Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Rolls Out "Beacon Mountain" Android Dev Platform For Atom

Posted by timothy on from the atom-as-element dept.

MojoKid writes "In an effort to coax developers to begin taking Atom seriously as an Android platform, Intel has just released a complete suite of tools that should help ease them into things — especially since it can be used for ARM development as well. It's called Beacon Mountain, named after the highest peak outside of Beacon, New York. As you'd expect, Beacon Mountain supports Jelly Bean (4.2) development, and with this suite, you're provided with a collection of important Intel tools: Hardware Accelerated Execution Manager, Integrated Performance Primitives, Graphics and System Performance Analyzers, Threaded Building Blocks and Software Manager. In addition, Android SDK and NDK, Eclipse and Cygwin third-party tools are included to complete the package."

126 comments

  1. It will never catch on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Microsoft products are vastly better than that garbage.

  2. Yum..... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, whoops I thought it said 'Bacon' mountain. Curse you Intel and your false meaty product names.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Yum..... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bah, you'd still have to pay MS for the FAT patents.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Yum..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bacon Peak?

    3. Re:Yum..... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      That would match Google naming scheme. If versions -> sweet, hardware platforms -> fatty, then, I guess, display architecture would be salty. Native X11 for Android would be Kipper.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:Yum..... by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      Just came here to express solidarity with all those who misread this 'Bacon Mountain'. Not disappointed.

  3. x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Just let this ol' ISA die in peace already.

    1. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't you belong in the 1990s? You know, back before x86 became the most powerful and power efficient architecture.

    2. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The x86 ISA is still inefficient because of the lack of registers. That's why they added more with x86-64. The x86 won primarily because of amazing manufacturing, not because it's an incredible instruction set.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The x86 ISA is still inefficient because of the lack of registers. That's why they added more with x86-64.

      Which happened how long ago? Your argument basically boils down to "well they improved it, so that doesn't count". How many other CPU architectures remain stagnant with no updates?

    4. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The Atom chipset is generally 32 bit, especially in mobile devices, so it's still using the old architecture, with not enough registers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, you're years late. The Atom has had 64-bit support since 2008. That's 5 years ago.

    6. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Youre welcome to make your own architecture. We await eagerly the amazing innovations you will surely be bringing to the table.

    7. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uhh, you're years late. The Atom has had 64-bit support since 2008.

      Most don't.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by bheading · · Score: 1

      Consult Google and educate yourself on the joys of register renaming.

    9. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most of the Atoms in production right now have 64-bit support. How many ARM CPUs out in real use do?

    10. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Register renaming doesn't make up for a lack of registers because it's harder for a compiler (or human) to optimize for it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ARM CPUs don't need it because they already have enough registers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that a modern day ARM CPU is better than a decades old x86. Try comparing the two at the same time frame.

    13. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I can't wait for the day that my crappy x86 CPU will be able to run Crysis 3 like my vastly superior ARM CPU can. You know, what with the x86 being horribly inefficient and not being able to handle programs of the same complexity as ARM.

    14. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you want to compare the two at the same time, then we can say that x86 was built for a time, decades ago, when demands on the CPU were different. Intel has been able to keep up with modern technology by clever engineering and piling on bandaids over the chip's eccentricity's, but it's still a pile of baindaids. That's why Intel wanted to dump it and start fresh.

      x86 won the desktop wars because of Intel's incredible manufacturing processes, not because it's a beautiful design. The design is a dog.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The design is a dog

      That may be so in your opinion, but it's still the best architecture right now. That is why everyone has switched to it, regardless of whether it was to Intel or AMD.

    16. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      That may be so in your opinion, but it's still the best architecture right now.

      As if you have any understanding of CPU architectures. I know your type, you're the fanboy who will say anything to defend your object of adulation. More interested in fighting than learning.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote x86 assembly language for nearly 10 years in the early 80s to early 90s. You're the one who is talking out of his ass.

      And I have to say, that was a blatant cop-out on your part. You are presented with facts that you cannot refute so you resort to personal attack. Fantastic.

    18. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If the glove fits, wear it. If God came down and gave you the perfect CPU, then you'd still say, "x86 is better."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lamest logical fallacy ever. The poster brings a valid point, and you respond with nonsensical, empty rhetorics. "Can you do better? No? Then shut up." instead of countering his argument with something factual.

    20. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would? You have to show me this ARM powered brain scanner you've devised some time, because I have a few suggestions for improvement.

