Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
Windows The rumours about Windows possibly being ported to ARM has left a lot of people bewildered; why would you port Windows NT when Windows CE 6.0 is a perfectly capable operating system? Putting all the pieces together, it's actually quite clear why you would want Windows NT on ARM: servers.
Order by: Score:
Vendor Lock-In
by dc.ricardo on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:37 UTC
dc.ricardo
Member since:
2009-06-02

If Intel can foll around with Linux, why Microsoft can't do the same with ARM?

Microsoft don't like the vendor lock-in state. At least, not for them.

Reply Score: 2

windows on arm
by poundsmack on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:55 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

the whole thing is very simple really. remember the talk of having "windows as a service"? the OS loading from the cloud and bla bla bla. thinking about these arm netbooks and arm tablets it would make sense that these would load a web version of windows with minimal local instal. that's a lot less to port to arm. then again, maybe I'm wrong. it happens every now and then.

Reply Score: 2

RE: windows on arm
by looncraz on Fri 24th Dec 2010 03:46 UTC in reply to "windows on arm"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

..."windows as a service"? the OS loading from the cloud...


You know why they want that?

So they can force everyone to pay a subscription to use Windows. The product on the computer itself would just be a loader to grab Windows from the 'cloud' (what we call the internet), making it virtually impossible to pirate Windows.

I can't wait for this day to happen. It will spell absolute doom for Microsoft's bottom line - in time.

The nerds will just switch over to Linux, or stick with old, pirated, Windows 7/8/X, and software will become increasingly scarce on Windows ( well, in relative terms only... ), and more plentiful in Linux et. al..

The end result is a larger, healthier, and free, alternative software solution. I love when companies fail to realize that their success is almost 100% the result of 'undesired' behavior, then fight that behavior only to see their doom...

Gonna be a few years, sadly... I hope they do it!

--The loon

Oh, and, what happens to all those wonderful Chinese? Oh yeah... they'll just compete. Failing to obtain a vendor lock-in for that market is precisely what we need to fix our little problem...

EDIT: missing 'r', augmentation

Edited 2010-12-24 03:51 UTC

Reply Score: 6

.NET
by hnesland on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 20:01 UTC
hnesland
Member since:
2010-12-23

Another point on software, is that lots of applications for Windows are written in .NET, and would be easily ported to ARM, when .NET runs on ARM.

Reply Score: 2

RE: .NET
by spiderman on Fri 24th Dec 2010 06:43 UTC in reply to ".NET"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Actually .NET is not Windows. .NET applications are not Windows applications either. They are supposed to run on linux with Mono as well. Windows is not needed to run .NET applications.

Edited 2010-12-24 06:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .NET
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Dec 2010 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: .NET"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Windows is not needed to run .NET applications.

Try running Paint.net in Linux then.

Mono is a limited implementation and basically capped at version 2.

Reply Score: 2

Eh, It's not (only) a server thing
by hugh on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 20:05 UTC
hugh
Member since:
2010-10-20

Windows ARM is a reaction to Google Chrome... and to a somewhat lesser extent the ipad... it's not (only) about the servers... though I would not be surprised if the move was initiated by the Axure team.

The smartbook/netbook market segment is crap because there isn't a great OS for them. Chrome is not impressive yet(give it a couple years), but it has to scare Microsoft. Windows ARM is likely to be their cloud OS for tablets and smart/netbooks.

Edited 2010-12-23 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

It doesn't make any sense. Windows rack mounted servers ( the kind that would benefit from reduced energy consumption and heat output) are typically used by larger enterprises. Larger enterprises that *have* written software for windows server, and would have to port it over to ARM Windows.

PLus, I've heard the ARM server rumours as well, but I don't believe they will be a viable option. There is today, not a market for ARM based servers. If you are moving from the mobile space, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to gradually move up in processing power: Ie desktops/net tops. Even tablets make more sense: they exist already and use ARM predominately. Microsoft has been abundantly ( and stupidly) suggesting over and over that their tablets will be full windows 7, not CE, not zune OS, not windows phone 7 OS.

Basically, I think anyone suggesting CE on tablets is just giving Microsoft too much credit to make a good decision.

Reply Score: 2

hugh Member since:
2010-10-20

"Larger enterprises that *have* written software for windows server, and would have to port it over to ARM Windows. "

A lot of that is probably done in .Net by now...

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Larger enterprises that *have* written software for windows server, and would have to port it over to ARM Windows.

In addition to the .net ancle already mentioned, "porting" means just recompiling. That may not be trivial for ad hoc hackjobs abundant in microsoft shops, but big hitters (oracle, ms itself, adobe, ibm...) will have their software up and running in no time (most of the time going for verification).

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I wouldn't be so sure about adobe, they can be a bit slow on the use of new platforms.

Reply Score: 3

toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

In addition to the .net ancle already mentioned, "porting" means just recompiling. That may not be trivial for ad hoc hackjobs abundant in microsoft shops, but big hitters (oracle, ms itself, adobe, ibm...) will have their software up and running in no time (most of the time going for verification).


[ ] You have already done that before and know what a tedious and difficult job it can be.

Let me remind you, that Adobe and Sun took years to properly port their plugins to AMD64 which is "just" another platform in your humble opinion. Way more software nowadays still uses handoptimized code and leverages features which are only present on certain architectures making the code very difficult to port. Ask yourself why there is no native version of Skype for AMD64 yet and why the JIT compiler of Chrome and other browsers were available on x86 first.

Porting code to another architecture by just recompiling the code only works if you wrote your code with portability in mind right from the beginning. Unfortunately that's not the case for many popular closed source software applications, especially when the codebase is older than 10 years.

Naturally, FOSS projects usually are way more portable since they were already designed with portability in mind.

And no, Microsoft certainly can't just easily recompile the whole NT codebase, which is already 20 years old, easily for ARM. Hell, ARM is a vast different architecture, it differs much more from x86 than AMD64 even though the latter also isn't just an x86 with doubled data and bus sizes (which isn't even true since all current AMD64-compatible CPUs feature 48bit addressing only).

