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."
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.
intensive purposes
OMG, kill me now.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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