    21. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poster brings ignorant, fanboy bullshit

      FTFY

    22. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I dont think its a fallacy to point out that NOONE has managed to make faster processors than x86-64 arch ones in years despite claims that there are superior processor arches. Appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy if all of the biggest authorities in the field agree.

    23. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was the only concern sane people would use MIPS not arm as it has twice as many registers again.

      (Or itanium that has a stupid number).

    24. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Clearly it is not the only concern.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > That's why they added more with x86-64.

      That's why _AMD_ added more with x86-64.

      Intel was still trying to get Itanium working when AMD trumped them by bring out x86-64. Intel had to copy that to keep relevant. The initial Intel x86-64 CPUs couldn't even run Windows-64, an AMD chip was required until Intel fixed theirs.

    26. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > back before x86 became the most powerful and power efficient architecture.

      x86 (or x86-64) never was, never is, and never will be.

      It may well be more cost effective than the more powerful and power efficient CPUs, but that is because of volume production and not because of its architecture.

    27. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel wanted to dump it so they could be the sole provider of chips for it. Having AMD able to compete at all was considered worse than AMD just limping along.

    28. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by idunham · · Score: 1

      I dont think its a fallacy to point out that NOONE has managed to make faster processors than x86-64 arch ones in years despite claims that there are superior processor arches. Appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy if all of the biggest authorities in the field agree.

      First, the "fallacy" referred to was along the lines of "let's see you do better," which is certainly not the same as "nobody has done better."
      Second, best != fastest clock. MIPS and ARM can be done in a fraction of the silicon, have simpler ISAs, and use much less power at comparable technologies. And no, "Intel can make it at 22 nm when everyone else is at 32 nm or higher" (may be slightly out of date by now) is not a valid reason for saying "x86-64 is the best arch there is."
      Third, this is false unless you count overclocked prcessors. You say NOONE, I say IBM had POWER6 up to 5.00 GHz in 2008.
      According to this page,

      As of mid-2013, the highest clock rate on a production processor is the IBM zEC12, clocked at 5.5 GHz, which was released in August of 2012.

    29. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also because the x86 instructions are variable length, which means they are more L1 cache efficient. The cost of instruction decoding (transistors / watts) is non-zero, but negligible (even for ultra low power designs).

      x86 won over pretenders due to software compatibility.

      ARM won over MIPS due to a focus on embedded and more aggressive / better licensing... Which brought them presence and mind share even though MIPS was commonly taught in college.

      Intel are very capable. You may not appreciate their instruction set, but you'd be a fool to think ARM are playing at their level.

      And don't hold the ARM instruction set up as particularly special. Check out their new 64-bit model... It's a significant change... Some elements you may have loved from ARM32 are gone.

    30. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, why is ARM doubling the number of registers in ARMv8?

    31. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x86 (or x86-64) never was, never is, and never will be.

      Except it is. Right now. Name ONE commercially produced microprocessor that can outperform a modern x86 CPU.

    32. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clockspeed doesn't mean shit unless you are comparing identical processors.

      How much do you want to bet that my Core i7 3770T 2.5GHz will leave any single POWER based CPU in the dust, even at 5GHz?

    33. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Good point, you can never have enough registers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re: x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha - actually more registers equates to more state you need to save when you tape an interrupt / exception / context switch. So it's a trade off for sure.

    35. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got about 25 years of assembly experience, and he's right - x86 is dog shit now, and was dog shit back in the 80's as well. Intel wouldn't know what an orthogonal instruction set was if it bit them in the ass.

    36. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got about 30 years of assembly experience and he's wrong. x86 is great now and it was great back in the 80s as well. Intel invented the microprocessor, so they know how best to approach it.

    37. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Intel has been able to keep up with modern technology by clever engineering and piling on bandaids over the chip's eccentricity's, but it's still a pile of baindaids. That's why Intel wanted to dump it and start fresh.

      By bandaids what do you mean exactly? We all know that support for 16-bit mode and memory segmentation costs silicon, but at most that requires the same number of transistors as the first 8088. If you mean because its not RISC then sorry your favorite design philosophy didn't win the performance war, but it was for the same reason that the opposing design philosophy didn't: Hybrid of CISC and RISC is better than either, but can only be implemented with a design philosophy that permits a large instruction set.

      As far as register counts, there are diminishing returns to adding more registers. In practice any out-of-order CPU (ie: performance) already has a pool of registers greater than the number of ones indicated by the instruction set. This pool is used in a register renaming scheme that allows the CPU to manage a long out-of-order pipeline efficiently.

