Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Details Windows 8 for ARM
MrSeb writes "In an 8,000-word treatise, Steven Sinofksy himself has taken up pen and paper to describe Windows 8 on ARM (WOA) in great detail. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but one point is particularly troubling. Quoting Sinofsky: 'WOA does not support running, emulating, or porting existing x86/64 desktop apps. Code that uses only system or OS services from WinRT can be used within an app and distributed through the Windows Store for both WOA and x86/64. Consumers obtain all [WOA] software, including device drivers, through the Windows Store and Microsoft Update or Windows Update.' It's hard to under-emphasize just how huge a change that is. It's one thing to say that ARM CPUs won't support x86 emulation; something else entirely to split software delivery and installation. Up until now, one of the biggest differences between desktop and mobile operating systems has been the ability to install software. It's true that Microsoft's decision to wall off unapproved software installation is similar to the approach of Android and iOS — but iOS isn't the same thing as OS X. Combining both of these decisions under the 'Windows' brand could be disastrous, not because Microsoft is evil, but because it creates two entirely different user experiences on the basis of which ISA your CPU supports."
May we have the old Borg icon back for this story?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/01/new-kde-tablet-to-liberate-linux-enthusiasts-from-walled-garden.ars
Suddenly one of these is looking tempting for my tablet needs.
I did have an ASUS transformer for a few months but I sold it to a friend as I was unhappy with the way Android does things. I have an iPhone and whilst I think iOS is very clever I'm not convinced I would want it in a larger form factor. I want to be able to write code, play with software and be the master of my own system to a level that Android and iOS does not seem to happy with. I was wondering is an ARM Win8 tablet was the way forward - but this seems to rule of that option :(
I admit some Linux bias as I only use it at home and coding on it (armel linux) forms a large part of my job as well.
Depends how good their marketing department is. Remember, they can afford to lose a few hundred million dollars a year in that department for however long it takes to turn it into something profitable, and they have a history of using their successful products as tools to drive users to their unsuccessful products.
Y'know, for all I hear about Linux being so fractured, I'd expect to see more coherence from Microsoft and Apple.
The vast majority of distros differ in small ways, but they all work with mostly the same paradigms. To install software, you usually install a package from a repository. To add something not in the repositories, it's usually "./configure; make; make install".
Looking at the Windows world, there's worse fracturing, but because it's all under one brand, it's somehow okay. Inter-process communication is done with DDE - no, wait - OLE. I mean sockets. Really .NET has its own IPC and you should use that now. On one system, you install with an executable file obtained from the vendor. On another system, you install through a storefront.
At least Linux accepts that it's fractured, and each distro often learns from the others.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The value of Windows is the huge legacy software collection that it runs.
.NET, of course. But apps written in .NET would be fairly new apps. What about apps written in older languages? Some apps may be trivially recompiled. Or recompiled after significant effort. But some apps may be slightly or even deeply wedded to the x86 and maybe x64 architectures.
A "windows" platform that cannot run that software base is basically a new platform. Starting from scratch. Sort of like a new version of Linux, or Hurd, or something new.
Microsoft may port their own apps. Great. But what about third parties?
There is
Other apps may be wedded to legacy languages that may not get ported. Will Microsoft be porting Visual Basic 6? Visual FoxPro? What about Delphi? Etc.
Even if a developer can fairly trivially build their app for WOA, why would they if there is not a large user base on that platform ready to fork over money? The developer has to expend effort (eg cost) today on a platform where customer demand may not materialize. If WOA doesn't run an end user's favorite legacy applications, then why would the user want to migrate to WOA? It's cheap and easy to buy a desktop or laptop running legacy Windows that is familiar and runs your legacy apps.
WOA has a chicken and egg problem. Which came first? The large number of third party apps / developers supporting WOA? Or the large end user base running WOA?
Furthermore, a developer who expends effort to port their product to WOA, even if "porting" is little more than a trivial recompile and repackaging, and tracking new SKU's, that developer will want to be compensated for that additional effort. You can bet that developer will want top dollar (eg price gouging) for that new WOA edition of their product. Do you really think you'll see a $99 Photoshop on WOA? Also don't expect a free upgrade to the WOA edition of your current application.
WOA may be Microsoft's counterpart of the PS/2 moment. The market may "just say no" (as they say in the '80's). The problem with PS/2 was that it was nothing more than an attempt to recapture IBM's monopoly using a new platform. That is what WOA is. Microsoft wants their legacy monopoly on these new mobile ARM platforms, just as IBM wanted their legacy mainframe monopoly in the PC market.
Another problem is that these new platforms are fundamentally different. They bring things that legacy PC's don't have deeply baked into the system and applications. Android for example can support both the legacy keyboard / mouse setup as well as touchscreen and voice commands. Those pesky new PC's offered a lot more than a mainframe terminal had, such as mouse and GUI. Oh, and cheap software, just as the new platform app stores offer pretty cheap apps.
