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 473686
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by orestes
by toast88 on Thu 19th May 2011 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by orestes"
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

"All the apps" aren't going away. Their developers will just re-build them for the ARM version of Windows.

The only programs this will affect are the ones that aren't being actively maintained.


That's actually not that easy. A lot of applications and software use optimized assembly code which cannot simply recompiled.

Examples are hardware drivers, JITs in Google Chrome, Firefox, Flash Player, Java, multimedia codecs etc.

People still code assembler nowadays and for a reason, mind you!

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by orestes
by toomuchtatose on Thu 19th May 2011 08:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by orestes"
toomuchtatose Member since:
2011-05-15

As long as the underlying HAL is code-optimised (crucial job for OS developers), developers shouldn't be so engrossed with the performance of the architecture. I think that is his/her perspective.

But of course, the race to productivity is another issue, essentially it is my opinion that not any amount of assembly-optimisation can replace bigger monitors, better desk and chair, a good keyboard and mouse, for work requiring interactivity.

Else, non-interactive work should be relegate to something like itaniums, x86, ppc or sparc....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by orestes
by toast88 on Thu 19th May 2011 23:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by orestes"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

As long as the underlying HAL is code-optimised (crucial job for OS developers), developers shouldn't be so engrossed with the performance of the architecture. I think that is his/her perspective.

Sorry, but this is non-sense. Anyone is interested in A/C codecs and JIT compiler with decent speeds, this got nothing to do with productivity.

If you want to find out what difference hand-optimized assembly code makes, just compare the JavaScript performance of Internet Explorer (32 bit) with the JavaScript performance of its 64 bit counterpart which does not yet have a JIT compiler.

Ask yourself why it took Sun ages to port the Java plugin to x86_64 or why Adobe still hasn't been able to push Flash on 64 bit further than beta status. It's because they have to keep up the assembly.

You're probably also going to tell me that one never needs more than one CPU cores because one person cannot perform more than one task at the same time, right? (completely neglecting high performance applications like data centers, rendering farms, compute clusters etc)

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by orestes
by viton on Thu 19th May 2011 12:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by orestes"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Examples are hardware drivers, JITs in Google Chrome, Firefox, Flash Player, Java, multimedia codecs etc.

So, name the app from your list that isn't working on ARM.

Edited 2011-05-19 12:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by orestes
by bnolsen on Thu 19th May 2011 14:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by orestes"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Name any app in the above list that isn'talready cross platform. Bad examples.

The possibly problematic apps (I'm no expert here)...

photoshop, autocad, 3d studio max.

If you get windows8 with arm and already paid for any of the above do you expect to get the arm versions for free??

Edited 2011-05-19 14:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by orestes
by toast88 on Fri 20th May 2011 00:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by orestes"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

"Examples are hardware drivers, JITs in Google Chrome, Firefox, Flash Player, Java, multimedia codecs etc.

So, name the app from your list that isn't working on ARM.
"

It's not about running them, it's about PERFORMANCE. It makes a huge difference if you just use (highly portable) C code for A/V codecs and JIT compilers or assembly.

Ever used "mplayer" and wondered why it tries to detect the CPU you are using?

Ever compared the JS performance of IE 32 bits vs. 64 bits?

http://www.cnkeyword.info/javascript-performance-competition-64-bit...

Just have a look at the benchmark results and you will understand.

Furthermore, you won't be able to run any plugins unless you have something like "nsplugwin-wrapper".

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896457/en-us?fr=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPluginWrapper

Trust me, I'm running Linux on loads of plattforms: x86, x86_64, m68k, SPARC and PPC, I know what can easily be ported and what not =).

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by orestes
by j.dalrymple on Fri 20th May 2011 03:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by orestes"
j.dalrymple Member since:
2011-03-29

That's actually not that easy. A lot of applications and software use optimized assembly code which cannot simply recompiled.


Actually, that's a good point.

Reply Parent Score: 1