ARM is for example big endian as compared to Intel's little endian and it's a RISC architecture as compared to the CISC one of x86 CPUs.

Adrian

Reply Score: 3

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30


Naturally, FOSS projects usually are way more portable since they were already designed with portability in mind.

And no, Microsoft certainly can't just easily recompile the whole NT codebase, which is already 20 years old, easily for ARM. Hell, ARM is a vast different architecture, it differs much more from x86 than AMD64 even though the latter also isn't just an x86 with doubled data and bus sizes (which isn't even true since all current AMD64-compatible CPUs feature 48bit addressing only).

ARM is for example big endian as compared to Intel's little endian and it's a RISC architecture as compared to the CISC one of x86 CPUs.

Really arm is strange. Arm process 6 or latter can operate in either big endian or little endian. What catches you out here. Symbian runs in little endian on Arm chips. So there is no endian issue using arm over intel.

RISC CISC is also not a major issue. Thinking Windows 2000 was on Power PC. So a few generation back.

Even better reactos a open source clone of NT already has a arm port that is fairly operational.

NT ported is not a issue. Applications for the ported OS is.

Reply Score: 1

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

The irony here (and keep in mind, I'm a big FOSS dude) is that if I understand it right, NT is more portable than ReactOS.

FOSS != "designed with portability in mind".
FOSS == "the code is there to be made portable by anyone who wants to port it".

Linux wasn't designed to be portable, originally. Read the original announcement email. It originally had a ton of 386 asm and depended on 386-specific instructions.

FOSS isn't necessarily 'portable' code, it's 'able to be ported' code.
Semantics, but yeah.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

The irony here (and keep in mind, I'm a big FOSS dude) is that if I understand it right, NT is more portable than ReactOS.

Reactos might be more portable than MS NT due to a lower amount of asm used. Please note Reactos is a NT design OS just built in the Open Source world from documents got on NT design.

FOSS != "designed with portability in mind".
FOSS == "the code is there to be made portable by anyone who wants to port it".

Linux wasn't designed to be portable, originally. Read the original announcement email. It originally had a ton of 386 asm and depended on 386-specific instructions.

FOSS isn't necessarily 'portable' code, it's 'able to be ported' code.
Semantics, but yeah.

Older the project in the FOSS world the more portable it becomes. Its a nature of the FOSS world as the backgrounds of the coders become more diverse so does the project supported platforms.

Yes a lot of FOSS projects started out platform locked one way or another.

Now closed source normally goes the other way. Portable and becomes less portable. NT use to support stack loads of different platforms but 2008 and Windows 7 support a small number due to cost cutting.

People forget that Internet explorer use to run native on Unix OS's.

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

Will ReactOS _become_ more portable? Possibly. We can't see NT's code, or try to compile it on some obscure architecture, so if it becomes as portable as NT has been shown to be, we can assume a tie.

FOSS doesn't necessarily become more portable over time.
That's a fallacy.

It's _often_ true, perhaps even _usually_, but _pleaaaaase_ don't make blanket statements in favour of FOSS that _aren't true_. It just becomes fodder for trolls.
ZSNES has been around for 10 years, and only runs on IA32.
Why? Because it's written in asm.
BareMetal OS isn't going to become portable because it's not a priority, it's not even close.

"Often" "Usually" but not "".
Qualify the statement and I'll say it's true.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

Will ReactOS _become_ more portable? Possibly. We can't see NT's code, or try to compile it on some obscure architecture, so if it becomes as portable as NT has been shown to be, we can assume a tie.

My simple point here we don't know. Prototypes of Reactos exist for all arch NT use to support plus a few extras. Yes Reactos has be prototypes exist for those chips that are not made any more.

Reactos may be more portable than NT now. Just no one has really checked fully. I also understand why most people would not be interested to find out.

FOSS doesn't necessarily become more portable over time.
That's a fallacy.

It's _often_ true, perhaps even _usually_, but _pleaaaaase_ don't make blanket statements in favour of FOSS that _aren't true_. It just becomes fodder for trolls.
ZSNES has been around for 10 years, and only runs on IA32.
Why? Because it's written in asm.
BareMetal OS isn't going to become portable because it's not a priority, it's not even close.

"Often" "Usually" but not "".
Qualify the statement and I'll say it's true.


Older the project in the FOSS world the more portable it becomes. Its a nature of the FOSS world as the backgrounds of the coders become more diverse so does the project supported platforms.

You really did not read this. I did not say portable only in the sense of processor chips alone. Also I did not say the speed the projects become more portable. I should have been more clear in this. The speed of FOSS projects become more portable is unique to each project. But it is happening.

Even ZSNES does obey the FOSS world of becoming more portable with age as community around it has got more diverse. Being written in pure asm x86 for dos has yes slowed its progress. These days it has ports on Windows and Linux as well. Also it now has a splattering of C code appearing in parts of the engine.

Of course the speed of somethings becoming portable across cpu types may take 40 to 50 years to never with the community around and the complexity involved. Even with that limitation portability between OS's and other things will still increase.

No matter how much you say no it will not happen FOSS it does happen over time and always will as long as the project has a growing community with growing interests.

Basically a FOSS project getting more portable with time is a sign of health about the open source project. Reasons why FOSS project will not get more portable with age all point to unhealthy things that either lead to a project forked or project fading away.

BareMetal OS is too young to know where it will and up and its Community is still very compact. You have to remember when Linux was young it was only intended for x86 processes. Coders around it grew and that ended as they become more diverse. Also BareMetal OS is not 1 kernel its two. 1 written in asm and 1 written in C. Of course the C one would be simpler to port. Yes even BareMetal possibility of portability has increased from when it started as a asm only kernel.

Really all the examples you gave to back your case back mine.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

This isn't usenet or IRC. You can bold and italic the text.

On the topic:
Wasn't the latest NT kernel a substantial rewrite? I think it was...
NT once ran on systems that are no more, so it's no longer true. And having over 5 years of development concentrated on x86 brings in a lot of non-portable code.