      You claim that Intel wanted to dump x86 and start fresh with something simpler, but thats not what we observe to have been implemented with Itanium. Sorry, Intel wanted to dump x86 because they had to share x86, not for whatever bullshit you are imagining.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    38. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The design is a dog

      That may be so in your opinion, but it's still the best architecture right now. That is why everyone has switched to it, regardless of whether it was to Intel or AMD.

      Anyone, and I mean anyone, who believes that the Intel x86 with its stupid segmentation (when it started) and other ugliness was in any way "the best" architecture compared to say, the Motorola 68K series, with a fairly 'pure and graceful' 32bit architecture needs their head examined. x86 came off the 8086 (a "16bit" architecture), then the 80286, and then the 80386 with all that 16bit "crap" still stuck in it. 68K started off clean as a 32-bit architecture.

      Maybe nowadays, with things going 64-bit and the need for greater than 32-bit addressing, even 68K is somewhat ancient, but it is/was a *hell* of a log better 32-bit architecture than x86 *ever* was.

      Where Motorola lost out was in IBM picking x86 for the PC, Apple stagnating for a while and then dropping 68K or PPC (still Motorola), and with the PC's success (Intel having far more money rolling in from lots of PC sales, vs. Motorola not so much from the far smaller percentage of Mac sales by Apple) which company do you think had more income to invest in better Fabrication technology, etc?

    39. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Register renaming doesn't make up for a lack of registers because it's harder for a compiler (or human) to optimize for it.

      Register renaming and the OOE that it enables greatly widens the target that compilers needs to hit. The point of register renaming is that you still win even when the compiler is retarded about register use. Intels latest chips are commonly pulling 2.5+ instructions per clock cycle even when using compilers written in the 1990's, written before there was even such a thing as register renaming.

      Intel designs processors that execute existing code efficiently. Thats the metric in use by their engineering team.

      In no way, shape, or form does register renaming have either a negative impact on cpu performance or on compiler optimization opportunities. Its the exact opposite.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    40. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Intels latest chips are commonly pulling 2.5+ instructions per clock cycle even when using compilers written in the 1990's, written before there was even such a thing as register renaming.

      ARM cores are dual-issue now, so that's just not that exciting any more.

      In no way, shape, or form does register renaming have either a negative impact on cpu performance or on compiler optimization opportunities. Its the exact opposite.

      Straw man, or at best, you failed to understand the argument. The argument is not that register renaming has a negative impact on cpu performance, the argument is that having more GPRs provides superior performance to register renaming. This is a proven fact; just recompiling some code for x86_64 provides a 15% performance increase for this reason alone (on the same processor.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Uhh, you're years late. The Atom has had 64-bit support since 2008.

      Most don't.

      Intel will "solve" this problem by simply abandoning the old processors. They did it to the first atoms already; preview releases of new Linux distributions that Intel has contributed code to (e.g. Tizen) don't support them already.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be so in your opinion, but it's still the best architecture right now

      Learn to read.

    43. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As far as register counts, there are diminishing returns to adding more registers. In practice any out-of-order CPU (ie: performance) already has a pool of registers greater than the number of ones indicated by the instruction set. This pool is used in a register renaming scheme that allows the CPU to manage a long out-of-order pipeline efficiently.

      Do you really think this makes up for not being able to choose registers at compile time?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    44. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Do you really think this makes up for not being able to choose registers at compile time?

      Uh, who said anything about not choosing registers?

      You have imagined an extreme that does not exist.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    45. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This is a proven fact; just recompiling some code for x86_64 provides a 15% performance increase for this reason alone (on the same processor.)

      Note to self:

      A CPU that has completely unused silicon in one mode performs better when all of its silicon is being used by the other mode.

      You claim that I failed to understand the argument, but its you that are failing to make an argument that doesnt have a hole big enough to drive a clue truck through.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    46. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A CPU that has completely unused silicon in one mode performs better when all of its silicon is being used by the other mode.

      We're talking about GPRs here, in 32 bit mode it uses less of them. There are other differences, but it's still using all the functional units in 32 bit mode, which makes your argument laughable at best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    47. Re:x86 = bacon mountain. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People prefer to write programs that use between four and sixteen registers. Too many GPRs wastes stack space. Too few requires constant copy instructions that are done quickly by a CPU that secretly has more registers. x86 famously only has four. PPC famously has 32. AMD looked at the history of register use and chose to have 16.

  4. I hope I wasn't the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope I wasn't the only one to read that as "Bacon Mountain".

    I love bacon!

    1. Re:I hope I wasn't the only one... by The123king · · Score: 1

      Didn't pretty much everyone who went to comment on this news article?

