ARM, Microsoft Collaborating On 64-bit Windows Version

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ARM, Microsoft Collaborating On 64-bit Windows Version

Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 2, 2012 @07:26AM from the champing-at-the-bit dept.

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."

93 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Must muscle in by SpaceLifeForm · 2012-11-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Totally to be expected days after the AMD annoucement.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
1. Re:Must muscle in by symbolset · 2012-11-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  They don't want to miss ARM servers like they missed mobile.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
2. Re:Must muscle in by Desler · 2012-11-02 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  No, they just missed modernizing their mobile platform. They've been doing mobile on ARM for 15 years.
3. Re:Must muscle in by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know that they "missed" mobile in the sense that they underestimated the impact of the Internet in the 90s. Windows Mobile was around long before iOS and Android, it was just a pile of shit.
  They're jumping on this bandwagon, but will it be any less shitty? Windows may have the biggest empire, but it's not king anymore.
  To put it another way, if Microsoft released the first time travel device, would you buy it or wait for something that actually works from a different manufacturer?
  To quote Churchill, "If you're not a Windows user at twenty you have no skill, if you're using Windows at forty you have no brain."
4. Re:Must muscle in by crudeboy · 2012-11-02 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  To quote Churchill, "If you're not a Windows user at twenty you have no skill, if you're using Windows at forty you have no brain."
  Either Churchill knew about operating systems decades before the concept was even invented or you don't know the difference between a paraphrase and a qoute... In either case you didn't really add anything of value to the topic, now did you?
5. Re:Must muscle in by petermgreen · 2012-11-02 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  What they (and all the other incumbents in the smartphone OS market) missed was the significance of the improvements the iPhone made over previous smartphones (firstly combining multitouch with a decent web browser engine to make a browser people actually wanted to use and secondly bringing a big enough group of fanboys and an easy enough development environment to get their appstore off the ground*). Google was able to quickly get the key features from the iPhone into andriod (which was in developement at the time) and quickly become number 2 (and eventually become number 1) in the smarphone OS market.
  MS are trying to get back in to the smartphone OS market but afaict they are struggling to find a killer feature to differentiate themselves from all the android devices out there. Plus they alienated all their existing developers which can't be helping.
  * IIRC There had been previous attempts at appstores but afaict none of them acheived a critical mass of developers like the iPhone app store (and later the android market) did.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
6. Re:Must muscle in by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-02 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  > "If you're not a Linux user at twenty you have no skill, if you're using Linux at twenty two you have no brain."
  That's probably more accurate with desktop PCs, though not with servers. With phones I think Android is going to be the equivalent of Windows.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Not enough coffee, this morning by ntropia · 2012-11-02 07:33 · Score: -1

ARM twisted then thrown through Windows (bad, bad joke).
Guess what, MS discovered the Wonderful World of ARM processors and wants to jump on the bandwagon.
That's almost already full
And they'll call "shotgun".
1. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by Desler · 2012-11-02 08:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by Nerdfest · 2012-11-02 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by ntropia · 2012-11-02 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely true.
  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].
  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.
  
  [*] ...that are already occupying the front seat and the two seat rows below in the aforementioned bandwagon.
4. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by tepples · 2012-11-02 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  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?
5. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by Nerdfest · 2012-11-02 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm talking about desktop use, not servers. People who run web servers won't usually buy and install them through the 'metro' interface.
6. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by postbigbang · 2012-11-02 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by tepples · 2012-11-02 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:Not enough coffee, this morning by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  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.
So, the next MIPS? by TWX · 2012-11-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yup. Once Intel gets its power consumption in line with ARM, that'll be it. Good bye (again) ARM, say hi to Itanium, MIPS, ALPHA, and for all intensive purposes PPC and SPARC.
2. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  intensive purposes
  OMG, kill me now.
3. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I hope this is a joke. ARM has a vastly stronger market foothold than anything related to MIPS ever had. In terms of supported software, there is just as much, if not more stuff supporting ARM than x86/Intel, so what reason would hardware makers have to go back to Intel?
  I'm pretty sure ARM is here to stay for a long time.
4. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-11-02 07:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, because as the desktop becomes less and less relevant and people do more on mobile devices, backwards compatibility with software written for a 80386 just stops mattering. Even if Intel chips had exactly the same power usage as ARM (highly unlikely), what's the benefit of having an Intel chip in your mobile device?
  
