Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th May 2011 21:50 UTC, submitted by fran
Windows The ARM version of Windows 8 might have just become the most desired version of Windows in our hearts and minds. After us talking about legacy code and backwards compatibility in Windows for years now, an Intel senior vice president, Renee James, has just stated that Windows 8 on ARM will not have any form of compatibility for legacy applications whatsoever. Update: Microsoft has responded to Intel's claims. "Intel's statements during yesterday's Intel Investor Meeting about Microsoft's plans for the next version of Windows were factually inaccurate and unfortunately misleading," the company said, "From the first demonstrations of Windows on SoC, we have been clear about our goals and have emphasized that we are at the technology demonstration stage. As such, we have no further details or information at this time."
Thread beginning with comment 473639
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

Just do the math:

Quad core 2 GHz ARM chips with dynamic recompilatin of x86 code would suffient for most programms that handle mainly text and numbers.

Multimedia and games are a different thing, but most enterprises would be happy with that as long as .NET and Java have native support.


Seriously, I wonder if some posters in this site do even know what a computer does. Other than "handling numbers" a microprocessor really doesn't do much (characters in text are nothing but numbers).

Once Intel gets their new 3D process going, their new Atoms will have a very good power/performance envelope. In fact they will be rather competitive with those mythical "quad 2GHz ARMs." Given the binary compatibility they offer, it is going to be really hard for ARM to break into the data center.

And yes, binary compatibility is still an issue. That is why SPARC still has a market.

Intel and Microsoft have a long history of playing these games to do hardball when it comes to negotiate. Microsoft always dangles the hardware abstraction angle to force intel to submit, and Intel always threatens Microsoft with their next big HW platform not based on MS. It is a dysfunctional dynamic duo.

Reply Parent Score: 3

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

"Just do the math:

Quad core 2 GHz ARM chips with dynamic recompilatin of x86 code would suffient for most programms that handle mainly text and numbers.

Multimedia and games are a different thing, but most enterprises would be happy with that as long as .NET and Java have native support.


Seriously, I wonder if some posters in this site do even know what a computer does. Other than "handling numbers" a microprocessor really doesn't do much (characters in text are nothing but numbers).

Once Intel gets their new 3D process going, their new Atoms will have a very good power/performance envelope. In fact they will be rather competitive with those mythical "quad 2GHz ARMs." Given the binary compatibility they offer, it is going to be really hard for ARM to break into the data center.

And yes, binary compatibility is still an issue. That is why SPARC still has a market.

Intel and Microsoft have a long history of playing these games to do hardball when it comes to negotiate. Microsoft always dangles the hardware abstraction angle to force intel to submit, and Intel always threatens Microsoft with their next big HW platform not based on MS. It is a dysfunctional dynamic duo.
"

Yep, see here: http://www.osnews.com/comments/24753

Well, MS doesn't depend on Intel and Intel doesn't depend on MS (at least theoretically).

Reply Parent Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I meant office programms like Excel (numbers) or Word (text), maybe I buthered that a litte. Sorry, not a native speaker.

And sure Intel will maybe get really good, maybe even better than ARM, but still a quad core ARM with a good emulation could reach speeds similar to todays slowest Atoms, which would be suffient for a lot of office work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I meant office programms like Excel (numbers) or Word (text), maybe I buthered that a litte. Sorry, not a native speaker.

And sure Intel will maybe get really good, maybe even better than ARM, but still a quad core ARM with a good emulation could reach speeds similar to todays slowest Atoms, which would be suffient for a lot of office work.


To run office on Windows 8 on Arm, MS will only need to recompile. But they may implement Office in .Net, so it will be pretty much hardware independent.

To implement an architecture using another architecture requires a big amount of computin power and ARMs aren quite powerful.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


And sure Intel will maybe get really good, maybe even better than ARM, but still a quad core ARM with a good emulation could reach speeds similar to todays slowest Atoms, which would be suffient for a lot of office work.


And why would anybody buy a processor to run emulated code slower than the native intel alternative, which performs better and will probably have a similar price point running that non-emulated code?

Transmeta, DEC, and all the companies which have tried to sell processors doing dynamic x86 translation have failed miserably. In the handheld/embedded/mobile market, ARM has a clear value proposition vs. x86. In the desktop and data center not so much.

Running emulation for the sake of emulation is a headache that few people want to pay for.

Reply Parent Score: 5