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 473647
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11


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


Why do you think ARM is a beast from a computing point of view? It can have 8GHZ and 16 cores and it will still suck. It needs some architectural changes to bring some performance. And if you do some architectural changes, it won't be an ARM anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 3

fasted Member since:
2006-11-09

Why do you think ARM is a beast from a computing point of view? It can have 8GHZ and 16 cores and it will still suck. It needs some architectural changes to bring some performance. And if you do some architectural changes, it won't be an ARM anymore.

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/calxeda-to-offer-480-core-arm-se...
Servers, power savings, virtual machines, cloud computing? Ever heard of it? Money talks, and if Microsoft doesn't hear the train coming, they wouldn't touch ARM with a ten foot pole. Intel is putting on a very brave face, but they are getting thier a$$ handed to them on two fronts; smart-phone's, and tablet's. Are they going to make that server's and workstation's ,also?
I would wager to say that Intel, not Arm, is the on that needs to change their architecture .
Also, CentOS, was given Microsoft's blessing's this week, so more money could be put into things like virtualization and cloud computing. Me thinks Intel should be sharpening their pencils, if they want to stay alive . IBM got complacent, and history has a habit of repeating itself if you don't learn from other's past mistakes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

And this is why MIPs missed the boat. It's already been proven to be scalable to high performance. The license holders just allowed arm to outmaneuver them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/calxeda-to-offer-480-core-arm-se...
Servers, power savings, virtual machines, cloud computing? Ever heard of it? Money talks, and if Microsoft doesn't hear the train coming, they wouldn't touch ARM with a ten foot pole. Intel is putting on a very brave face, but they are getting thier a$$ handed to them on two fronts; smart-phone's, and tablet's. Are they going to make that server's and workstation's ,also?


Intel wasn't even trying when they created the first generation Atom (the one that the article you linked to compares to ARM Cortex A9 - look at the dates). First generation Atom used an old power hungry chipset that used more power than the CPU, old 45 nm fab, etc. For performance/watt it got beaten by just about everything (Nehalem, VIA's Nano, AMDs CPUs, etc). More recent Atom isn't much better - they improved the chipset (but didn't do much for the CPU itself). It's like Intel were just toying with the idea as a way of getting more use out of manufacturing plants that had become too old for their main product lines.

If Calxeda's 480-core server was actually good, they would've compared it to Intel CPUs intended for servers (Core 2, Nehalem or Sandy Bridge Xeons) instead.

I would wager to say that Intel, not Arm, is the on that needs to change their architecture .


I'd wager that Intel will actually start trying; Microsoft won't continually keep making new distributions of Windows for each new ARM SoC (and ARM notebooks and smartphones will be stuck with the 4 existing SoCs that Windows 8 will support, which will become obsolete fast); after about 3 years (when Intel has caught up on the low power/low performance market) Microsoft won't be able to see why they bother with the hassle of many different ARM distributions; Windows 9 will be 64-bit 80x86 only; and ARM will go back to embedded systems.

The only real hope for ARM is if they get together and create a standardised platform (rather than just a standardised CPU/instruction set); so that it's possible for Microsoft to create one version of the OS for all ARM systems rather than having to customise the OS to suit each different ARM system. It really wouldn't take too much either - just slap something like OpenFirmware on top and fill out any of the missing features. Sadly, it'd be like herding cats, and I can't see it happening quickly enough.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 3

toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

Servers, power savings, virtual machines, cloud computing? Ever heard of it?


Yes, they all use cheap x86 hardware which provides a lot of mips per dollar.

Just check top500, the vast majority there run x86 (64 bit) for a reason:

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/procfam

The strongest, non-x86 architecture is Power architecture (not to be confused with PPC) and it's just 10% of x86_64 alone.

No company that still got all their senses together will invest in anything but x86 hardware. Yes, I agree that the Power and SPARC are incredibly nice architectures and probably beat x86 in many fields.

But NO architecture will ever be able to beat x86 when it comes to mips per dollar and that's what primarily counts for the applications you mentioned. Even Intel dropped it's non-x86 architecture, Itanium, at some point. Just because x86 was way more successful (even though many claimed that Intel just introduced to "clean up" the market by kicking all the other architectures with Itanium and then dropping it after there was just x86 and Itanium left).

On the other hand, ARM beats x86 when it comes to mips per watts and that's why ARM is so widely adopted on mobile platforms. Intel actually had a very low-power architecture with their Pentium M which were based on the Pentium III Mobile. Not sure of how much of platform is still present nowadays, Intel's processor genealogy is quite complex and ramified.

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 1

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I never said that it could compete with a modern X86 CPU. I would need huge caches etc. Not going to happen in 2012.

BUT if the emulator is really advanced it could handle simple Office work with ease. That is what I said...

Reply Parent Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Why do you think ARM is a beast from a computing point of view? It can have 8GHZ and 16 cores and it will still suck.

Calm down your x86 fanatism. Atom is highly inferior to cortex A9 in all areas except of memory bandwidth (in popular SOCs). BTW there are 6-core ARM A9 with 512bit memory bus (Toshiba CEVO).
A15 is a new arch with triple issue OoO. 4 core a15 will rival core2duo with a much, much lower power consumption.

Reply Parent Score: 2