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  5. Why not use the Android naming system.... by The123king · · Score: 2

    Charlie! Lets go to Candy Mountain, Charlie!

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    1. Re:Why not use the Android naming system.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      ok, but I don't even know you... you did mention candy right?

    2. Re:Why not use the Android naming system.... by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Maybe they didn't want to lose a kidney.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  6. Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I sure would like to begin developing applications for a platform I don't have! Maybe if I create a program, a major company will create some hardware for it! (at a price I can afford, available on a network in my area)

  7. It already has caught on. by tuppe666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft products are...

    ...Unwanted

    Android and Chrome head Sundar Pichai has just revealed that Android has passed the milestone of 900 million activations, up from 400 million in 2012 and 100 million in 2011 (to put that in some perspective Windows Installs is about 1.2Billion). Its an incredibly popular OS that people want, on devices people want. The same is not true for the current version on Windows with its new tablet interface, on current PC's, Which is damaging the whole PC industry....and in context of this article why intel wants to be part of this growing wave of devices.

    1. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yeah right, and we're supposed to believe some guy named Sumdum Pikachu about this?

    2. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Sumdum Pikachu sounds Japanese, which might be ok. Sundar Pichai sounds Indian and anyone who is into tech knows that Indians are clueless morons when it comes to computers.

    3. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples and oranges. I wish idiots like you would stop trying to compare a telephone "OS" to an actual, real PC OS.

    4. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with him, Microsoft developer tools are vastly superior to anything else out there.
      I have worked in MS Visual studio over a decade ago, and last few years i am working in Eclipse (Java pays more) and still after all these years Eclipse did not catch up with Microsoft Visual Studio

      Eclipse and other open source developer tools, IBM developer tools, Intel developer tools cant even compare Adobe developer tools (both Adobe Flash/Flex and Adobe Dreamwer) are close but still not better than Visual Studio, only company that ever had better developer tools than Microsoft is Borland (unfortunately they are almost dead now, great products but bad at making money)

    5. Re:It already has caught on. by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used refactoring capabilities in Eclipse? That's a basic thing I need from a programming IDE but you wouldn't find that in VStudio without plugins. Eclipse (and even NetBeans) have superior editors in my opinion. Eclipse rules for Java development and it is quite decent for C++.

      I like the fact that VStudio is faster, more solid and integrated but I had a more enjoyable experience with Eclipse. I miss Eclipse now that I am forced to use VStudio for a big C++ software (because it is the choice of the team) .

    6. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to stereotype try to be accurate: Indians are impoverished and inexperienced with first world luxury devices. My version isn't true either, but at least where it applies I'm not disparaging people poor enough to pan gold from sewage for not having access to pleasure/entertainment media devices.

    7. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      It's not just a stereotype, it's fact. Many Indians attend university (either in their own country or another) and STILL manage to be bumbling idiots when stuck in front of a computer. About all an Indian with a CS degree is good for is reading off checklists on tech support hotlines.

    8. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Indians are basically Asia's version of niggers -- Dark skinned, poor, like to steal, like to rape. But being asian, they have small penises, so they don't even get that.

    9. Re:It already has caught on. by bertok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just because Eclipse is a terrible IDE, that doesn't mean that all IDEs are worse than Visual Studio!

      On Windows, just about everyone with any common sense uses Visual Studio because it's basically the only option, and also happens to be the best development environment for C# and Windows-only C++. For Java development, there's a lot more choice, and unfortunately Eclipse has become a defacto standard in a lot of places, despite being one of the worst IDEs out there.

      I use Visual Studio daily, and it's good, but it doesn't hold a candle to IntelliJ IDEA, for example. The new "refactorings" that have been added to recent versions of Visual Studio have been in IDEA for a decade. Download the trial edition, and do some serious work with it for a week or two on a large codebase. It'll blow your mind.

    10. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Apples and oranges. I wish idiots like you would stop trying to compare a telephone "OS" to an actual, real PC OS.

      I wish cunts like you would die.

    11. Re:It already has caught on. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      That's why professionals use Resharper, VsCommands, etc.. VS2012 is most excellent and much better than that other primitive ass shit.

    12. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come get me, tough guy.

    13. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even lift?

    14. Re:It already has caught on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I lift guns every time I go for target practice. Want to volunteer?

  8. God says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    2:6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall
    gather blackness.

    2:7 They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men
    of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not
    break their ranks: 2:8 Neither shall one thrust another; they shall
    walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they
    shall not be wounded.

    2:9 They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the
    wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the
    windows like a thief.