We can argue as much as we like, but the fact is that we just don't know. Unless you happen to work for MS in that division.

Reply Score: 2

mbpark Member since:
2005-11-17

It's not a cost-cutting issue, those platforms just did not sell at all or had really bad marketing.

Compaq killed the Alpha right before Windows 2000, despite the fact that it was the most powerful platform at the time to run Exchange or SQL Server on. I saw 64-bit Windows 2000 running 64-bit SQL Server 2000 at PC Expo in 1999 at the Javits Center. It smoked everything x86 at the time. However, Compaq must have learned their marketing lessons from Commodore because it was never publicly released, and soon after, the Alpha line was killed off. There was genuine demand for their products, but they managed to screw it up.

The MIPS and PowerPC platforms also did not sell at all. They didn't sell much with anything other than UNIX or Mac OS on them. They both got killed after Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3. There was no way Steve Jobs was going to allow Windows to run on a Mac right after the clones (now is a different story!), which took away 90%+ of the PPC machines out there, and since this was soon after Microsoft gave the finger to IBM with OS/2, no way you were going to have it running on their POWER HW.

The Itanium managed to stick around until Windows Server 2008 R2. After this one, it's gone, and the only big-name OSes you will be able to get for an Itanic will be Linux, OpenVMS, NetBSD, and HP-UX. I'm sure there still will be ports of various other OSes, but it'll be pretty much dead outside of HP.

Microsoft is the kind of company that can afford to have multiple "Project Marklar" operations running. I'm sure that they have Windows running on ARM, MIPS (the Chinese variant), IBM POWER, and several other architectures (I'm guessing SPARC64).

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

PLus, I've heard the ARM server rumours as well, but I don't believe they will be a viable option. There is today, not a market for ARM based servers.


Yes there is. It's not going to replace x86-64 overnight, but Linux deployments make up a significant portion of server sales. Linux deployments mostly don't need to worry about the CPU architecture.

I know I could replace a significant number of x86-64 servers with ARM without any problems, and the power savings are likely enough to make it worthwhile. I don't believe my situation is at all unique.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What do you mean by "Without any problems"? You haven't benchmarked any of the ARM servers for your load, because they don't exist. How do you know these mythical servers will be able to handle the current load of your x86-64 servers?

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

What do you mean by "Without any problems"? You haven't benchmarked any of the ARM servers for your load, because they don't exist.


I was talking from a provisioning & operational standpoint. Whether a particular server can handle the load you intend for it applies to any CPU, no matter if it's ARM or x86-64.

If it helps, the majority of my x86-64 servers are virtual machines with very low CPU usage profiles: I have some physical hosts running multiple KVM instances where the Munin graph for CPU usage is basically non-existent.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, that makes more sense. But within the same processor architecture, its pretty easy to just guess that this years x86 processor is probably going to handle the load that last years did. Changing architectures means you have a lot less in common and requires much more intensive resource planing.

Virtualization, in my opinion is a good argument why ARM will never take off in the data center. If you have a lot of underused servers, virtualization is awesome. A much better solution for high availability, backup, and energy conservation than ARM.

Reply Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Counter-point... One of the largest growth sectors in the server hardware market is large data centers for cloud computing. What you want in such data centers is small, cheap, low power (critical for operational costs) servers that generally do one of two things:

1. Run custom written distributed database/file storage software.
2. Run custom written web servers/caching proxies that are purpose built for cloud applications.

Linux practically owns this market as it is now, and ARM servers are more than likely going to be very attractive assuming they offer advantages for power use/thermals/size/etc. Since Linux is already the defacto standard, ARM has no real obstacles in its way to enter that market, so it is likely to at least get its foot in the door. Microsoft would like a piece of it. Simple really, I frankly don't see how they could ignore it.

Porting Windows (in one form or another, I'm not claiming it will be exactly the same as on x86, but CE is simply too striped down for this type of use) to ARM would in effect give them somewhat equal footing once the hardware becomes attractive enough that customers start buying it. True there is something of a challenge in porting the software required for these types of deployments, but it isn't inconceivable that Microsoft could offer some advantages here that might sway some customers (i.e. existing Microsoft shops wanting to build purpose built cloud services).

Point is without any presence on ARM - if ARM servers take off Microsoft is completely locked out of a potentially huge growth market. Do you really think they are willing to let that happen?

Reply Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Point is without any presence on ARM - if ARM servers take off Microsoft is completely locked out of a potentially huge growth market. Do you really think they are willing to let that happen?


This was my take on it as well. New power-efficient ARM chips that could be used in a desktop or server role are on the horizon, and they will be available to market in a couple of years. Some OEMs are sure to take advantage of such chips and make a server which achieves a significantly better power-per-performance metric than x86 or x86_64 can, perhaps it will be more than an order of magnitude better.

Currently, the only viable server OS for such a machine would be Linux.

IMO, Microsoft cannot tolerate that. If Microsoft want to stay in the server business in a couple of years time when these machines come to market, Microsoft will HAVE to have a Windows server on ARM product ready to roll. If they are even a little tardy, Linux will take over this entire market segment.

Reply Score: 3

fasted Member since:
2006-11-09

If you read this article http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/ARM-CortexA15-MPCore/ , it explains the larger reason's for the future demand for this. Energy savings, and virtualization.
First, even the appearance of being a "green" company could bring large business your way. Think of Google's effort's over the last few years to cut down on their carbon footprint. It's saving money ,also, as well as the environment . Then think of the virtualization solutions on big iron servers, where the base operating system ( Linux, most likely) host's any other operating system that is required . Take a look at the top 500 fastest super computers to see how many aren't Linux, and you'll see why this could be very important to Windows. IBM was king of the big iron at one time, a mistake Microsoft doesn't want to see happen to it either. Also, imagine the sync capabilities of your tablet, phone, home and server being all one type of chip and Operating system. Much more at stake than just iPad's and iPhone's. Just my two cents.