  --
  Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
  Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
5. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  It's always a balancing game. As long as intel doesn't buy or patent them out of the game, there will always be a market for processor core designs.
  ARM, MIPS, IBM(PowerPC) will license the core, so you can attach a Toaster Control Unit on it.
  Chinese PowerPC's coming around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_400#PowerPC_470
  Chinese ARM: Rockchip, Allwinner, AMLogic.
  Chinese MIPS: Loongson
  So many interesting processor cores coming out China, with very varied configurations.
6. Re:So, the next MIPS? by MightyMartian · 2012-11-02 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  WTF? ARM has massive penetration in mobile devices. Beyond that, ARM's huge advantage is custom SOC, which, along with low power consumption, is another reason ARM has become such a monster platform. As much as anything else, ARM is a philosophy.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Desler · 2012-11-02 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  The benefit is the fact that all that x86 software will still be relevant despite what you claim.
8. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Lemming+Mark · 2012-11-02 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Do you mean ARM 64 bit, or ARM in general? The latter has at least got itself deployed more widely than I am aware of MIPS ever getting. The former ... well, I hope it takes off.
9. Re:So, the next MIPS? by tlhIngan · 2012-11-02 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So, is this the next MIPS, or other non-Intel architecture flavor of the day, to fade into obscurity in a few years?
  Well, given that ARM is probably the #1 shipped architecture out there, probably not. I'm fairly certain for every x86 CPU Intel ships, several ARM SoCs are shipped, probably a few in said PC (WiFi, Bluetooth, drive controllers (optical, SSD, spinning rust), network cards, etc).
  Intel rules only on one aspect - high power computing. ARM has pretty much taken over the low end embedded side - the processors and controllers needed for everything else to get that big beefy Intel fed.
10. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  How is x86 software relevant on a mobile device?
  
  --
  Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
  Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
11. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Phones? Not so much. On a an x86 tablet? There is plenty of relevancy.
12. Re:So, the next MIPS? by bemymonkey · 2012-11-02 08:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Have you been keeping an eye on Cloverfield? The CPU performance pretty much kills the fastest ARM tablet chips, and power usage is similarly impressive - The first early adopters are reporting 10h+ battery life on the Samsung ATIV Smart PC, which seems to be right up there with all the ARM based tablets.
13. Re:So, the next MIPS? by MightyMartian · 2012-11-02 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  Most x86 software currently in existence will not run well on a tablet. Two different kinds of interfaces. The same applies to Linux-based tablets. While one can certainly compile older GUI software to run on Androids, without the nice interface extensions, it's just plain ugly.
  For all intents and purposes PCs and tablets/smartphones/smart devices are totally different ecosystems. Certainly Microsoft is betting on at least a partial merger, but I'll wager that the PC version of MS-Office will always be a different critter to the mobile/tablet version.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
14. Re:So, the next MIPS? by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-11-02 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even if Intel chips had exactly the same power usage as ARM (highly unlikely), what's the benefit of having an Intel chip in your mobile device?
  Why do you think this is unlikely? On the contrary, Intel has a massive fab/manufacturing advantage over any ARM chipmaker - they are at least 1 process shrink (node) ahead of any other foundry, not to mention their process at any given node is better than all competitors (TSMC, GloFo, Samsung). This fab advantage directly translates to lower power usage, and by all accounts, Intel's advantage there is only getting larger - ask AMD how it feels to be on the receiving end of this advantage. Intel needs to put out a microarchitecture which targets about the same performance range that ARM Cortex-A9 (or maybe A15 [1]) does, and in all likelihood, Intel's chip will be lower power because it will be manufactured on either one shrink ahead of any ARM equivalent, or the same node but using Intel's superior process at that node. In fact, Intel is doing just that - the next-gen Atom chip (Silvermont/Valleyview) is targeting right around where A15 is in terms of performance, area, and power.
  ARM isn't magic; there is nothing in the ARM ISA that makes it inherently lower power than x86. Yes, I'm counting all the decode hardware and microcode that x86 chips need to support legacy ISA. There just isn't much power burned there compared to modern cache sizes, execution resources, and queue/buffer depths which all high-performance cores need regardless of ISA. If you have an x86 processor that targets A9 performance levels, it will burn A9 power (or less if Intel makes it, given Intel's manufacturing advantage). If you have a ARM processor that targets Sandy Bridge performance levels, it will burn Sandy Bridge (or more) power.
  [1] I say maybe A15, because from Anandtech's latest review here, Samsung's Exynos 5250 using A15 cores does not have a prayer of getting into smartphones using 5W at load. Your smartphone will be dead in an hour of web browsing with that kind of power draw. Yeah yeah, Exynos 5250 is on a 32nm process and the 28nm A15's are right around the corner, which should be lower power. But still.
15. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:17 · Score: -1
  