Want to see WOA go exactly nowhere? There's an app for that!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Whenever the first tidbits of the UEFI secure boot cropped up that many people immediately cried foul over, I was one of the people who stood up and said "Not so fast, everyone - it's mandated that it be enabled by default, but there's nothing to say you can't customise it or disable it". Many people were quick to jump on MS, stating that it's just to stop Linux adoption and such and still I persisted in saying that MS wasn't the bad guy, if you didn't have an option to disable UEFI secure boot, it was the OEM or motherboard manufacturer at fault, not MS. I got into many heated debates about this point.
However, that was regarding Windows 8 x86/64.
Windows on ARM will demand that UEFI secure boot be enabled and that there is no way to disable it. Any Windows ARM tablets or PCs that come out will not be capable of running anything other than Windows - not Linux, not Android, nothing. Since Windows ARM won't be sold directly, it means there will be absolutely no way to buy a Windows ARM machine that runs other OS's - not even if you built one yourself.
It is with this that I retract any previous objections to people crying foul over the UEFI Secure boot malarkey. Even though Windows 8 x86/64 is still "fine", the issue of the ARM version is too great to ignore. So by all means, commence flaming.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
It's possible that this is the first step toward leaving 'Windows legacy applications' behind. They are going to have to do it sometime, and ARM isn't similar to x86 like Atom is, so this may be a logical starting point.
.Net frameworks and other MS technologies, libraries, etc. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to be a significant change and a lot of work for software companies.
At some point (Windows 9? Windows 10??) Microsoft is going to need to leave older applications behind to fully transition to the 'Metro' platform/paradigm. This probably will include the desktop
Drivers are the largest problem with x86 Windows - well over 50% of the stability problems and blue screens come from badly written drivers. Microsoft has a process to submit a driver to their labs for testing and approval today - but (a) they make it insanely difficult and expensive, and (b) the market doesn't care whether a driver is approved or not.
Drivers are also the largest security hole there is - a kernel module has full and complete access to your system. People claim to be concerned about security, but then install third party drivers without a second thought.
Overall, it looks like Microsoft is doing exactly what people have been asking for - a more secure Windows environment. Locking down software to approved sources only, and getting rid of creakingly old APIs that date back to Windows 3.1, will make it faster, more stable, and more secure - but now people are complaining.
Note that for the hardware/software developers - hobbyist or professional - there will be a developer switch, to turn off security and allow you to load unsigned/unapproved programs and drivers.
You are probably right.
That is why I believe WOA will fail.
Leaving the legacy applications behind means WOA is a new platform. Starting basically from scratch. Competing with already entrenched players (iOS and Android). It starts off with little third party software where iOS and Android already have a huge base of developers.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
It's possible that this is the first step toward leaving 'Windows legacy applications' behind. They are going to have to do it sometime, and ARM isn't similar to x86 like Atom is, so this may be a logical starting point.
Exactly. It's legacy software that's tied mainstream computing to the x86 architecture for two decades. Tthe x86 is a power-hungry architecture best suited for desktop and rack computing, but recent trends are towards mobile computing. Laptops started to outsell desktops. Netbooks hit the market. Smartphones reached a level where they could be used as complete computers. And the Tablet PC concept, which had been bubbling under for over a decade, finally found it's niche as a "maxi-smartphone". x86 is dead, and MS need to encourage people to produce standardised, architecture-neutral code if they're going to migrate to another architecture.
If they don't migrate to another architecture, what happens? Smartphones with HDMI out (and a built-in focus-free laset picoprojector) and Bluetooth or USB for keyboards and mice displace the traditional computer. If Windows is still split between phone and desktop, Windows dies.
So why the separation between desktop and phone OS? Why WOA an not just maintain their ARM version as Windows Phone? Because right now, phone apps are phone apps, and desktop apps are desktop apps. An OS lives and dies on its third party software, and this move is calculated to ensure that there is a back catalogue of desktop software available when the two paradigms merge.
It's a smart move, and shows a lot of foresight. Google should take note, and start working on standardised compatibility layers that encourage Linux app developers to produce software that can be easily migrated to Android.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Exactly. It's legacy software that's tied mainstream computing to the x86 architecture for two decades.
It's legacy software that's tied people to Windows for two decades. Break the compatibility and no-one needs Windows any more.
But if you develop your apps in WinRT, the same code will be able to compile into ARM or x86. I don't see a big deal, honestly. It's not like it will take developers extra work, since .NET and the JIT compiler should handle that workload. In fact, it makes Windows a more appealing development environment because you're hitting multiple platforms, form factors, etc... all with a single set of code.