Reply Score: 5

Nagilum Member since:
2009-07-01

I do not agree, as an Admin of such a company I see the majority of these servers run IIS for asp/aspx, MS SQLServer or Java.
All that stuff will easily run on ARM.
Many Webservers out there only act as proxies providing SSO for WebLogic and other backends.
These webservers would run just fine on a dual core ARM with 2GB RAM.
For DB an application and database servers you still will want maximum CPU and memory.

Reply Score: 1

Makes sense
by sukru on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 20:13 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

Currently servers is the only place Microsoft can comfortably try new things. Most of their stuff is based on .Net, which is portable anyways, and the NT kernel has always been multi-platfrom capable.

And, if they succeed, I believe, like others mentioned above, this will pave roads for a future Chrome OS competitor in smaller devices. If they can make sure that Windows runs OK on ARM, then they can have a small shell/IE/Silverlight/RDP services for their lightweight clients.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Makes sense
by freebsd on Fri 24th Dec 2010 07:43 UTC in reply to "Makes sense"
freebsd Member since:
2010-08-26

Most of their stuff is based on .Net

I assume you were not thinking about Office, IE, Active Directory and other similar behemoths. They are most likely in C/C++ with some portion specific to processors(Assembly!), porting them is little more than just compilation.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Makes sense
by moondevil on Fri 24th Dec 2010 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes sense"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Most of their tools are nowadays developed in .Net.

Even the C/C++ build chain now make use of msbuild (Microsoft's Ant) instead of nmake.


The only C/C++ software are operating system low level stuff and APIs, games and applications that Microsoft has before .Net.

Still, C and C++ can be made quite portable, and lets not forget that the NT line used to run in several platforms.

Reply Score: 2

Speculation
by shadoweva09 on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 20:36 UTC
shadoweva09
Member since:
2008-03-10

Thom, now I know you want this site to be more about discussion of OS related news, but this looks like your pure speculation with no real hard evidence.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Speculation
by fran on Fri 24th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC in reply to "Speculation"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

one of osnews missions statements is to explore to future of computing. Discussing the future inevitably involve speculation. The speculation here is not wildly unrealistic and the articles and many comments involve educated guesses that make for good reading.

You will find absolute no news site that dont have speculation articles among its news. Thats true even for Reuters, cnn and others.

Sometimes even discussing the future actually shape the future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speculation
by shadoweva09 on Fri 24th Dec 2010 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Speculation"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

But that other speculation usually has at least one verified source of the information being used, this article's only real source is an article that is also pure speculation. No expert, no insider, no Apple factory worker...

Reply Score: 1

But its CES !
by BloopFloop on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 22:01 UTC
BloopFloop
Member since:
2010-12-23

But this is CES, the Consumer Electronics Show ! You are not supposed to talk about server stuff at the Consumer Electronics Show !

Reply Score: 1

v no
by xaeropower on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 22:14 UTC
RE: no
by lordepox on Fri 24th Dec 2010 09:02 UTC in reply to "no"
lordepox Member since:
2010-04-14

Your assumption of ARM is most definitely wrong. Take a little loom back into history, and you will find that server CPU architectures change from larger, more powerful chips to smaller, more energy efficient ones. Just look at how x86 took over from Alpha, PowerPC, all the other larger chips, reducing cabinet size systems to today's blades. ARM servers are coming, and there is much proof of this. Just the other day I was reading about a new ARM 4U server with something like 80 cores in it, and it took less power than a traditional 1U server. That kind of density is impossible with even quad core blades. Here's a little light reading:

http://thinq.co.uk/2010/11/30/zt-systems-launches-16-core-arm-serve...

http://gigaom.com/2010/04/28/cell-phone-chip-king-confirms-its-serv...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/02/dell_dcs_arm_risc_server/

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/ZT-Systems-R1801e-/

As today's ratings change to performance per watt, ARM will make great leaps into server rooms already struggling with cooling issues. Will Intel be defeated? Of course not. Intel chips will always have a place in scientific computer and other very processor intensive tasks where optimized kernel libraries and hardware tricks can accelerate code execution, but for everyday database servers, web servers, and the like, ARM will be the future, a future that takes less power.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: no
by xaeropower on Fri 24th Dec 2010 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: no"
xaeropower Member since:
2005-12-16

This is indeed the first arm server i see. GUESS Cant buy one for home yet cause it cost like 20k usd.
"Data centers spend billions on electricity for servers, including energy used for cooling, and they have a significant CO2 emission footprint,"

oh please... all they care about cutting costs because they can profit more on it. WOnt mean that you as customer will get server from the resellers cheaper. Sad that even with the widespread use of virtalization products most of the servers are idling in data centers. I think if we would summarize the idle time of the servers in all bigger US data centers it would be like 70%. And besides this the only bigger waste what us military and agencies do, building bigass clusters for ripping their pron dvds which also mostly idling and wasting energy so keep qqing about energy consumption.

Edited 2010-12-24 19:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: no
by TheGZeus on Sat 25th Dec 2010 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...and if things go well with regulation, CO₂ emissions will be taxed to hell, thus causing them to cut into their profits.

Edited 2010-12-25 01:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Win8 tablet at CES and new filesystem
by fran on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 22:30 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

At that very CES2011 show a windows 8 tablet is going to be demoed also. What a double wham it would be if were going to see a Windows 8 ARM tablet.

I doubt whether they are going to use NT though.
Why I think that is that if Windows 8 is going to have that fabled new filesystem, arm support might have been build into it from the very start.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/13/microsoft-to-demo-new-slate-pcs-...

Reply Score: 1

I dont think so
by Luminair on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 22:31 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

sorry

Reply Score: 2

This does make sense for small offices
by mbpark on Fri 24th Dec 2010 02:51 UTC
mbpark
Member since:
2005-11-17

Microsoft doesn't have anything in the SOHO market that supports Active Directory or cloud. They don't have that unifying product that can stave off Cisco or their Linux competitors that makes running SOHO IT easy and integrates cloud services.