  It's called fisting dumb ass.
16. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  No need to overreact! Maybe he meant to say CPU intensive purposes?
17. Re:So, the next MIPS? by mikael · 2012-11-02 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  You can get DOSbox for a mobile phone now. So all those x86 DOS games run on mobile phones without a need for an Intel chip.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
18. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Irregardless, you should of known about common word usage.
19. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  whew - I'm super glad this was a mute point, because it really inks me when people say 'for all intensive purposes'
20. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Now you're just being rediculous.
21. Re:So, the next MIPS? by faustoc4 · 2012-11-02 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  > ARM isn't magic; there is nothing in the ARM ISA that makes it inherently lower power than x86 Yes it is, the fact that ARM is a RISC architecture and has 100x less transistors than a Intel chip
22. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 10:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I would of said the term of speech "can't see the forest through the trees" is a mute point when they are by enlarge one in the same, but case and point unless it happened on accident irregardless of whether you were chomping at the bit or could care less, I wouldn't call you escape goat per say, but getting to the crutch of the matter being straight as a narrow is better than being on tenderhooks since time in memorial for all intensive purposes to hold down the fort, so I'll take another tact and won't cut off your nose despite your face because after all is set and done the proof is in the pudding and since you have a long road to hoe with a myriad of something or rather to do of upmost importance I have the courage in my conviction to be internally grateful it all goes well
23. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Are you trying to greentext? Get the fuck out.
24. Re:So, the next MIPS? by faustoc4 · 2012-11-02 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  greentext? New to /. just trying to quote some text
25. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  The ISA does have an impact on cache usage and memory access patterns, though. ARM (Thumb-2) code is typically smaller than x86 code and may fit into smaller caches.
26. Re:So, the next MIPS? by OdinOdin_ · 2012-11-02 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  Did you read what was written ? How many transistors does it take to make a 1Mb ARM CPU Cache ? Then a 1Mb Intel CPU Cache (with has a stronger memory model) ? Now how many transistors for a core ?
  I know I have a suggestion, you know those picture of silicon that Intel marketing put out with nice coloured lines painted on them to point out where each functional unit is. Compare the area of the cache to the area used for a core.
  So while it is possible for a RISC CPU to use less transistors to implement a whole useful ISA. It is not possible to also make it go fast (and keep the "less transistor" power advantage). This is the struggle ARM now faces. Intel are already ahead and fighting back with power reduction capabilities (i.e. switching whole functional units off when not in use) and in process size reduction around 10 to 20nm.
  How much power does a PowerPC chip use, these are the closest competitor in the RISC family to be targeting at the kinds of systems Intel has market share in. Take a look at the industrial cooling solutions for some of those systems then compare heat output against performance and Intel clearly wins. Intel already have chips that will work reliability through a lifetime warranty in a consumer workstation situation. PowerPC doesn't have such a product, they do have slower chips such at those used in gaming consoles and other such devices.
27. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 14:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Technically what occurs with switching on demand for cache transistors causes surging. Any time you power up and power down a transistor there is a micro spike in current demand. So there is a price you pay for powering down and then powering up on demand as well. This is an inherent problem with micro circuits do you leave them on or do you cycle them to save power.
  There might be an advantage to being able to being able to shut down unused cache resources on demand but on servers that require constant high demand this does not necessarily save anything in power consumption and therefore heat.
  This is why IBM is really spending money big time on learning how to put the DREADED nanotubes on a substrate. Create a transistor cache out of this and the power consumption is down to ridiculously low levels. But that is for the future. http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/tech-news-ibm-announces-carbon-nanotube-chip-breakthrough and no doubt a few posts and article on /. with a pile of ridiculous so what comments.
28. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Pulzar · 2012-11-02 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  I say maybe A15, because from Anandtech's latest review here, Samsung's Exynos 5250 using A15 cores does not have a prayer of getting into smartphones using 5W at load. Your smartphone will be dead in an hour of web browsing with that kind of power draw.
  The maximum load is just that, something that the CPU can output when maximum processing is needed, which certainly isn't web browsing. These CPUs scale down both the voltage and frequency when "simple" tasks are needed of them. On top of that, you're going to see a lot of this configuration in phones, too.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
29. Re:So, the next MIPS? by petermgreen · 2012-11-02 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think there will always be a market for arm microcontroller cores. Probablly even for cores that can run a regular OS but whose primary job is to manage a GPU or DSP or whatever that does the real work. The trouble is while those markets are big afaict they don't pay much in the way of royalties (if arm try to charge too much people will just jump ship to the chinese mips clones or whatever).
  The question is will arm be able to maintain their presense in smartphone/tablet processors (which afaict intel is currently agressively targetting with atom though they haven't made much of a dent yet) and will they be able to expand their market into server processors (where afaict x86 currently dominates).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
30. Re:So, the next MIPS? by TeknoHog · 2012-11-02 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  For all intestinal purposes, this thread makes me [sic].
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
31. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-02 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Windows RT is even worse. With MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC you could just cross compile your application and it would run, though of course no one actually bothered due to the low market share (it was essentially zero) of RISC Windows boxes.
  With Windows RT aka Windows ARM there's no support for Win32 applications for third parties - all apps need to be WinRT and distributed via their store, unlike Windows x86 which allows for both legacy Win32 apps and WinRT ones. So if WinRT fails there won't be any applications at all for Windows RT. And even if Windows Phone 8 eventually manages to carve out a niche, there's no guarantee that people are going to buy Windows ARM tablets. Why should they when x86 Windows tablets will have legacy compatibility?
  What I think will happen is that Metro will flop along with Windows Phone and Windows RT. Windows 9 will go back to the desktop model and Win32. It may or may not run WinRT applications. My guess is that it'll be another Microsoft API that gets deprecated like Silverlight, C# XAML, XNA, .Net, MFC and so on. So you might be able to run them on desktop Windows (maybe Ximian will provide long term support) but on tablets and phones support will be dropped.
  In fact this is so likely I can't see why anyone would bother with WinRT or ARM support.
  And on servers everyone that matters is already on Linux anyway.
  Though I bet there'll be a "Windows for ARM64" server SKU that survives because a few people use it. Windows run on Itanium for ages, long after it was clear that Itanium was crap and the few people that did use it didn't want Windows.
  Not that I'm saying ARM64 is crap, I actually think it has a place in datacenters where you need a lot of ultra low power servers. Also if you really tune it, ARM could even end up being faster for your server application than x64 just like Alpha was faster than x86. The problem for Microsoft is that in those sort of applications it's hard to compete with Linux.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
32. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-03 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't Cloverfield a rather mediocre movie once you got past all the hype? I remember walking out of the cinema vowing never again to fall of Hollywood pig in a poke tactics.
  So it's with a certain amount of trepidation that I read that Intel - no stranger to hype, fud and pig in a poke tactics themselves - are using that as a code name.
  Is it any relation of ValleyView?
  http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/44385-intel-atom-soc-roadmap-leaked-details-bay-trail-valleyview/
  Despite the valley girl name, it's actually sounds, like, totally bitchin' to me. The CPU is out of order and the first Atom core redesign and the GPU is not going to suck, unlike every previous Intel GPU which they announced wouldn't suck and but then turned out to suck like an Electrolux on launch.
  What could possibly go wrong?
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
33. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-03 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  I would of said the term of speech "can't see the forest through the trees" is a mute point when they are by enlarge one in the same, but case and point unless it happened on accident irregardless of whether you were chomping at the bit or could care less, I wouldn't call you escape goat per say, but getting to the crutch of the matter being straight as a narrow is better than being on tenderhooks since time in memorial for all intensive purposes to hold down the fort, so I'll take another tact and won't cut off your nose despite your face because after all is set and done the proof is in the pudding and since you have a long road to hoe with a myriad of something or rather to do of upmost importance I have the courage in my conviction to be internally grateful it all goes well
  Your post made me loose it.
34. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-03 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  what about indents and porpoises?.
35. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-11-06 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think this is unlikely? On the contrary, Intel has a massive fab/manufacturing advantage over any ARM chipmaker
  Okay, then why don't they license ARM and use that fab advantage to beat the other manufacturers at their own game. Nothing in your comment offers up any advantage offered by x86, just Intel's fabs.
  I have no interest in running any legacy x86 software on any tablet or smartphone device, but now I do have a vested interest in running "legacy" ARM apps I have purchased for those devices for the foreseeable future. I don't want to have to worry about the instruction set the CPU in my next phone uses, I just want the software to work, and many of the apps I run make use of native code.
  And as a developer, I don't want to bother to support two platforms. Supporting the menagerie of Android devices is already enough fun without adding an incompatible CPU instruction set.
  Really, there is absolutely nothing compelling about x86 in the mobile space to me. If Intel pushed better performing and/or lower powered ARM chips, I'd see the benefit of having an Intel chip.
  
