Slashdot Mirror
ARM, Microsoft Collaborating On 64-bit Windows Version
angry tapir writes "ARM is working with Microsoft to tune the Windows OS to work on processors based on ARM's 64-bit architecture. Ian Forsyth, program manager at ARM, could not comment on a specific release date for the 64-bit version of Windows for ARM processors, but said ARM is continuously working with software partners to add 64-bit support."
Totally to be expected days after the AMD annoucement.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
So, is this the next MIPS, or other non-Intel architecture flavor of the day, to fade into obscurity in a few years?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I know lots of corporate desktop police still subjugate their users by forcing them to still use IE6.
Mutated ARM processors to work with Windows just like Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn. It's about control of the market not advance in science. Looks like Microsoft is as evil as ever.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Except Microsoft has had software running on ARM since their 1997 release of Windows CE 2.0. They have also been working together with ARM since for those last 15 years as well. Don't let the facts get in your way, though.
Whatever plans MS has for ARM computers is very clear from their public documents. They are pressuring OEMs to create a monopoly for them. An ARM computer in order to get the MS seal of approval must implement UEFI secure boot but manually adding keys or disabling secure boot will not be possible (Windows Hardware Certification Requirements: Client and Server Systems pages 121-122, different rules for x86/x64) So with only Windows RT key enabled in the UEFI, running anything but Windows RT will not be possible. Sound like a monopoly to me, a forced monopoly they didn't pay a dime for.
They *can* and likely *will* make it happen. Microsoft is struggling for relevance in the changing markets. But here's the thing. Their one major force is the multitudes of developers ... WinTel developers. The reason alternative processor platforms failed was "lack of interest." First from developers and finally from Microsoft.
Microsoft: Seriously. Learn your lessons!
If you want to enter a new market, FORGET WINDOWS!!! Build something new or use what everyone else is using. It's an oportunity to spend money on something entirely new and can get rid of the old stuff! The legacy stuff! The backward-bug-compatibility! Stop trying to turn DOS->Windows->NT->2000->XP->Vista->7->8 into the next tablet OS. It's a crappy idea. (Yes, I know they aren't doing it exactly like that, but what they are using are the same old ideas and holding onto the same old stale mentality) Your old stuff is old. People are ready for something new. They actually still want their old-old stuff (on PCs) but you keep taking that away from them. Then you're taking the same new stuff (on PCs) which they don't want and putting it onto smaller devices like handhelds. Mistake #1 -- offering to the public something they already decided they don't like.
Of course it's a trap. But once Autodesk will get their ass moving and make AutoCAD for ARM, it will be much easier for them to make AutoCAD for linux. This software is the only reason why my wife has a single non-linux workstation in whole family.
Same goes for tons of other windows-exclusive software. Let's only hope that ARM will go mainstream, and then linux will possibly get a lot of commercial software ported. Along with steam effort, I see a bright future for linux - naturally only because I'm a linux enthusiast 1% of market share ;)
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
It will no doubt be right in time for the release of Windows 9, since the prior will be bomb worse than Vista.
With their new Apple-style 'marketplace' lock-in, they're finally in a position to handle multiple platforms without confusing people. Before, only open source was convenient for people across platforms. Now, if they want, they could support the same app a person buys for both, and this also gives people another bush towards 'Metro' vs native apps that they don't get a cut from.
But it is also true that in the last 15 years, there was nothing comparable with the all the fuss that's currently going on.
From the Windows 8 Wikipedia page:
Windows 8 [AKA: the current Mother Ship] introduces significant changes to the operating system's platform, primarily focused towards improving its experience on mobile devices such as tablets to rival other mobile operating systems (such as Android and iOS),[4] taking advantage of new and emerging technologies (such as USB 3.0, UEFI firmware, near field communications, cloud computing, and the low-power ARM architecture)
Now, I've never seen a similar move before: just compare users and impact of Windows CE vs. Windows 98 [AKA the Mother Ship, at the time].
...that are already occupying the front seat and the two seat rows below in the aforementioned bandwagon.
Did they already touched the ARM architecture with "some software" in the past? Yes.
Did they ever adapted their main product to exploit the ARM architecture? Not very much so.
My point is that if it wouldn't be for the "other mobile operative systems[*]" push, there wouldn't have been such an involvement in the design of the next ARM architecture.
[*]
How would marketplace lock-in mesh with the typical use of, say, a web server, which as I understand it is to run bespoke software?
DOSBox is an emulator, which adds a substantial overhead in slowdown (especially on older phones and tablets) and in battery consumption.
I'm talking about desktop use, not servers. People who run web servers won't usually buy and install them through the 'metro' interface.
Not so fast.
A dozen years ago, Windows 2000 Server was going to work on MIPS, and other processors. Ports were done. In the end, Intel dominated. But I'm not surprised that Microsoft wants to run on a 64-bit ARM architecture. There are a number of vendors with eyes on low-power, highly flexible architectures. How low would the power be? Still unknown because there are only engineering samples out in the field.
No one is optimized on ARM-64, because it's so new.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
On Windows RT as we know it, the only software that runs in anything but the interface formerly known as Metro is IE and Office. How would Microsoft change the lockdown for servers? If it's anything like Apple's iOS enterprise developer program, Microsoft might require an annual fee to in effect rent the right to use a server that you already own.
My point is that if it wouldn't be for the "other mobile operative systems[*]" push, there wouldn't have been such an involvement in the design of the next ARM architecture.
Wrong. ARM and Microsoft have worked together before on architecture design. You're just ignorant of it.
I hope they make the Surface2 an x64 version that ships with more than 4GB of RAM. That would be pretty amazing.
Does Microsoft need help understanding the instruction set? ARM licenses technology. Does that mean Microsoft is licensing 64-bit ARM? More likely the news is that Microsoft means to develop software to ARM and that comes across as "working with" to indicate that Microsoft is "serious" about ARM. Never leave it up to chance that Microsoft is trying to get something proprietary into the the technology, which won't have an effect on others because others can choose not to implement it. Like an another poster said, Microsoft is trying to have "mutated chips" that only work with "Microsoft Round Up"
Society use your Sciences
Remember when MS said that machines shipping Windows w/ SecureBoot (UEFI) must NOT have the ability to disable secure boot, or add user defined keys?
I do.
Part of the controversy this time around stems from the revelation that the Microsoft's requirements for ARM-based Windows 8 devices include a mandatory Secure Boot feature, effectively locking down such devices and preventing them from booting non-Windows OSes.
I don't have any scholarly sources on hand at the moment, but the rule of thumb is that an interpretive (not JIT recompiling) emulator takes at least ten times as many cycles to complete a task as the equivalent native code because of the time spent fetching and decoding instructions in software. When trying to emulate a multi-processor system cycle for cycle, this overhead gets even bigger. Did DOSBox recently get a JIT engine?
There are several reasons why secure boot is there:
Additional security against malware infection
Ability to play protected content, like first run movies (mandated by the studios)
It isn't a desire by MS to prevent you from installing other operating systems. ARM devices require special drivers, HAL, etc. So multi-boot/OS support is much more difficult that Intel based systems.