Think of a NAS appliance that runs AD, Forefront (new ISA Server), SQL Express, WSUS, App-V, a Microsoft Security Essentials server, and connects to Microsoft's cloud services to run hosted Exchange, Sharepoint, and Azure. Think of being able to run third-party tools and services such as WebSense on this box as well.

Think of them being able to charge a monthly fee for data backup, services, and upkeep. This would create a cloud revenue stream that they do not currently have, provide a seamless interface for backing up AD and doing lots of other tasks companies require sysadmins for, and remove the need for dedicated admins for Exchange and Sharepoint from small companies.

Think of the fact that SOHO PCs can connect to this, be autoconfigured for WSUS, Exchange, Sharepoint, App-V deployment, Microsoft Security Essentials AV/Anti-Spyware, and web filtering, and work.

It's a very good strategy for companies that don't want to run a complex server infrastructure to get these features, and don't want to pay the huge initial licensing . You put a little 1U box the size of a network switch next to your Internet gateway, run a few wizards to configure it, and have Internet, content filtering, backups of all of your data, and the ability to restore it from a web browser.

Additionally, they can bring in selected third-party partners to run apps for it, put an App Store in for applications (with the various charges), and make running AD and Windows dead simple. They can also provide this as an endpoint for distributing applications such as Office via App-V.

Like I said, Cisco is getting close, and Google is offering cloud services that don't encompass everything the way Microsoft wants to.

Microsoft has a lot of tools at their disposal. If they can pull it together and offer their technologies tied together in one neat package like this, they really could present a valid alternative to companies looking to make network administration painless, and establish a recurring revenue stream to make money. It would also re-allocate a lot of money that goes to the likes of Symantec, McAfee/Intel, Carbonite, and Google to Microsoft.

Most importantly, it means a recurring revenue stream that could be worth billions of dollars a year that currently is going to their competitors and partners. Unfortunately, it would give Microsoft a degree of control over PCs that they only wish they could have had previously, since they would have the ability to turn off the switch if someone doesn't pay the bill.

Windows Server is probably already running on ARM anyway. Microsoft doesn't release all of their ports of Windows NT (remember they did port to SPARC, and reportedly to the 68K processors). It would not cost much money to build these devices and sell them at an initial loss, while making up the cost on a monthly "utility" bill.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Microsoft doesn't have anything in the SOHO market that supports Active Directory or cloud. They don't have that unifying product that can stave off Cisco or their Linux competitors that makes running SOHO IT easy and integrates cloud services.

Think of a NAS appliance that runs AD, Forefront (new ISA Server), SQL Express, WSUS, App-V, a Microsoft Security Essentials server, and connects to Microsoft's cloud services to run hosted Exchange, Sharepoint, and Azure. Think of being able to run third-party tools and services such as WebSense on this box as well.

Think of them being able to charge a monthly fee for data backup, services, and upkeep. This would create a cloud revenue stream that they do not currently have, provide a seamless interface for backing up AD and doing lots of other tasks companies require sysadmins for, and remove the need for dedicated admins for Exchange and Sharepoint from small companies.

Think of the fact that SOHO PCs can connect to this, be autoconfigured for WSUS, Exchange, Sharepoint, App-V deployment, Microsoft Security Essentials AV/Anti-Spyware, and web filtering, and work.


And here is the shocking part. Linux is inside striking distance on that complete list.

When samba 4 releases almost straight up Linux will have Exchange replacement. Sharepoint vs alfresso Sharepoint normally loses. Virtual apps there are a lot of those for Linux already.

MS is basically forced to port to arm or be broadside not far into the future.

Reply Score: 3

mbpark Member since:
2005-11-17

And the only vendor who's been able to capitalize on Linux in this market and make a decent profit has been Cisco with their Linksys line of products. Granted, there are a ton of other smaller solutions out there, and quite a few Linux distributions, but they're never going to get the penetration that Cisco will.

Canonical or Red Hat can pull this off with the right subscription model and OEM/partner support (Dell or another enterprise vendor, since HP is too committed to MS). Amazon, Citrix, Cisco, VMWare, Apple, or Google could also pull this off. At this point only Cisco owns the stack and enough of the technologies to bring this to market.

For what people think of Microsoft and Sharepoint, they have a ton of applications and technologies that integrate into them very well that they own. Sharepoint has very robust integration services that plug in everywhere, and provide services that the other Intranet services don't have. This is their best-selling new product in years, and they are converting many proprietary apps to use it as a back-end (Project Server, Exchange Public Folders, etc.). Open Source will not replace 100% of that integration. It works fine for many smaller projects, but not for Excel Services or Project Server.

Microsoft has a very large portfolio of products that they have never integrated well, and all signs point to the top. If they have actually gotten an executive into place that realizes what the customers want and need, and figured out that they have many hardware partners that can push out these products cheaply and quickly (Dell and HP come to mind) while integrating several product lines and changing the business model to focus on recurring payments (which is what a CEO is supposed to do!), then they have a large chance of success with Windows 8 Server on ARM as an underpinning to a cloud solution.

And you can bet that when Microsoft starts selling cloud, they will be hammering Google to the wall for their privacy violations, and talking about how Microsoft meets every federal/EU standard with their product lines. They will be talking Green Computing, and they definitely will be talking about cutting IT costs and making PCs more manageable without having to integrate several products. They will also talk backups.

The big thing you can hope for is for Steve Ballmer to shoot himself in the foot. At the rate he's going, it's more likely to happen than not. I think most people realize that you could put any half-decent IT executive in his place and they would have done something similar already.

Reply Score: 3

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

And the only vendor who's been able to capitalize on Linux in this market and make a decent profit has been Cisco with their Linksys line of products. Granted, there are a ton of other smaller solutions out there, and quite a few Linux distributions, but they're never going to get the penetration that Cisco will.

Canonical or Red Hat can pull this off with the right subscription model and OEM/partner support (Dell or another enterprise vendor, since HP is too committed to MS). Amazon, Citrix, Cisco, VMWare, Apple, or Google could also pull this off. At this point only Cisco owns the stack and enough of the technologies to bring this to market.