But correct me if I misread.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
No to AutoCAD and Maya, probably no to full versions of ACS (but maybe a lighter suite). If this works for Microsoft, I think it will work like this: some people who want to travel light but want full Office productivity will buy WOA devices. This popularity will spur app development, including some enterprise integration. Developers will start releasing more apps for Win8 (which, remember, will also work on new Intel/AMD Win8 machines, so there will quickly be a large installed base).
Android and iOs have had years to get a decent office app out; they haven't done it yet. And a big part of this is good mouse/keyboard interface - drag and drop, mouse-click-popup menus, consistent highlighting/copy/paste, etc. So if MS gets a 12 month lead on real Office software, it might overcome the iOs/Android head start for a certain class of users.
Note the "If" at the start of my speculation. I don't know if this will happen, but it seems more than just possible.
I am failing to see why anyone would get an WOA tablet.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones
Summary Medfield is running in similar power envelope to an ARM SoC, but with faster benchmarks.
ARM might get you marginally more battery life, but Medfield gives you full backward compatibility.
It's API compatible minus features not physically available on a tablet. A quick recompile and voila, instant port.
You're not a software developer, are you? Because I wouldn't want to work with someone who thinks that they can just do a 'quick recompile' and ship a product out the door.
And, in any case, that wouldn't help the bazillions of old, unsupported Windows programs that keep people tied to Windows.
It would be horrendously slow and eat battery like mad. It's helpful to keep in mind that WOA is an iPad competitor (read: touch screen UI). Running these old keyboard and mouse interfaces on a touchscreen would make for a terrible user experience, ask anyone that has used a XP or win 7 tablet. Now add in the amount of extra effort that would be required to write not just an x86 emulator but ensuring 100% compatibility with the existing APIs and it becomes clear why Win32 is a non-starter on ARM.
For the people that absolutely cannot live without legacy Win32 code, there will be x86 devices in similar form factors as the ARM devices. There was a whole pile of them unveiled at CES this year.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
i'm sorry but you are incorrect. I ran Vista on what was a pretty nice machine at the time, an Intel Pentium D 2.66Ghz, 2Gb of RAM, and a Geforce 7600GS and the thing was a dog, it would have "senior moments" and forget the network shares and not see them before being rebooted, would drag down the entire system when doing simple multitasking like watching a movie while doing a file transfer, and this was seen all the way through SP1 which is when i finally gave up on the POS. Now that exact same machine is running Win 7 Home and has been since Oct 09, and its fast, it runs great on the network, nothing about the hardware has been changed, still the same Pentium D, still the same GPU, same everything but when I use that machine its like night and day. The performance of Vista was so bad it got to be a running joke at the shop, when someone would come in with Vista we'd say "I'm sorry" and make a little tisk tisk noise. Take any of those machines and slap Win 7 on them (which I have done quite often) and all I get from customers is "Wow, this is like a new machine, thanks!". so calling Win 7 no better than Vista is simply incorrect, its like saying WinXP is no better than WinME, there really is no comparison.
As for win 8, anybody smell that? that stench of fail that is practically leaking from the thing like a silent but deadly fart? I've been running the dev preview on an Athlon X2 i have sitting in the corner of the shop, now this baby has 3gb of RAM, fast 200gb SATA, its not a bad machine at all, but everyone who has tried it, more than 200 so far, has HATED IT with a capital H! this is the same stupidity we saw with winMo only in reverse, instead of tying the desktop metaphor to mobile we are seeing the mobile metaphor tied to desktop and its still a failwhale. Honestly after spending 3 days with it as my primary OS I couldn't stand it anymore, without a touchscreen its just painful to use.
And what person is gonna want a Win 8 ARM that doesn't run Windows programs? THIS, this right here, is the reason we need to call Captain Obvious to save the day. MSFT simply refuses to believe that the ONLY reason people use Windows is WINDOWS PROGRAMS which as we see in TFA simply won't run on ARM. Here we see MSFT vainly believe if they Ape the Apple philosophy they can get Apple iMoney, but its so full of fail its unreal. Without the lock on x86 people simply won't buy windows, and why should they? apple has nicer designs, android is cheaper, they have NO selling point for Win 8. Mark my words its gonna make Vista look like 95, its gonna go down so hard it'll finally kill those WinME and Bob jokes. in the future people will say "Its a Win 8 level of fail!" to describe projects that have no chance. maybe we'll get lucky and this turkey will get Ballmer finally fired and they can bring Allchin or Ozzie back to right the ship, because this is just a disaster and even the shills like the Yahoo product girl, whose answer to every product is "Buy it! Buy it now!" said of Win 8" Uhhh...wait until you get something with a touchscreen before getting it" which for her was the equivalent of "My eyes! The goggles they do nothing!"
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.