  --
  Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
  Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
36. Re:So, the next MIPS? by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-11-06 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing in your comment offers up any advantage offered by x86, just Intel's fabs.
  Intel's fabs are the advantage offered by x86. x86 processors are the only processors that can be made by Intel's fabs. If that changes, or if other fabs catch up, then great - use whatever is the best.
  
  now I do have a vested interest in running "legacy" ARM apps I have purchased for those devices for the foreseeable future
  Android apps are almost all Java - they run on any platform that has a Java runtime, which certainly includes x86. If your apps make calls into native code, that native code is shipped by the phone OEM, and you can already buy x86-based Android phones (Motorola sells one using some Intel Atom chip), so it obviously works there too. In other words, the CPU's ISA is completely invisible to app developers, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.
  
  If Intel pushed better performing and/or lower powered ARM chips,
  This makes no sense. Why would Intel have to push an ARM chip for you to be interested? What if Intel pushed a better-performing x86 chip than any ARM chip? Would you not be interested in that because you have some inherent bias against x86?
37. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-11-06 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Intel's fabs are the advantage offered by x86. x86 processors are the only processors that can be made by Intel's fabs. If that changes, or if other fabs catch up, then great - use whatever is the best.
  I guess I don't remember this as well as I thought I did, but I have been out of school for a while... And hardware never was my thing... I thought chips were burned onto silicon via some sort of lithography process? High intensity light etching the transistors onto a silicon wafer from a VHDL-type specification? What would prevent Intel from burning a 28nm ARM design in their fab?
  
  Android apps are almost all Java - they run on any platform that has a Java runtime, which certainly includes x86.
  No they're not and no they don't. They're Dalvik, which is similar enough to Java to make me sound pedantic by pointing it out, but they're not Java.
  And while many android apps are written to run against the Dalvik VM, no small amount of them run native code. Opera, for instance by default ships both a ARM5 binary and an ARM7 binary (together) in the app store, and you can download the ARM7 binary by itself directly from them if you're sure your device can run it. Most performance-sensitive apps run natively, and writing native apps is well supported.
  
  If your apps make calls into native code, that native code is shipped by the phone OEM, and you can already buy x86-based Android phones (Motorola sells one using some Intel Atom chip), so it obviously works there too.
  Yes, and when that phone shipped you couldn't get Chrome for it, because there was no x86 Android build for Chrome.
  
  In other words, the CPU's ISA is completely invisible to app developers, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.
  Sorry, that's simply not the case. It is invisible if you limit yourself solely to Dalvik apps, but that limits your options.
  