For what people think of Microsoft and Sharepoint, they have a ton of applications and technologies that integrate into them very well that they own. Sharepoint has very robust integration services that plug in everywhere, and provide services that the other Intranet services don't have. This is their best-selling new product in years, and they are converting many proprietary apps to use it as a back-end (Project Server, Exchange Public Folders, etc.). Open Source will not replace 100% of that integration. It works fine for many smaller projects, but not for Excel Services or Project Server.

You really have zero understanding how close Linux guys are. Exchange Public Folders don't make me laugh. sogo using openchange does that as a drop in replacement.

Alfresso has Project Server features built in. Also Alfresso pretends to be sharepoint quite well.

Samba 4 gives drop in replacement to ADS.

All these don't have to use CAL's.

The delay is Samba 4 its a keystone. MS has to move before the Keystone becomes functional or they are going to be hit by a boardside of matching techs on a platform that they don't have a OS for that is lower cost than the platform MS runs on.

Sorry claim that opensource will not replace 100 percent it basically ready to replace at least 90 percent. What for most businesses will be good enough. Since it will replace the missing 10 percent with other ways of getting the same results.

Arm and open source on servers threatens to bring the 500 dollar server todo most business needs into existence with unlimited cals.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You really have zero understanding how close Linux guys are.


The Linux guys are always infinitely close - but never quite there.

Reply Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

"You really have zero understanding how close Linux guys are.


The Linux guys are always infinitely close - but never quite there.
"

while in other aspects, windows guys are infinitely far and will never be even close. instead of wasting money on generic solutions one can order tailored ones for that money and get way more bang for same amount

all depends on what one needs. if i'd be moving me or any of my customers on windows i'd be crippling them with added additional costs. all software they need and services are already tailored to linux primarily and there simply is no simple and cost effective way to introduce windows and generic solutions you name. (i just introduced this aspect from my point of view to produce contra to your personal aspect. I'm not even nearly bashing ms products. if anything... i say "use the hammer that works for your nails")

Reply Score: 4

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"You really have zero understanding how close Linux guys are.


The Linux guys are always infinitely close - but never quite there.
"
Not true. It takes a long time to get all the interlinked parts work work. Did not help that a Legal case had to be won and MS made obey to get the information to get this close.

Illegal actions is market kept MS possition. Linux was doing quite well even gaining before 2000 and MS illegal action. Basically the same thing that shot Novell shot Linux. Not been something simple to recovery from.

Reply Score: 2

mbpark Member since:
2005-11-17

No, I do have full understanding of how both work. Sharepoint is about the only thing Microsoft got right in the past 10 years besides Windows 7.

Linux has been close for years. I remember when people were selling Samba 2 solutions for this years ago (remember Cobalt, who Sun bought? I was running them in 1999).

Alfresco pretends to be SP quite well, which in itself was Microsoft's reaction to Oracle's Content Management Server (which started as Internet File System in 1998-1999). However, there are features of Sharepoint that Microsoft pushes that many of the large vendors such as SAP, Kronos, and a very large amount of software vendors use. Your average C-level with purchase-level authority doesn't want to hear "like sharepoint". Project Server in itself is a pretty complex project that sits on top of it as a front end. For every Microsoft product that uses it, there's another 10 industry-specific solutions that do as well.

I've spoken with Microsoft many times, especially about their latest push to build applications on top of Sharepoint by hitting the verticals. They are aiming dead at Adobe, EMC, and Oracle with this, who have solutions so expensive for these that they will make you wish for CALs. Those who complain about CALs have never had to license Oracle or Adobe LiveCycle.

Exchange still has a large amount of the marketplace. I gave that as an example as how Microsoft is transitioning older functionality to newer products.

BTW, I wouldn't run OpenExchange when Google is right there with better functionality and the ability to plug into your LDAP/AD system.

You have no idea of what I was aiming at. Microsoft is trying to replace the idea of CALs, which are the devil, with a subscription-based revenue stream. They actually have all of the technology to put something together that customers can use and is very simple to use. They actually can package it together and sell it. Cisco, via their acquisition of Linksys, also has this knowledge in-house, and has sold products that have this functionality. Oracle, Symantec, Apple, and Google also have the technology, and have implemented it in various forms.

Microsoft is losing money to IBM, Google, Apple, Symantec, Open Source, Cisco, and Intel/McAfee. They have the ability and technology to integrate everything and present a solution to the customers that is a one-box solution.

Canonical (especially since they do a lot of ARM development) or Red Hat, if they had the inclination, could do exactly the same thing with the right hardware and software partners. Novell got bought and neutered by Attachmate/Microsoft and is no longer a threat (and they have the knowledge in-house). They were the Commodore of Linux.

This isn't about having a solution, it's about having an integrated one.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

^

This.

This is exactly where our business is moving. We have SAP and other systems that Sharepoint can integrate with ... it is a no brainer for our business since we already run these systems and sharepoint can integrate with these systems quite easily.

Also because we are using Sharepoint elsewhere in the business we are rolling it out to our website, mainly because we will have a lot of in house skills with sharepoint at the time.

Edited 2010-12-24 20:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

No, I do have full understanding of how both work. Sharepoint is about the only thing Microsoft got right in the past 10 years besides Windows 7.

Linux has been close for years. I remember when people were selling Samba 2 solutions for this years ago (remember Cobalt, who Sun bought? I was running them in 1999).

Yes 1999 Linux was doing quite well. 2000 MS did a illegal action and that was the end of Novell netware and Samba from domination and MS took over.

Court cast had to be fort that was won in 2006 and its taken quite a few years to make up for 6 years of lacking information. The not quite there state being as bad as it is results of an illegal action.

Alfresco pretends to be SP quite well, which in itself was Microsoft's reaction to Oracle's Content Management Server (which started as Internet File System in 1998-1999). However, there are features of Sharepoint that Microsoft pushes that many of the large vendors such as SAP, Kronos, and a very large amount of software vendors use. Your average C-level with purchase-level authority doesn't want to hear "like sharepoint". Project Server in itself is a pretty complex project that sits on top of it as a front end. For every Microsoft product that uses it, there's another 10 industry-specific solutions that do as well.