    1. Re:God says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little tip: All bibles of all religions were written by primitive men with no grasp of science, not some magical sky daddy.

  9. Unfortunate codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "Bacon mountain" conveys the idea of something bloated and fat, which is bad for you. Not the best thing when someone is trying to sell a product which is valued as being lean and efficient.

    1. Re: Unfortunate codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Bacon Mountain conveys Awesomeness in Large Quantities.

    2. Re:Unfortunate codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only eat MorningStar Farms(R) brand Veggie Bacon Strips. They're delicious and good for you.

    3. Re:Unfortunate codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An SDA on /.?

    4. Re:Unfortunate codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I used to brainstorm at the Security & Defence Agenda in Brussels, I didn't find it challenging enough so I left.

  10. I see nothing about licensing. I see no promise. by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    Yea it supports ARM, how is that support and how will it work out for you? Will the support it equally? What is the licensing of this confabulation? Do I have to pay anything if I make a commercial product other than the atom processor, support chips and sundry support components?

    I've priced atom with all the needed support chips and compared to arm and it sucks balls on costs. I'm leery of hidden costs in this confabulation over the already sub par costs of atom.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  11. Just curious by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Just curious, but the initials of Beacon Mountain are B.M. Do you think that's an indicator that Intel pretty committed to Windows still?

  12. Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Increasingly, the best Android apps will use C++ and assembler, producing binaries that will NOT run only dodgy x86 versions of Android. There is already an issue of the best 'to-the-metal' apps on Android only running on certain ARM tablets, although this is usually down to laziness or excessive caution by the programmers. ARM provides excellent ways to ensure ARM binaries have sufficient support for the minor variations found amongst the most commonly used ARM CPU cores, the main variation being in the area of vector acceleration facilities for floating point code.

    The world doesn't need x86 Android. The world doesn't want x86 Android. The world is only subject to x86 Android because Intel (illegally) PAYS third parties to build x86 Android devices. There is no sane commercial reason for any company to use an Intel chip UNLESS Intel turns up with wheel-barrows full of cash and shed loads of free low end x86 parts. Luckily, getting the devices built doesn't help Intel subvert the marketplace, since no-one chooses to buy them. Buying an Intel Android tablet would be like buying a non-cortex ARM based tablet. Sure, they'll both run 'Angry Birds', and other primitive Java only apps. However, no aware person would choose a non-cortex ARM or x86 CPU unless they wanted to be constantly checking the compatibility of Android software (and at least Android ARM binaries CAN be made compatible with non-cortex ARM v7).

    We've seen this before, in the early days of Microsoft NT (now, what you call 'Windows'). Microsoft backed 3 or 4 different CPUs, and provided tools for each. In theory, an app could carry binary pay-loads for each type of CPU in the same package. In practice this NEVER happened. Either an app was a general program for a common x86 based PC, or an app was a highly specialised program for a MIPS machine or whatever. Of course, back then the (supposedly) CPU ISA independent .NET initiative did not exist.

    Or again, consider the nintendo Wii U. This console was designed for brainless and cheap ports from the Xbox360. The Wii U has CPU and GPU features that can be considered as supersets of the Xbox360, but in reality things are more complex. The Wii U may have more power than the Xbox360, and 'compatible' hardware (same CPU ISA, GPU form same company), but now almost no Xbox360 developer is creating versions of their games for the Wii U. Intel's argument for Android on x86 is like Nintendo's argument for the Wii U- namely that developers from successful platforms will obviously want to port their apps/games across if the process is 'easy' enough.

    In the world of software development 'easy enough' is a buzz phrase designed to fool the 'pointy-haired bosses', and it doesn't even do this. The very reason, for instance, that EA no longer codes ANY games for the Wii U is the self-same reason vanishing few good apps will appear for the x86 version of Android. Testing, supporting, and porting just won't be worth the effort. Developers who support Intel KNOW they are uselessly helping to fragment the Android market, AND support a CPU manufacturer that, if successful, will massively raise the cost of x86 Android CPU parts. Intel's mad dream is to drive ARM out of the mobile market, and then to raise the price of their mobile x86 parts back to notebook levels.

    1. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Sorry to break this to you, but the lowest end Intel CPU is powerful enough to emulate the highest end ARM CPU. Intel CPUs also have the best performance per watt.

    2. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sed: "The world doesn't need x86 Android. The world doesn't want x86 Android."

