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 473857
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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:

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.


Reply Parent Score: 1

madcrow Member since:

Core and Core 2 were direct descendants of the Pentium 3/M architecture. That's why they had such good performance per clock compared to P4. Atom is actually based on an even older version of x86: it's almost pure P5 (Pentium 1) in terms of its basic design.

Reply Parent Score: 2