Alfresso I said pretends to be sharepoint. This is API level. So to SAP it thinks it is talking to Sharepoint but its really talking to Alfresso. Anyone who looks at the user interface knows Alfresso looks different ans has other features that Sharepoint lacks. Ie pretends not like. I have not tried with Kronos but I would not be surprised if it worked as well with Alfresso.

I've spoken with Microsoft many times, especially about their latest push to build applications on top of Sharepoint by hitting the verticals. They are aiming dead at Adobe, EMC, and Oracle with this, who have solutions so expensive for these that they will make you wish for CALs. Those who complain about CALs have never had to license Oracle or Adobe LiveCycle.

Of course they are trying to build vertical on top of Sharepoint to lock you back in.

They are about to lose the vertical of Exchange and active directory that allowed them to destroy Linux and Novel netware from 2000 on with illegally closed protocols. So they have to create something new.


Exchange still has a large amount of the marketplace. I gave that as an example as how Microsoft is transitioning older functionality to newer products.

BTW, I wouldn't run OpenExchange when Google is right there with better functionality and the ability to plug into your LDAP/AD system.

Openchange is not openexchange. openchange can also be used to back end onto google. So you don't need to install google sync on client machines. Basically openchange is a wrapper allowing outlook to see an exchange server but many different groupware servers be hidding behind it. Since it is being a exchange server not a installed add on it cannot be damaged by MS doing updates to outlook unless MS wants to break compatibility with there own servers.

You have no idea of what I was aiming at. Microsoft is trying to replace the idea of CALs, which are the devil, with a subscription-based revenue stream. They actually have all of the technology to put something together that customers can use and is very simple to use. They actually can package it together and sell it. Cisco, via their acquisition of Linksys, also has this knowledge in-house, and has sold products that have this functionality. Oracle, Symantec, Apple, and Google also have the technology, and have implemented it in various forms.

Microsoft is losing money to IBM, Google, Apple, Symantec, Open Source, Cisco, and Intel/McAfee. They have the ability and technology to integrate everything and present a solution to the customers that is a one-box solution.

Canonical (especially since they do a lot of ARM development) or Red Hat, if they had the inclination, could do exactly the same thing with the right hardware and software partners. Novell got bought and neutered by Attachmate/Microsoft and is no longer a threat (and they have the knowledge in-house). They were the Commodore of Linux.

This isn't about having a solution, it's about having an integrated one.

And there are many Linux distributions that are very close to having integrated really to go. Not the players you are listing either.

http://www.zentyal.org/ http://www.clearfoundation.com just to name two.

The keystone landing I am talking about will release new players into the market on equal footing to MS in lots of ways. Past MS in another.

Reply Score: 3

Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

And there are many Linux distributions that are very close to having integrated really to go. Not the players you are listing either.

http://www.zentyal.org/ http://www.clearfoundation.com just to name two.

The keystone landing I am talking about will release new players into the market on equal footing to MS in lots of ways. Past MS in another.


This is exactly why I come here, to learn about great new stuff like this. I'd been mucking around with FreeNAS trying to add webhosting, and email serving to is manually. Both of these appear to be exactly what I was looking for + a lot more.

Thanks for the heads up!

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, good business pitch for a new windows server/ app bundle. What part of that requires or would benefit from a ARM processor vs x86?

Reply Score: 2

mbpark Member since:
2005-11-17

The fact that they can pull a reference design and quickly get this to market without having to do much engineering work.

Additionally, the fact that they can use this to set up a closed infrastructure where they can let people into their "walled garden".

Finally, the fact that you can shoehorn this into something with the dimensions of a network switch due to ARM taking a lot less power, and make an appliance out of it. Atom just isn't there yet.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Can't say I agree. X86 is not lacking for engineering designs. Even if it were, would that be more work than redoing all of the software you mentioned in an ARM compatible manner? I seriously doubt that.

Plus, remember, your target audience is a Small or Home Office. Power, space, heat: these are not that important in this environment. The power savings would be minimal for a single device.

I mean, look at this for heaven sakes:

http://www.msi.com/index.php?func=prodtmpspec&maincat_no=729&cat2_n...

35 watts. That's a compact florescent bulb.

Now, I understand the Ipad (a powerful Arm device) can pull as little as 2.5 watts. A significant difference when running a large number of devices.

At an average price of 12 cents per kilowatt hour here in the US, that amounts to yearly costs of

MSI Wind : $35

iPad : $5.00

So they'll be saving every company $30 on average by porting everything over to ARM, assuming that they are both capable of handling the required work load.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

35 watts ??? For an x86 PC with these specs, that's HUGE !

I mean, there's much more than an Atom and an intel chip in my laptop, and still it consumes about half less under normal use... And it's a known fact that these mini PCs are made of laptop components.

Maybe they were talking about peak power consumption, though.

Edited 2010-12-24 09:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

35 watts ??? For an x86 PC with these specs, that's HUGE !

I mean, there's much more than an Atom and an intel chip in my laptop, and still it consumes about half less under normal use... And it's a known fact that these mini PCs are made of laptop components.

Maybe they were talking about peak power consumption, though.

Server room numbers are peak and complete including duel harddrives both spinning explaining about 20 watts alone. So about 15 watts for the core so that is a very power effect.

Yes the raid in the mess ruins you day.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I assume thats peak. I wanted to overestimate the cost difference for affect. Even at 35 watts the cost savings per year for a single device isn't much.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Yeah, I assume thats peak. I wanted to overestimate the cost difference for affect. Even at 35 watts the cost savings per year for a single device isn't much.


It more than what you think if its in a server farm.

You are forgotten. Its not just the cost of the server. Its the cost of the power supply to support it in case of power outtage and the size power feeds racks require. Each 1 watt in a server farm very quickly totals up to a huge number.

