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 454727
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 2