Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Jan 2011 21:22 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Just - just hold on a second. This is big: NVIDIA, maker of graphics accelerator chips, has just announced, during its keynote at CES, that it is developing a high-performance ARM-based processor together with ARM, targeted squarely at the desktop, server, and even high-performance computing markets. That Windows on ARM thing? NVIDIA referenced it multiple times! Update: Boom, and we have a press release. "NVIDIA announced today that it plans to build high-performance ARM based CPU cores, designed to support future products ranging from personal computers and servers to workstations and supercomputers. Known under the internal codename 'Project Denver', this initiative features an NVIDIA CPU running the ARM instruction set, which will be fully integrated on the same chip as the NVIDIA GPU."
Thread beginning with comment 456032
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
debio
Member since:
2005-07-06

Granted, NT 4.0 was the last official release to be officially multi-platform (Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC), but that was back in 2000. Supposedly NT 5 (Windows 2000) had an RC2 build that still ran on Alpha...

Needless to say, the fact that NT5RC2 was nominally cross platform does not imply at all that current Windows 7 (NT6.2) has maintained that legacy. Although it would be bizarre if it hadn't, but perhaps not surprising.

MS breaking up WinTel doesn't really make sense. ARM processors are supposedly ideal for mobile use, and MS has Windows Phone 7, right? Recompiling Windows 7 for ARM to squeeze on very low end "PCs" doesn't sound like a compelling business model. Especially since most of the target user have no comprehension that different core CPU architectures mean differently compiled software packages. "What do you mean I can't run Office 2010 on my *Windows* notebook?!?!"

I see the whole NVIDIA announcement much more in the line of future converged devices/interfaces a la Chrome notebooks. Say tablets/phones/notebook-ish devices running Android apps across all. That actually I find much more exciting than imagining Windows on ARM -- but hey, that's me. If running Office is exciting, each to his own... :-)

Edited 2011-01-05 22:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

The Windows Server 2003 and 2008 releases, which are just the same as the desktop versions with different tuning and applications, have been running on Itanium.

That is a very different CPU than x86/x86_64.

The .NET system has been running on Itanium and on Xbox 360 or PPC, so we know that can be ported also.

So from that we know that Windows 7 cannot be too difficult to port. We also know that any applications written in .NET "pure" (no p/invoke) will run fine.

Reply Parent Score: 3

mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

Recompiling Windows 7 for ARM to squeeze on very low end "PCs" doesn't sound like a compelling business model. Especially since most of the target user have no comprehension that different core CPU architectures mean differently compiled software packages. "What do you mean I can't run Office 2010 on my *Windows* notebook?!?!"


..to quote MS own press release:
" Microsoft Office running natively on ARM also was shown as a demonstration of the full depth and breadth of Windows platform capabilities on ARM architecture."

..i have to say, the idea of tegra 2(or similar) tablet that runs android or chrome-for-tablet and can dual boot win(8?) sounds pretty appealing and perhaps not that far fetched now

Reply Parent Score: 1

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

go back and read it again. the new arm stuff is not for low end, bueller.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dakohli Member since:
2010-12-30

Actually it make very good business sense. Provide choice to the Consumer. The more platforms that an OS can run on, the more applications we will see that OS find. It is very simple math.

MS is a software business, notwithstanding their forays into hardware construction. They need to compete in as many arenas as possible, if only to hedge their bets. Imagine if a new ARM based server became the best hardware for a particular environment? If there was no Windows option, then they can't hope to compete.

It makes perfect sense. And they will have to compete with Linux. I don't think they can take anything for granted any more. Every battle they concede, could be a nail in the coffin.

MS plays catch-up in so many places, they cannot afford to take some chances.

Reply Parent Score: 1