And a server farms have to work on the presume that peak will be required while in power outage.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yes a server farm, obviously thats huge. No doubt. I think there are other reasons why it wont take off there as well, which I've explained in other threads in this discussion. This particular thread was about a single device in a small or home office. It makes no sense for MS to port to arm just for a small office server this thread was describing.

Reply Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

35 watts ??? For an x86 PC with these specs, that's HUGE !

Actually there should be more. This is an old 3-chip solution.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Atom-Efficient,1981.html

The desktop 945GC has a TDP of 22.2 W and the southbridge uses 3.3 W. Compared to the Atom 230 processor which has a TDP of 4 W and is supplied with a voltage of 1.088 V, this is a considerable difference.

22.2+3+4 = ~30W is only for motherboard
whole system: 40W idle - 44W full load

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So they'll be saving every company $30 on average by porting everything over to ARM, assuming that they are both capable of handling the required work load.


The energy savings will not even be worth the cost of planning the transition for the typical business. By the time ARM servers are cost effective x64 cpus will be even cheaper.

Reply Score: 2

Nope
by Moochman on Sat 25th Dec 2010 09:00 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry Thom but no. Not going to argue it except to point out that MS is a trend-follower, and the current trend is definitively *not* pointing in the direction of ARM servers, and *is* definitively pointing in the direction of ARM on portable devices.

Will you agree to eat your socks on this one?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by TBPrince
by TBPrince on Sat 25th Dec 2010 13:41 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be interesting if Microsoft could use a specially-tailored version of Windows Server software to build complex cloud of services / applications on a large cluster of low-priced servers based on cheap ARM processors. That could be VERY interesting...

A large score of ARM-based servers with no HDDs (only flash disks) would be cheap, low-energy AND it could also be powerful since I bet we could have those CPUs at relatively cheap price...

Reply Score: 2

I just don't see it
by SteveB on Mon 27th Dec 2010 01:06 UTC
SteveB
Member since:
2005-07-10

Windows on ARM? How should that bring an significant advantage to Microsoft? I don't see a big issue porting the OS to another platform but all the applications? No way. It will take ages. The business world that is closely with Windows is not likely going to change quickly. Huge applications on Windows are mostly not written to be that portable. And even if they get ported to ARM, it will take a significant amount of time till they run as smooth as they run in x86. And on top of that keeping an x86 and an ARM version of an application takes time and resources. Look at the big players and how the struggle in getting applications to run on multiple architectures. IBM is such a good example. They offer for example their Lotus software line on many platforms and still they have not the same level of support for every platform. You can get Lotus Notes client for Windows, Linux and for Mac OS X. But some things are only offered on Windows (for example the Lotus Domino Administrator or Lotus Domino Designer). If it would be so easy as 1-2.3 to port an application to another platform (as many of you state here), then explain to me why IBM (without doubt one of the big players) does not port all their applications to every platform to the same extend as they do with Windows applications?

I personally just don't see that huge advantage of having Windows on ARM? Probably the power savings are (for now) huger on ARM but most business dependent on Windows will not that easy change to something new. And those one that need to squeeze the last money out of hardware and software are anyway not the one running Windows. They mostly run either Linux or a BSD variant. Or is any one here thinking that Windows on ARM is going to push Google to switch to Windows servers? Probably not. Big data centers try anyway to decouple from Windows (if they can). Windows might have advantages (depending on what you need) but it is a OS with a not so low price tag. How could/should Windows on ARM change that picture?

Reply Score: 1

RE: I just don't see it
by TheGZeus on Mon 27th Dec 2010 01:24 UTC in reply to "I just don't see it"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

You... didn't read any of the comments in this thread. As such, I'm going to make fun of you.

"I personally just don't see that huge advantage of having Windows on ARM?"
Is that a weird typo, a question to yourself, a call to telepaths to scan you, or an attempt at simulating up-speak? No matter which... nah.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I just don't see it
by SteveB on Mon 27th Dec 2010 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE: I just don't see it"
SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

Is that a weird typo, a question to yourself, a call to telepaths to scan you, or an attempt at simulating up-speak? No matter which... nah.
Yes. It is a typo. Yeah, yeah. Make your fun ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I just don't see it
by TheGZeus on Mon 27th Dec 2010 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I just don't see it"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I have difficulty leaving schtick lying by the wayside ;)

Reply Score: 2

Nothing new...
by TemporalBeing on Mon 27th Dec 2010 19:07 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Windows NT has supported ARM, PPC, MIPS, and x86 for a long time (just look at the headers!), only Microsoft has only pushed out the x86 variant for over a decade. NT by design (though it's HAL sub-system) support multiple architectures, and the VC++ compiler supports multiple architectures too. So don't think this is much of an effort for Microsoft - it's not. All it is is them saying that they are once again going to distribute Windows NT on another architecture.

You may be right about why - MS needs to start targeting tablets, netbooks, and other architectures that primarily use ARM instead of x86 processors.

So nothing new here, just move along.

Reply Score: 2

Don't forget the .net framework...
by rrife on Tue 28th Dec 2010 01:07 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

Most Windows apps are now built using the .Net Framework, which could easily be ported to ARM, thus allowing all (err, most) .Net apps to run w/o any recompiling.

Reply Score: 1

SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

Most Windows apps are now built using the .Net Framework, which could easily be ported to ARM, thus allowing all (err, most) .Net apps to run w/o any recompiling.
Yeah right. Business applications are build using the .Net framework. RDBMS? Messaging? Groupware? Web servers? etc... all of them are made mostly in .Net. Right? And they just run without recompile on ARM. Right?

Reply Score: 1

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Most Windows apps are now built using the .Net Framework, which could easily be ported to ARM, thus allowing all (err, most) .Net apps to run w/o any recompiling.


Most .Net applications are compiled to full binaries and not .Net CLR Bytecode. So they would still need to be recompiled. .Net CLR Bytecode seems to be very seldom used and is more just a footnote in the .Net history than it is actual .Net usage.

Reply Score: 2