  This makes no sense. Why would Intel have to push an ARM chip for you to be interested? What if Intel pushed a better-performing x86 chip than any ARM chip? Would you not be interested in that because you have some inherent bias against x86?
  Hopefully it makes more sense now. No, a better performing x86 chip would not guarantee my interest. I'm not biased enough to completely rule out purchasing an x86-based phone in the future, but as it stands right now x86 looks like a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage.
  
  --
  Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
  Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
38. Re:So, the next MIPS? by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-11-06 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  What would prevent Intel from burning a 28nm ARM design in their fab?
  Oh absolutely nothing technical, just Intel's refusal to give any ISA other than x86 (since Intel only makes x86 chips, unless you know something I don't) its fab advantage. Intel could easily make ARM stuff in its fab, but why would it bother if it could put out a superior x86 chip?
  
  ...native ARM code...
  Alright, I was mistaken about the extent of native ARM in Android. But what makes it different than the WinTel ecosystem that dominated PCs is that PC ISA lock-in involved the OS. Android, including all of its libraries, GUI, and the base Android-supplied apps, already runs on x86. Your Chrome for x86-Android bit is just stupid - Google released it 2 weeks after the phone's release, hardly much to get upset about, wouldn't you say?
  
  Hopefully it makes more sense now. No, a better performing x86 chip would not guarantee my interest. I'm not biased enough to completely rule out purchasing an x86-based phone in the future, but as it stands right now x86 looks like a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage.
  No, it still doesn't make sense. And at this point it appears that there is no further discussion we can have as you seem to have a baseless bias against x86 regardless of any technical merits.
39. Re:So, the next MIPS? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-11-07 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Oh absolutely nothing technical, just Intel's refusal to give any ISA other than x86 (since Intel only makes x86 chips, unless you know something I don't) its fab advantage. Intel could easily make ARM stuff in its fab, but why would it bother if it could put out a superior x86 chip?
  Because Apple might go all ARM in the near future? We're focusing on Android in this thread (my fault), but iOS devices are ARM-based, have a significant chunk of the market, and ONLY run native code. Lots of rumors flying that Apple is considering using ARM in their laptops and desktops going forward, which could make a lot of sense in the next few years for them.
  Intel already makes ARM chips for at least one customer, and they have said in the past that they would license ARM and produce their own chips if it made sense.
  
  Alright, I was mistaken about the extent of native ARM in Android. But what makes it different than the WinTel ecosystem that dominated PCs is that PC ISA lock-in involved the OS. Android, including all of its libraries, GUI, and the base Android-supplied apps, already runs on x86.
  And all the base Windows NT code ran on Alpha. Developers still weren't willing to support an alternative, but more powerful, ISA for NT.
  
  Your Chrome for x86-Android bit is just stupid - Google released it 2 weeks after the phone's release, hardly much to get upset about, wouldn't you say?
  Yes, Google, the biggest, most well-funded, most dedicated Android developer took two weeks to provide an x86 compatible version of one of their flagship apps. For a phone produced by one of their own subsidiaries. How quickly do you think one and two man shops would provide alternative versions of their apps, if ever? Why would anyone (the developer, or the consumer) want to have to worry about compatibility of their phone/app?
  
  No, it still doesn't make sense. And at this point it appears that there is no further discussion we can have as you seem to have a baseless bias against x86 regardless of any technical merits.
  Bias against x86... Is that why I asked for an i7 workstation? x86 is fine for desktop computing, I just see no advantage to using it in the mobile space. Again, what's the benefit of having a phone or tablet that is compatible with 80386 software? That's the only advantage x86 gets you.
  You know, I could just easily accuse you of pro-x86 bias, especially since you haven't listed any actual "technical merits" of x86, and I've managed to list several actual disadvantages of having an x86 Android device.
  
  --
  Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
  Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
40. Re:So, the next MIPS? by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-11-09 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh, this thread is getting old and stale. Which one of us will give up first and let the other have the last word? I was going to be that party, but then another rabid pro-ARM article got posted today which made me revisit this thread.
  
  Because Apple might go all ARM in the near future? We're focusing on Android in this thread (my fault), but iOS devices are ARM-based, have a significant chunk of the market, and ONLY run native code. Lots of rumors flying that Apple is considering using ARM in their laptops and desktops going forward, which could make a lot of sense in the next few years for them.
  Apple has shown that it is certainly willing to change ISA at the drop of a hat when it makes sense for them to do so. Apple now has in-house ARM designs, so this wouldn't surprise me at all. But there's nothing Intel can do about Apples in-house ARM designs other than continue to make x86 chips that are better at MacBook and iMac power budgets by virtue of their higher performance (again, at that higher power budget) than any ARM chip that exists when Apple builds those machines. If the ARM stuff is worse than x86 at that power budget (which it is, today, in Q4 2012), and Apple goes with them anyway, those products will stop being cool and they will revert to sucking like they did when PowerPC was in them. If the ARM stuff does get up to x86 performance levels, I'll turn your own questions around and ask what the advantage for the consumer would be of yet another ISA change for Macs? Again, I know what the advantage would be for Apple (they kick out Intel as a supplier and make more money), but for the average consumer?
  
