Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Oct 2012 11:58 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Windows "This may be a good sign for Microsoft: a little over a day after putting its new Surface RT tablet up for pre-order, the entry-level $499 version of the tablet has sold out. Its estimated shipping time has slipped from October 26, Windows 8's release date, to a more nebulous 'within three weeks'." We'll see. Wouldn't be the first time a company artificially keeps supply short to generate 'sold-out' hype.
Thread beginning with comment 538997
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Maybe not this time.
by Nelson on Thu 18th Oct 2012 16:57 UTC in reply to "Maybe not this time."
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I agree about Windows on ARM being useless. I just don't see the long term advantages.

Look at Intels roadmap over the next few years and you'll see them rapidly scaling down power consumption and scaling up GPU performance to erase ARM's advantage.

Intel's SoC designs also incorporate connected stand-by which means that Win8 tabs with those chips will have decent battery life. If they can get even eight hours out of a charge then its already mostly close enough. (Note: This applies to Atom SoC designs only, not high end Win8 tabs with Core i7's)

I don't think Win32 will go away fast enough for Windows RT to outsell Windows 8. I think that in the long run, people will have their tablets be the center of their digital life and just dock them to output to a monitor, and use Bluetooth keyboards and mice to get productive stuff done.

Intel will win the architecture war. I have full faith in their expertise and their leads in fab technology.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Maybe not this time.
by EvilMonkeySlayer on Fri 19th Oct 2012 15:33 in reply to "RE: Maybe not this time."
EvilMonkeySlayer Member since:
2010-04-08

Intel should be able to get some market share with their mobile processors, but they've got a snowballs chance in hell of becoming the dominant processor architecture for mobiles.

In order for them to win they'd have to convince the manufacturers of phones/tablets to limit themselves to a single manufacturer (since Intel own the x86 arch, to my knowledge the only others allowed to make x86 arch processors are AMD and VIA). So, they'd limit themselves to giving a monopoly to Intel where they can price gouge them versus the very competitive ARM market where you've got various fabs and manufacturers competing against each other making ARM processors.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Maybe not this time.
by zima on Thu 25th Oct 2012 23:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Maybe not this time."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Plus there's more than ARM: if ARM Ltd. would start to be unbearable one way or another, MIPS for example could swoop in easily - MIPS chips are also quite popular in ~embedded (just not in mobiles; XBurst close - in tablets), and PRC even supposedly builds its tech independence on MIPS Loongson chips.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Maybe not this time.
by zima on Thu 25th Oct 2012 23:58 in reply to "RE: Maybe not this time."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Intel roadmap included, not a long time ago, also 10 GHz Netburst CPUs. And in ~embedded, Intel was supposed to "erase ARM's advantage" one or two times already...

Thing is, ARM doesn't stand still, and has many players heavily invested in it, and will offer more integrated, tailored to every imaginable usage scenario (it's about vast number of manufacturers) & less expensive solutions.
Intel can't and won't provide this, process lead is not so significant when you want to have low cost (where older processes are fine) with simply adequate performance, limited mostly by screen and radio module vs battery tech.

And there's more than ARM, also MIPS for example...


BTW, in early Intel presentations of Atom SoC there was a block cryptically named ~"32bit RISC system controller" in the ~southbridge ...I wonder what that was. Also, Infineon (acquired by Intel) radio modules certainly still use ARM cores.
Which means that in an "Intel inside" mobile phone there very well might be more ARM cores than x86 ones.

Reply Parent Score: 2