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.
Thread beginning with comment 454660
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 2