      The world doesn't want competition or choice in OS, the world doesn't need competition or choice in OS --> Microsoft

      The world doesn't want competition or choice in smartphones, the world doesn't need competition or choice in smartphones --> Apple

      You know what would be *awesome*? A real x86 tablet that I could slap on any old Linux distro just like I do with my x86 PCs. I'm getting really tired of having to hunt down a specific and hard to upgrade set of "ROMs" for every flavor of ARM device out there. Even the 100% open source Raspberry Pi requires that you find specific download disk images just for it.

    3. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh.. I love how the ARM fanboys have now convinced themselves that it is impossible to run a compiler for x86 CPUs... those guys who wrote GCC and LLVM must feel pretty silly knowning that their projects can't possibly exist!

    4. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      If that were so, they'd have already handled that support in Android-X86 and it'd be a desktop solution on Linux platforms.

      It is nothing of the sort- so try again. (Hint: Your assessment of being able to emulate the highest-end ARM is quite WRONG...just to start with...)

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    5. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      I thought the issue was that developers had written asm to extract maximum performance from the CPU. With the inference that shoddy programmers wouldn't cleanly decouple arch specific code.

      If it's arm-specific C code then intel just needs to supply the header files and reverse engineer the libraries to link against.

      Of course app vendors need to see a financial benefit in porting.

    6. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your pathetic attempt at FUD is laughable, you queefing little cunt.

    7. Re:Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by loufoque · · Score: 1

      You realize you can compile the same source to get ARM or x86 binaries, with or without NEON/SSE/AVX ?

  13. Not a problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I always enjoy a hearty B.M. every morning and evening, it's a natural healthy process, nothing to be ashamed of.

  14. Look at the big screen by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    Yeah right, and we're supposed to believe some guy named Sumdum Pikachu about this?

    They put it on a big screen and everything :) http://cdn.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/imagecache/w680h550/postimages/108579/900m.jpg

  15. Re:I see nothing about licensing. I see no promise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/beacon-mountain-v05-frequently-asked-questions

    The IDE is provided free of charge, and you view the licenses when you install the IDE. I have no idea what they are because I haven't downloaded it, but you can check for yourself if you are curious.

  16. Windows 8 is a tablet OS by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

    Apples and oranges. I wish idiots like you would stop trying to compare a telephone "OS" to an actual, real PC OS.

    Then Windows 8 should have been a real operating system instead of a tablet one (on machines with lower DPI and less portable), because everyone right now is choosing Android over Windows. Its very much an Oranges vs Oranges comparison (Apple priced themselves out of every market), and its what Microsoft wanted...pushed even with its self styled Ecosystem at least they will make a Billions from the shop :).

    1. Re:Windows 8 is a tablet OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 8 is a real operating system. I use it every day for work, research and entertainment. A cosmetic change to the start menu does not change that any more than the superbar in Windows 7 did.

  17. Intel CPU's are too expensive by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry to break this to you, but the lowest end Intel CPU is powerful enough to emulate the highest end ARM CPU

    Its not true ARM chipsets are faster than atom chipsets...and even if they weren't you need a 12x speed in power. The bottom line though is what people need is CPU's cheap, fast enough (for smartphone apps) vs power consumption (at least a day maybe two). The problem till now is Intel didn't have a CPU suitable for mobile...now they do (have for a while), but they are still expensive(because they insist on ludicrous margins...and its helping kill the PC industry), and in comparisons worse than the opposition.

    1. Re:Intel CPU's are too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not true ARM chipsets are faster than atom chipsets

      I'd like some of whatever you are smoking.

    2. Re:Intel CPU's are too expensive by idunham · · Score: 1

      Make that 5x (Qemu is usually 20% of native), and you'd be fairly accurate.
      The "average higher-end" ARM device is 1.2-1.5 GHz (ie, I see numbers in that range quoted a lot), so let's suppose a dual-core 1.2 GHz Cortex A7.
      NOTE! All of the numbers in this calculation are ones I could find in a couple minutes on Google. It's only a rough estimate.

      That's around 2.5 DMIPS/MHz, which is roughly 5-10% less than the purported performance of the Pineview (I haven't found numbers more recent than that), so hypothetically it should be 60-70% of the performance except that hyperthreading won't give you as much of a boost as dual-core, making it roughly equal to an Atom...but ignore that little bit for a while and calculate what we need for emulation:
      1.2 GHz * (100%/20%) * 90% = 5.4 GHz
      So if you're using an Atom, you would need it clocked faster than any stock x86 chip in existence to match an ARM tablet.
      The 90% is to make up for an Atom being possibly 10% faster at the same clock.
      Now if you used qemu-arm, that might drop to 3 GHz, which is still far faster than any Atom out there.
      The numbers will be different if you stick a Core i in there, but who's doing that and running Android?