  And all the base Windows NT code ran on Alpha. Developers still weren't willing to support an alternative, but more powerful, ISA for NT.
  There were years and years of legacy DOS and Win apps that did not run on Alpha and were not being actively developed or maintained. Same with Itanium - it had the same problem, and (poor) runtime emulation of x86, which also killed it. However, (almost) none of that applies to Android, where the installed based can't possibly be more than 4 years old, and (as you acknowledged) the vast majority is pure Dalvik anyway.
  
  Yes, Google, the biggest, most well-funded, most dedicated Android developer took two weeks to provide an x86 compatible version of one of their flagship apps. For a phone produced by one of their own subsidiaries. How quickly do you think one and two man shops would provide alternative versions of their apps, if ever? Why would anyone (the developer, or the consumer) want to have to worry about compatibility of their phone/app?
  I debunked your example. Live with it, and please provide another. Also, please provide some statistics for the percentage of Android apps that are native ARM. If I'm a two-man Android app shop (is that what you are in your day job or something?), going to native ARM has to be more trouble than its worth. You must be talking about games, because that's the only reason I could see to bother.
  
  Bias against x86... Is that why I asked for an i7 workstation? x86 is fine for desktop computing, I just see no advantage to using it in the mobile space. Again, what's the benefit of having a phone or tablet that is compatible with 80386 software? That's the only advantage x86 gets you.
  This thread started out as a hypothetical, remember? Someone said that Intel would never produce an x86 chip that was as low-power as ARM, and I called bullshit on that, and you took some sort of exception to that bullshit-calling. Then, as yet another hypothetical, I asked if you would want an x86 chip that was lower-power than ARM, and you basically said no, and I didn't understand that since it seemed to be anti-x86 bias.
  
  You know, I could just easily accuse you of pro-x86 bias, especially since you haven't listed any actual "technical merits" of x86, and I've m
So now we get to find out how bad ARM sucks? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:36 · Score: -1

Because it will likely run like crap on a Microsoft platform?
Will it still run IE6? by cryfreedomlove · 2012-11-02 07:37 · Score: 2, Funny

I know lots of corporate desktop police still subjugate their users by forcing them to still use IE6.
1. Re:Will it still run IE6? by hendridm · 2012-11-02 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  You know, if they would just ditch the desktop in favor of the typewriter, they could save SO much money. I suppose NCSA Mosaic could be a compromise, though, so you could still get your random vacation notifications from coworkers that you don't know via OWA.
2. Re:Will it still run IE6? by corychristison · 2012-11-02 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Tell them they are putting their company at risk by forcing IE6 and that you do not want to be the one to blame when shit hits the fan (assuming you are either the person performing the work or the guy in charge of the person doing the work).
  As a web developer I can tell you very few developers still cater to IE6. Many have even dropped IE7. Most now use conditional comments to display a "Upgrade your browser" or "use a standards compliant browser" error message.
3. Re:Will it still run IE6? by swb · 2012-11-02 08:05 · Score: 2
  
  It really all boils down to some fat fuck in management or ownership and only gives a shit about how much cash he can wring out of the operation.
  They keep the browser at some old version because their application doesn't work in newer browsers and licensing a new version or doing the development on a new version would cost money.
  I see this all the time in consulting.
4. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  For a number of use cases (see also: Hospital systems) using any browser other than IE6 is actually illegal.
  Deal with it - the need for support will never end.
5. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Solandri · 2012-11-02 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Tell them they are putting their company at risk by forcing IE6
  [...]
  As a web developer I can tell you very few developers still cater to IE6. Many have even dropped IE7.
  The companies requiring IE6 don't require it because they take some perverse joy in forcing their employees to browse the web with a prehistoric browser. They require it because they have some custom in-house app which runs on a local intranet web server that works only with IE6. The expectation is that the employees will use IE6 to run that app, nothing more. In such an environment, there is very little risk from using IE6.
  
