Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st May 2009 22:36 UTC, submitted by hyper
Windows With a flood of ARM-based netbooks coming to the market starting somewhere end of this year, many hope it will be another opportunity for Linux to get some mainstream exposure. Since "normal" Windows doesn't run on ARM, Linux is the only obvious choice. Right? Well, Warren East, president and CEO of ARM Holdings plc, has been dropping hints that Windows might make its way to ARM after all. At least, that's what EETimes is concluding.
Thread beginning with comment 361410
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
windows != windows
by bob_bipbip on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:13 UTC
bob_bipbip
Member since:
2009-04-28

... it will be very funny when customers will return their arm/winmo to the retailer saying "i can't install my msoffice/nero/dvdshrink/whatever_appli that a friend of mine borrow me, give me a real windows"
i hope user when learn that computer!windows ...
remind me the linux netbook return rates ...

Reply Score: 3

RE: windows != windows
by deathshadow on Sun 3rd May 2009 07:35 in reply to "windows != windows"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Spot on. In the mind of the normal consumer things like Windows CE ... and by extension putting the ARM processor in netbooks, will relegate them right back into being the stupid little 'toys' things like the Psion Netbook were - cute, but ultimately either returned by angry consumers or relegated to the back of the sock drawer along with the Geode powered thin clients, all those winCE 1.x and 2.x handhelds that you only actually used for a couple weeks, the atari portfolio, and noodle-doodle products like the "New Internet Computer".

There really are two big problems ARM is going to face in the netbook market:

First is overcoming the public perception of ARM based netbooks as "upsized handhelds" instead of the "downsized notebooks" that make the intel based ones so popular. ARM based chips have been put in endless crappy slow handhelds for a decade - giving it a reputation that is going to be hard for it to shake.

Second is the mindshare that x86 Windows has... a mindshare which is the reason so much effort goes into backwards compatability in windows, WINE for *nix flavors, is why Parallels for the MAC sells like hotcakes and why even Apple provides a mechanism for booting Windows on their products.

Of course that mindshare would likely be easier to beat if Open source software for the desktop didn't consistantly come across as tinkertoys compared to their windows equivalents - with the possible exception of Firefox, VLC and maybe blender it's a fairly accurate description of the state of open source applications, where most of it, even the desktop managers no matter how pretty and fancy the graphics or visual effects, from a functionality standpoint feel like a trip in the wayback machine to windows 3.1

Though, that windows XP seems faster and more stable than linux on everything from the crappy little first gen sub-ghz intel mobile's right up to the dual core atom doesn't help. Long gone are the days of linux being smaller/faster - assuming such days ever REALLY existed. Having watched this **** for about fifteen years now, I still say it NEVER did - More secure, more stable - FINE, I can agree to that. Faster? LEANER? IN YOUR DREAMS!!!

Though 99% of that can be blamed on X and not Linux itself. If X itself didn't suck so bad everyone and their brother wouldn't be developing their own toolkits and WM's to sit between it and applications to actually make it USABLE!

Edited 2009-05-03 07:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: windows != windows
by bob_bipbip on Sun 3rd May 2009 09:45 in reply to "RE: windows != windows"
bob_bipbip Member since:
2009-04-28

errrr, just no.
before the iphone era, when i showed people my phone, an htc blue angel, they always think "wow! this guy has the same computer (winxp) that i have i my desk, but portable!!!"

just because my phone was a pda with a big screen, a keyboard, and it cannot fit in a pocket (wich is wrong, i put this in my pocket ...), the internet was in, and most of it, windows was on it.
now, when people will see arm/winmo netbook, they will see: a big screen, a keyboard, it can't fit in a pocket and certainly not calling people (phone app), so it's a computer, like a winxp notebook ....

Edited 2009-05-03 09:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: windows != windows
by lemur2 on Sun 3rd May 2009 10:18 in reply to "RE: windows != windows"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Of course that mindshare would likely be easier to beat if Open source software for the desktop didn't consistantly come across as tinkertoys compared to their windows equivalents - with the possible exception of Firefox, VLC and maybe blender it's a fairly accurate description of the state of open source applications, where most of it, even the desktop managers no matter how pretty and fancy the graphics or visual effects, from a functionality standpoint feel like a trip in the wayback machine to windows 3.1

Though, that windows XP seems faster and more stable than linux on everything from the crappy little first gen sub-ghz intel mobile's right up to the dual core atom doesn't help. Long gone are the days of linux being smaller/faster - assuming such days ever REALLY existed. Having watched this **** for about fifteen years now, I still say it NEVER did - More secure, more stable - FINE, I can agree to that. Faster? LEANER? IN YOUR DREAMS!!!


What on earth are you on about?

Linux beats Windows on the same hardware in every single aspect, including the quality of desktop applications.

Reply Parent Score: 3