  18. Windows 8 the tablet OS by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    A cosmetic change to the start menu does not change that any more than the superbar in Windows 7 did.

    I notice this new lie, about the start menu. Its just that a lie. The problem with Windows 8 is that it resembles an embedded OS on locked hardware not a Disk based OS on General Purpose Hardware...and compared poorly to Android and iOS. The problem is metro...the problem is Windows RT.

    1. Re:Windows 8 the tablet OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have gotten some special version of Windows 8 then. Mine has windows, icons, menus, pointer and works just like any other PC OS GUI.

    2. Re:Windows 8 the tablet OS by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I have the Collector's Edition.

    3. Re:Windows 8 the tablet OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :) I have the Rainmeter Edition, as I did for Windows 7, Vista and XP prior. I guess that's why I don't miss the start menu in Windows 8, I haven't used it since '98.

  19. Cygwin... they mean i have to use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I work only on Linux and OS X. Try again.

    1. Re:Cygwin... they mean i have to use Windows? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      cygwin is probably for the ndk..
      though dunno why the fuck since you can get away without it nowadays.

      other than that, I don't see the kit really including anything you wouldn't get by just installing the android sdk(adt, whatever) on linux and choosing the ndk etc components.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Cygwin... they mean i have to use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're single and gay.

  20. Tegra 4 by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    I'd like some...

    Here is the the tegra 4 (4+1 core) clocked at 1.9Ghz and 2.3GHz respectively...but again that is not really my point the threat is the Allwinner...or the next generation Allwinner.

    1. Re:Tegra 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clockspeed? You bought into the MHz myth. A 1.6GHz dual core Atom is much more powerful than that, especially Centerton.

    2. Re:Tegra 4 by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I'd like some...

      Here is the the tegra 4 (4+1 core) clocked at 1.9Ghz and 2.3GHz respectively...but again that is not really my point the threat is the Allwinner...or the next generation Allwinner.

      comparing 4 years old production atoms to this years barely in any products tegras isn't that fair.

      though allwinner is the threat due to cost. but it's more of a threat to other arms..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Tegra 4 by idunham · · Score: 1

      And what about the fact that Atoms are in barely any Android products?

      (Typed on my Atom netbook running Linux.)

    4. Re:Tegra 4 by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Heh...they also run WAAAAAY hotter than any ARM SOCs. That "much more powerful" comes at a price right at the moment. And the gaps shrinking rapidly. Intel can't make it lower power faster than ARM can pick up speed and keep the power low.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    5. Re:Tegra 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of performance you get more than negates the power draw. I'll take an Atom that consumes 4 times the amount as a 1W ARM CPU for the 20 times performance boost. While you're waiting for your ARM CPU to finish doing something, an Atom would have finished hours beforehand.

    6. Re:Tegra 4 by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Intel can't make it lower power faster than ARM can pick up speed and keep the power low.

      The facts would seem to indicate the opposite. ARM will never compete in anything above the tablet level. They don't have the performance.

    7. Re:Tegra 4 by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Current fastest ARM (and ATOM) CPUs are performing at about the same level as the old Pentium D. Which is fast enough to run a Win 7 desktop, browser, and office. It's a far cry from a serious computer, but it's all the "desktop" power they need if built into a phone that can use a Bluetooth KB/Mouse and can display on a TV.

      Facts would indicate that very few people are upgrading their PCs anymore for the need of more speed. They're just replacing them when they break. When they figure out that their phone works as well as their old but trusty PC, they may decide that they don't need to buy another PC when it kicks the bucket.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  21. Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On my supposedly "archaic" x86 desktop, I download any Linux distro I feel like using and can use the exact same installer to setup a 5 year old desktop or next month's Haswell.

    On my "futuristic" smartphone I have to wade through outdated information on sketchy forums to find the exact set of model-specific voodoo in order to unlock the device. Oh.. and I'm aware that not every ARM device comes locked, I was in the first-wave of Raspberry Pi purchasers. But guess what? Even with my Raspberry Pi I have to hunt down images that are tailor made just to booth with the Pi and stepping off the Raspberry Pi software reservation gets real ugly real fast.

    Why is the thought of an unlocked x86 tablet that could host the exact same Linux distro that I feel comfortable with on various other computers be considered some type of evil? Why is the idea of having the ability to install a stock Android with no garbage without having to sift throught 2,000 forum posts dedicated to a specific flavor of smartphone for a specific vendor considered "anti-freedom"?