  The problem comes about when employees want to surf the Internet and reach for the nearest browser. In most cases they're not even supposed to be surfing the Internet from that machine. Updating the web app to run on something newer than IE6 as you propose is not the only solution. Other possible (and likely cheaper) solutions include strict enforcement of the "no surfing" rules, or a more pragmatic approach which allows employees to surf the net using a different machine or a different approved browser.
6. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-02 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Pffft lucky you.
  Many wont even talk to you unless you sign a sheet acknowledging the pre-reqs with IE 6 mentioned and asking if you can do this before the interview even starts! As a result managers have no clue webmasters wont do the work or even that it requires more work. After all everytime they put it out for the headhunters every person who was pre-screened agreed to to it. Since their intranet apps all work therefore it is not broken so why upgrade?
  I never heard of IE 6 being incompatible with standards? Every other developer has no problem with it. All my apps work with it. You seem to be the only one who can't do it Cory Christison etc.
  Oddly Windows Phone 6.5 was popular in these circles because it came with IE 6 and ran on an ARM or Mips. It can render these apps fine.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
7. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-02 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Tell them they are putting their company at risk by forcing IE6
  [...]
  As a web developer I can tell you very few developers still cater to IE6. Many have even dropped IE7.
  The companies requiring IE6 don't require it because they take some perverse joy in forcing their employees to browse the web with a prehistoric browser. They require it because they have some custom in-house app which runs on a local intranet web server that works only with IE6. The expectation is that the employees will use IE6 to run that app, nothing more. In such an environment, there is very little risk from using IE6.
  The problem comes about when employees want to surf the Internet and reach for the nearest browser. In most cases they're not even supposed to be surfing the Internet from that machine. Updating the web app to run on something newer than IE6 as you propose is not the only solution. Other possible (and likely cheaper) solutions include strict enforcement of the "no surfing" rules, or a more pragmatic approach which allows employees to surf the net using a different machine or a different approved browser.
  That will change very quickly. Clouds, Skydrive pro, Tablets for the executives, Salesforce.com, and business social media and even Office 2013 all integrate together. Many workers will be having vendor orders accessible by their salesforce.com page that will be HTML 5 with an ugly IE 8 min packport. Skydrive PRO is part of Office 2013, Windows 8 Enterprise, and Windows 9. Requires IE 9 (I think) or later.
  Cost accountants and owners looking at the internet as a cost and a toy rather than a tool are going to repeate the same mistakes their parents made when the PC came out in the 1980s. They laughed at them and couldn't understand how a toy like a PC could enhance productivity when these typewritters and Mainframes were all the rage.
  They had to spend more in the long run by going cheap and not having network cards in them nor anything other than greenscreen to run Windows.
  Sticking with IE 6 in 2012 is a bad idea. Your employees need to use the internet to do their jobs and the demand will surge once their customers require them all to use websites and other tools like salesforce and probably other business social media sites.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
8. Re:Will it still run IE6? by corychristison · 2012-11-02 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  I understand where you are coming from, my primary point is that the IT people at the companies need to start sticking up to these moron execs. I can imagine the time being put into maintaining XP & IE6 is near thay breaking point where it would be better to upgrade to something compliant with standards (IE7+[sorta], Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.)
  Security wise it is not safe to run IE6, especially since Microsoft abandonded it a very long time ago (and WinXP, for that matter). Thereare no security patches for the horribly broken IE6.
  In my line of work, if IE6 compatibility is important to the client, I charge a premium to bring all same features and similar rendering in comparison to IE7 (using various JS & CSS hacks)
9. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-02 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  IE 7 still does not respect standards nor just works. Slashdot puts elements all over the place with IE 7. IE 8 will actually work and just be ugly. IE 7 needs to die too as MS plans to make IE an annual new release.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
10. Re:Will it still run IE6? by corychristison · 2012-11-02 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  I've had decent success with IE7 simply using PIE.htc and littering my css with behavior: url('/files/PIE.htc');
  Also using
  <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EDGE"/>
  Helps in IE7/8/9 to force IE to not allow compatibility mode.
  PIE works in IE6 but IE6 is so old a lot of the css stuff simply doesn't work.
  I have done a few small custom intranet projects for local SMBs but always built on Standards compliance, so it should work in recent IE, FF, Chrome, etc. I develop on Linux as my main workstation and test across all browsers over various Windows versions.
11. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-03 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sticking with IE 6 in 2012 is a bad idea. Your employees need to use the internet to do their jobs and the demand will surge once their customers require them all to use websites and other tools like salesforce and probably other business social media sites.
  One of the benefits to IE6 from a corporate standpoint is that people can't use social media sites. They're supposed to be doing their TPS reports and until their eyes go all foggy and dull like the Gelflings in Dark Crystal who had their life essence sucked out, not frolicking on Facebook.
  Seriously IE6 means workers with dull eyes, a biddable temperament and TPS reports being filed on time and in sextuplicate.
  Firefox means social media usage, rebellion and a hostile takeover by Urskek Corp (NASDAQ: URSK). Have we learned nothing from what happened to Mubarak?
  Now bring me my life essence!
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
12. Re:Will it still run IE6? by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-03 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot looks like ass on bleeding edge Chrome, Firefox and Opera too. Look at that damn header which is only half visible.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
GMO chips by kurt555gs · 2012-11-02 07:58 · Score: 0

