windows 7 it will still have a better UI than anything in the Linux realm.
Microsoft's lineup is looking pretty strong. They were too slow with a phone & tablet OS and Vista was mistake but they're on the right track now.
And that's it.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-11 07:01 · Score: 1

Although I agree with much of what you said, I think there are a few important points you're missing.
First, much of the demand for Windows on ARM is for servers, not consumer products. When you're running a big server farm, computation/watt is everything, and ARM is still ahead of Intel on that. And legacy apps aren't as much of an issue there. In fact, if you support nothing but a few web servers, a few databases, and Java/PHP/Python/Ruby, that's enough to open up a huge market right there. Servers are also likely to be running custom software, which the customer can compile for ARM just as easily as for Intel.
Second, don't neglect the possibilities for Android. Devices like the Asus Transformer are already starting to blur the line between tablets and laptops, just as Windows 8 aims to blur the line from the other direction. And Android has a huge base of existing software, just like Windows. It's not hard to imagine that within a couple of years, many people will consider Windows and Android equally good options for their primary computing device (and that device will be usable as a tablet, a laptop, and a desktop just by attaching or detaching an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor).

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Now scale it to the complexity of a core 2 duo! by luminousone11 · 2012-01-11 07:10 · Score: 1

Also make it 64bit, attach a SIMD instruction set that doesn't suck balls, and a standardized implementation of an MMU would be nice.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by exomondo · 2012-01-11 10:07 · Score: 1

they are porting it to an arch that is the EXACT opposite of X86 which means all their software, the ONLY thing that gives Windows a lock on the desktop, is completely gone
Except for anything Java and .Net, which run on a VM so assuming they have ARM VMs (which they do) that software will run fine, and im sure many popular vendors will recompile their native programs for ARM. I'm not saying ARM desktops are a good idea, in fact I agree with you on that and don't really see a reason why you would buy an ARM desktop over an x86 one if you're going to run Windows on it, but the software problem isn't that bad.

I find MS' strategy here interesting, they're trying to unify their desktop/laptop, tablet and phone (with WP Apollo) with .Net, whether that will work though remains to be seen, if it fails i guess ill stick to the ipad and OSX, but then even Apple seem to be hinting on unifying their platforms (particularly with the 'Launchpad' in Lion). The good thing is MS won't dump backwards compatibility quickly, with an x86 PC and Windows 8 you'll still be able to run all your programs and hopefully that will be supported for another 10 years.
Re:George M. Howell = admitted trolling asshole on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 11:35 · Score: 0

This is why /. loves APK.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 12:34 · Score: 0

Hate break this to you, but Captain Sweaty is riding this elevator all the way to the ground floor. And he's doing it on purpose.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by lsatenstein · 2012-01-12 04:43 · Score: 1

Your comments may be justified if qualcomm uses big-endian byte organization for integers, and if their format for floating point is not the same as Intels. Then, the ARM solution will pose difficulties.
Otherwise, Qualcomm and AMD will be good competition to Intel.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-12 13:40 · Score: 1

Name ONE program, just one mind you, that consumers use that is written in either .NET or JAVA. I service and sell them machines 6 days a week and I don't even bother installing either one anymore as they don't need it since AMD tossed .NET for Visual C++. I personally haven't had Java installed since 2004, never run into anything that needed it, and while I have .NET simply because Win 7 came with it there isn't a single app actually using it.
You want to know what they ARE using I'll be happy to tell ya, they are using all the programs you get on CDs at Walmart, they are using some video editing app that came with their camera, some photo app that came with their printer (usually Roxio or EasyShare) and a ton of flash gaming like Farmville. notice that NONE of those run on ARM?
What's gonna slaughter Windows 8 is calling the ARM version Windows 8 so nobody knows which is the "good" version and which is the "don't run shit" version. Mark my words its gonna be WinNT for MIPS all over again, where you get a desktop that LOOKS like Windows, ACTS like Windows, but won't actually RUN Windows programs. And lets face it, nobody buys Windows to run IE and MS Office, they buy it because they have a drawer full of program discs that are for Windows. that's why MSFT has to kill themselves with backwards compatibility because if folks can't run their programs then what is the point? The lovely Windows wallpapers?
But Apple is a different beast entirely, because thanks to the high resale value many just upgrade when the next model comes out, just like those that lease a new car every year. And nearly ALL the major programs people buy Apple for, iTunes, iMovie, garageband, are all made BY APPLE, which is 180 degrees opposite of the Windows way. Mark my words Win 8 is gonna make Vista look like Win95, with OEMs downgrading every box and laptop before it ever leaves the floor and users going out of their way NOT to buy it. MSFT just doesn't seem to grasp that all it takes is a few horror stories to turn the entire public off but I saw it first hand, i had to downgrade new builds before i could sell them because the second I said "Vista" they walked on by, never gave it a second thought. While I can understand them wanting to have "one code to run them all" unless they can design an ARM chip with close to native speed emulation of x86 its just doomed to fail.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by exomondo · 2012-01-12 14:27 · Score: 1

Name ONE program, just one mind you, that consumers use that is written in either .NET or JAVA.
A quick glance in my start menu: CDBurnerXP, which is written in .Net. But of course there are plenty of others and pretty much everything bundled in Windows 7 is .Net and naturally there are .Net/Java alternatives to many of the small utilities many people use. Add to it that many popular applications utilize cross-platform frameworks like Qt and will only need a recompile targeted at ARM to work straight away.

since AMD tossed .NET for Visual C++.
Since when did AMD get rid of .Net in favor of VC++?

You want to know what they ARE using I'll be happy to tell ya, they are using all the programs you get on CDs at Walmart, they are using some video editing app that came with their camera, some photo app that came with their printer (usually Roxio or EasyShare) and a ton of flash gaming like Farmville. notice that NONE of those run on ARM?
Actually Flash and Air run on ARM. As for the others how could i 'notice that none of them run on ARM' when you aren't telling me what they actually are or what they are written in, you're just saying they're 'some video editing app' or 'some photo app', you don't specify what they are, much less what language they are written in or what framework they use, which i doubt you even know. What is the Roxio and Easyshare software written in?