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much considered "evil" as it's almost a waste of time and it IS a waste of money.

      The power profile of the sort of machine you're describing is bad when compared to an ARM tablet running Linux or iOS. Atom based answers even now consume 2-3 times if not more the power the ARM solutions are consuming. As for the unlocked X86 tablets...they already exist...they just are heavier, run shorter, etc. than the Android answers. Not to mention that NOBODY but a Linux user would contemplate what you're talking to. NOBODY. It just doesn't occur to them- and the tablets you can lay hands on...nobody wants them because they're too damned expensive.

      And...nothing in any of this will really change the price/power/etc. profile of the things anytime soon.

      As for ARM being an Open Platform. It's not so much that it's closed like you're making it out to be- it's embedded, which is a differing beast.

      It doesn't have BIOSes, it's got things like UBoot, etc. for it. If you're not familiar with it, you'll have issues. It's different. As such, you need to learn it to get there (For me, it's a non-problem to deal with the stuff you mention...but then, I've been dealing with this world. For some time.)- it sounds very much like you're unwilling to learn anything new, based on your bitching about R-Pi distributions, etc.

      Don't expect me or anyone else that's figured it all out to view your bitching with anything other than derision.

    2. Re:Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      On my supposedly "archaic" x86 desktop, I download any Linux distro I feel like using and can use the exact same installer to setup a 5 year old desktop or next month's Haswell.

      This has nothing to do with it being Intel vs ARM, it is that the complete definition of a PC compatible platform is standardized. Intel Atom based tablets may not necessarily follow that platform standard.

    3. Re:Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      On my supposedly "archaic" x86 desktop, I download any Linux distro I feel like using and can use the exact same installer to setup a 5 year old desktop or next month's Haswell.

      I bet it wouldn't work on a NEC PC-Engine. Or an original Xbox.

      You see, the thing is your PC is just ONE platform. Everything about the PC has been the same standard dating all the way back to the original IBM PC. RAM is always in the same location on every PC, and even today we still have the stupid 640ki-1M memory hole (for display). I/O ports are still in the same location as they always were.

      Whereas on ARM, NOTHING is standard. Some SoCs have RAM at 0x0. Others at 0x40000000. Or 0x80000000. Or 0xC0000000. Boot ROM can be at 0x0. Or 0x10000000. Or wherever else. The serial ports? Anywhere. Display? Registers are randomly here or there, at least the memory is somewhere in RAM space and usually programmable.

      Pluses and minuses on both. Minus for the PC is the horrendously discontiguous RAM space (there's another RAM hole around 3GiB-4GiB for memory mapped peripherals). Pluses means one OS image will work on all platforms because the kernel knows where everything is and will not change.

      ARM Linux actually has undergone huge revisions to accommodate the fact that each SoC is different - it started with the platform_device that separates I/O addresses from drivers, and proceeded to the device-tree that expands on that even more. With proper coding, it's possible to have one kernel binary be able to boot several different SoCs. Of course, getting it to work across multiple manufacturers is much harder. Including multiple OEMs.

    4. Re:Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      For example, the Acer C7 Chromebook uses an Intel processor, but uses UBoot (not BIOS) and GPT (not MBR).

  22. I read that as Bacon Mountain, and got exited. by Nadaka · · Score: 0

    But now I am disappointed in the lack of salted porky goodness.

  23. Really, no Linux support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the bastards don't even remotely plan to support Linux, I'm uninterested.

    Moreover, X86 Atom's not a player in the space because of it being X86- most of the apps with NDK binaries (read: about 1/3 of the apps in the store) are ARM ones not X86. It's going to support ARM...big whoop-de-doo... I already HAVE that support for both X86 and ARM already- for free and on ALL OS platforms.

    This is just to look "relevant" for the purposes of impressing sharesellers.

  24. Slashdot is over-run with MS shills by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Can't you tell?

  25. Sucking Update Policy by thsths · · Score: 1

    Despite the fact that Intel has only about 3 phone models released, all on the same platform (a second one is coming), they fail to provide updates to Android 4.2 for all of them.

    So this is just another shot in the foot for them. Android is a great ecosystem, but it is not for the faint of heart. If you want to compete, you have to do it properly. Half-hearted attempts will like (just like HTC).

  26. "WindowNs!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best Typo Ever. (Check the overview slide.)

  27. Windows-only? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    In an effort to coax developers to begin taking Atom seriously as an Android platform

    I think that part was a joke, because TFA states it's windows only.

    The [very few] windows devs I know, use MS tools like C#, etc. Are there actually any android devs that run windows out there?