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 *
ARM by faustoc4 · 2012-11-02 08:06 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:ARM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to something known for months.
2. Re:ARM by faustoc4 · 2012-11-02 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  What I said is not a novelty. But it certainly is to the people standing in line to buy a Windows ARM tablet, if they knew there would be no people in line or pre-ordering a Windows ARM computer.
3. Re:ARM by cbhacking · 2012-11-02 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, hardly. Technical limitations to prevent installing other operating systems / firmware have existed on mobile devices for years. *Some* Android phones now come with unlockable or easily unlocked bootloaders, but it was only a few years ago that "e-fuses" which bricked the device if you tried to flash a custom ROM were all the rage among some of the big manufacturers. No WP7 device has an officially unlocked bootloader, and indeed many of them can't currently be unlocked at all, yet they managed to gain 3% market share - hardly a huge success, but a lot more than "no people". Apple devices, which have never supported custom ROMs at all, are still wildly successful even in the face of unlockable Android phones. As for tablets, the iPad certianly doesn't support running an arbitrary OS on it, and neither do most Android devices (although some of the most popular ones do).
  Granted, MS is evil and/or stupid for *insisting* on a locked bootloader (and the bootloader is locked; bcdedit is present on the devices but you can't *do* much with it), but if so, Apple is far worse; they not only lock down their own sofware on their own hardware, they don't let anybody else make it at all! Yet iPads are still very successful in the market.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
It just won't work by erroneus · 2012-11-02 08:28 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:It just won't work by Yunzil · 2012-11-02 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  The backward-bug-compatibility! Stop trying to turn DOS->Windows->NT->2000->XP->Vista->7->8 into the next tablet OS.
  Yeah, after all, who needs all their old apps to run when they upgrade their OS?
2. Re:It just won't work by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-03 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  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!
  Microsoft dropped compatibility with Windows Mobile Win32 applications in Windows Phone 7. And for Windows Phone 8 they completely rebooted their development environment - new apps are C++/WinRT instead of C#/XAML and Silverlight. Windows RT on ARM for tablets won't run Win32 applications either.
  Despite all that they've lost market share and lost ISV support. Which is not surprising really. If Windows Phone 7 won't run any old applications, why should people choose it over Android which has more applications? Including most of the ones that run on WinMo because the ISVs, like the users, decided that a compatibility break meant it was time to port to Android which was growing market share, not to WP7 which looked like it was going to fail.
  In fact given that WP7 didn't allow any native code at all and Android did, it was actually easier to port to Android than WP7. Now it's true WP8 does allow native code. But that doesn't mean the old WinMo ISVs who moved over are going to support it because it has such a low market share. And the users who switched from WinMo to Android are most likely going to stay there, unless Google do something as catastrophically dumb as deciding that the next version of Android won't support the old applications.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
AutoCAD & other exclusive apps by Janek+Kozicki · 2012-11-02 08:40 · Score: 1

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 #
1. Re:AutoCAD & other exclusive apps by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-02 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Autocad was the only major cad program that was a Windows and DOS exclusive when others were on Sun OS and Irix. I am shocked they even have a Mac version today! The beancounters that run that company only look at marketshare and how much money is worth the development cost.
  If they can't get back more in a linux port than the development effort then they wont make it. That simple. There maybe some assembler code from the DOS days still in there, but I bet most of the costs are proprietary Win32 api's. Autodesk has been very pro Microsoft implementing every feature like backoffice, DNA, and God knows what else. This makes it expensive and a complete rewrite for anything else.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
2. Re:AutoCAD & other exclusive apps by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-02 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  well if they have a Mac port then it isn't all win32 api's as Mac is lacking them unless it is using wine libraries internally that is. but assuming it is a complete Mac port not a wine cheat then a Linux port should be fairly straight forward.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
3. Re:AutoCAD & other exclusive apps by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-02 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  It could still have x86 code in the rendering engine? I do wonder and I was shocked to see it on the mac last year. But even then there are no good opengl drivers for Linux. Nvidia is the only semi stable one and it is not professional grade like the Windows ones are. I doubt they want to support ATI users.
  I agree with Autodesk that Linux is not worth the effort. Not enough users and they do not pay for software.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
4. Re:AutoCAD & other exclusive apps by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-02 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  It could still have x86 code in the rendering engine? I do wonder and I was shocked to see it on the mac last year. But even then there are no good opengl drivers for Linux. Nvidia is the only semi stable one and it is not professional grade like the Windows ones are. I doubt they want to support ATI users.
  I agree with Autodesk that Linux is not worth the effort. Not enough users and they do not pay for software.
  In my experience OpenGL is fine on Linux but then again I haven't tried anything on that level, but as to you comment on Linux users not paying for software Redhat Oracle and IBM would beg to differ with you on that, while it may be that they way in the consumer space but when it comes to business level stuff Linux users are generally pretty good on paying for software when its better then the open alternatives
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
5. Re:AutoCAD & other exclusive apps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  I ported Windows software to the DEC Alpha, back when Windows NT 4 supported it. It was a simple recompile. The only problem was finding Alpha versions of third-party libraries. The only things that are likely to cause difficulties are issues such as memory alignment (ARM is stricter, like the Alpha) and ARM's weaker memory model. For these low-level issues, Windows on Intel is closer to Linux on Intel than to Windows on ARM.
  In short, porting Windows software to a new processor is not a step towards a Linux port.
Windows 9 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:40 · Score: 0

It will no doubt be right in time for the release of Windows 9, since the prior will be bomb worse than Vista.
Emulation overhead by tepples · 2012-11-02 09:50 · Score: 1

DOSBox is an emulator, which adds a substantial overhead in slowdown (especially on older phones and tablets) and in battery consumption.
1. Re:Emulation overhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-03 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  You have a cite for "substantial"?
Awesome! by elabs · 2012-11-02 12:50 · Score: 1

I hope they make the Surface2 an x64 version that ships with more than 4GB of RAM. That would be pretty amazing.
What do they mean "working with" by hawkingradiation · 2012-11-02 16:04 · Score: 1

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
This is why SecureBoot MUST allow user keys on ARM by VortexCortex · 2012-11-03 03:05 · Score: 1

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.
Interpretive emulation slower by a factor of 10 by tepples · 2012-11-03 04:50 · Score: 1

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?
Re:This is why SecureBoot MUST allow user keys on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 16:11 · Score: 0

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.