the only reason why ms is making an arm windows 8, is to compete with android in the smartphone & tablet scene. they want windows 8 tablets & smartphones.
the only reason why ms is making an arm windows 8, is to compete with android in the smartphone & tablet scene. they want windows 8 tablets & smartphones.
But I think the expectation is that ARM will grow beyond that? And MS doesn't want to be late to the party if Google has higher powered ARM chips for whatever desktop OS it ends up using.
Differing Opinions on this?
For desktops I have my doubt. Win 8 on ARM ok, but other stuff must be available then too meaning office for ARM and so on.
Microsoft makes ARM support official; Intel surely is regretting parting with its ARM unit
Is this the siren song for the x86 architecture and its great bastion, Intel? It's hard to say for sure, but Microsoft's official announcement that it was supporting a more efficient rival architecture -- ARM -- certainly was met with little joy in Santa Clara.
At the show Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer showed off a series of development systems running a "next generation version of Windows", which supported ARM. Microsoft layered Windows 7's graphical user interface on top of new OS to show just how smoothly an ARM powered Windows system could run.
In total Microsoft showed off three different ARM development systems, with a system-on-a-chip design from Qualcomm (SnapDragon), Texas Instruments (OMAP), and NVIDIA (Tegra 2). Mr. Ballmer did not officially announce when we might expect to see these Windows ARM systems, but it might be sooner than you think.
Microsoft has grown increasingly impatient with long-time partner Intel, who manufacturers somewhere between 80 to 90 percent of the world's computer CPUs. Intel was being badly beaten in the fight for smartphone and tablet dominance -- or more aptly it never showed up, because it knew it was a fight that it couldn't win.
Microsoft had already long since gone with ARM processors in the ultra-power dependent smartphone industry. But in the tablet sector it sat by and watched in pain as Apple and Google unloaded ARM based designs by the millions. There were no Windows 7 tablets because Intel was unable to provide it hardware.
Unwilling to see its hopes anchored to what may be a sinking ship, Microsoft made the tough decision to jump onboard the ARM train, a serious vote of no-confidence for x86. The message seemed clear -- Intel's promises of Atom-based Windows 7 tablets were welcome, but Microsoft sure wasn't waiting around for their release.
As ARM suppliers gains momentum they are hungrily eyeing the netbook, notebook, and PC markets. Already we're seeing dual-core ARM CPUs show up in smartphones, and there's talk of eight-core ARM CPUs clocked as high as 2 GHz being delivered within a generation or two. So is Intel's CPU (and to a lesser extent those of AMD) destined for a slow ride into the sunset, replaced by NVIDIA, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and Samsung chips?
It's harder to say. ARM's great hope is that it can parlay its sizable lead in power efficiency over x86 into market dominance. ARM features a reduced-instruction set, versus Intel's cluttered instruction catalog. And it has more integers registers, which eliminates the expensive process of renaming registers. The net result of both of these architectural differences is that ARM can perform the same computation using less power.
And yet Intel could still pull out a victory. As circuits have shrunk, leakage of current from the capacitors inside transistors has become a major issue. In today's generation of ARM and x86 CPUs, leakage can account for as much as 40 percent of the power consumption of a chip. As leakage becomes more important, process technologies may become more important, while subtle architectural advantages become more trivial.
Thus if Intel can hold on, it may stand a shot, thanks to its tireless advances in the field of process technology, which include "high-K dielectrics" -- special capacitor materials that combat leakage.
On the other hand, developing processes is an expensive business, and if ARM begins a successful campaign into the personal computing market, it may starve Intel of the capital it needs to survive.
One thing is for sure -- for now consumers have compelling cause to buy ARM OS tablets, netbooks, and notebooks, a cause Microsoft has recognized and addressed. Intel can only hope to weather the storm.
Am I the only one who isn't creaming their pants over this? I'm all for competition, but I'm not holding my breath that nVidia can compete with AMD/Intel in anything other than the value segment. They would also need to find a way, in hardware, to process legacy x86 code to be successful in mainstream desktop segment. I have no doubt that smartphones/SoC type systems could easily use Denver, but for a normal desktop I have some serious doubts.
We shall see though.
Apps , and what about GAMES.
IMO, it may not happen overnight, but eventually you will hear news that Nvidia will make a alternate gaming platform to windows.
Apple uses 3d games on its 'mobile' hardware as plus in plenty of advertising.
but I'm not holding my breath that nVidia can compete with AMD/Intel in anything other than the value segment.
Your idea to magicaly recompile things like game code for a different CPU architecture is simply absurd. And even if someone decides to invest the huge amount of resources to port for example game code over to run on ARM, there are still several dozen libraries which ALL would have to be ported too, but where you don't have access to.It's my understanding that Microsoft also has DirectX support in the ARM Windows port. Thus most games would just need to be recompiled for ARM.
Haha! THE CLOUD! The magical oh so new thing that is just soooo incredibly hip!Also, for those of you saying it's "all about the apps": that's wrong. The whole point is we are now at a junction where there is enough stuff in the cloud that we will have true platform independence. With multiple web browsers all becoming more compliant with standards, we have easier access to the same things on different platforms. Look at ChromeOS: for the majority of the average users tasks, they are able to perform them easily on that platform.
We'll have to see how well the Cortex A15 benchmarks.
Single thread peformance
Overclockability
Power management/Power consumption
Cost
Does ARM A15 have enough built in advantage to go toe to toe with Intel's premium priced x86 designs? Will Nvidia be able to force Intel to drop prices more than they expect in the future?
Or will it be Qualcomm/TI that actually are able to put the most pressure on Intel in the desktop/laptop market? Most people really don't care about extra graphics at this point (barring some breakthrough in Heterogenous computing)
I thought Cortex A9 was roughly equal to Intel Atom (in terms of single thread performance)?
Therefore wouldn't it be safe to assume 2.5 Ghz A15s would keep some pretty fast company?
I could definitely be wrong, but I just can't imagine MS porting Big Windows if this chip didn't deliver the necessary Metrics? Why not make Windows Phone the Tablet OS if ARM is only capable of lower power/low performance?
But I think the expectation is that ARM will grow beyond that? And MS doesn't want to be late to the party if Google has higher powered ARM chips for whatever desktop OS it ends up using.
Differing Opinions on this?
Office will be ported to ARM as well.
Any well written software can be just recompiled to be used on a different architecture.
Also, this is the point of .NET. All microsoft has to do is release .NET frameworks for ARM and shaazam. Every .NET application that runs on x86 now works on ARM without any modification. - Same goes with JAVA. It is one of the advantages of an intermediate language. There are thousands of applications that run on pure .NET or java, I beg to even say they are the majority of useful ones.
ARM isn't going to compete with i7 or even i5's. Its purely for netbooks and low power laptops. Maybe in 5 years we'll see the two markets merge though. x86 is very inefficient compared to RISC architectures such as ARM and MIPS.
Competition is good.
But one must keep in mind that ARM-based windows will probably not run all of the x86 windows apps.
Anyone remember windows for alpha, windows for itanium?
Don't assume that a product like this can't be competitive in certain spaces, but the mainstream space probably won't be the place.
Because you will be limited to apps that have been recompiled for windows/arm, your choice of software is limited. If you only want to run a few apps and they are all available, lust away.
But how many people lust after apple notebooks, but don't buy them because their windows apps won't run on them?
In realistic terms, it is all about the applications, that will determine whether or not the products are successful.
It's my understanding that Microsoft also has DirectX support in the ARM Windows port. Thus most games would just need to be recompiled for ARM.
Also, for those of you saying it's "all about the apps": that's wrong. The whole point is we are now at a junction where there is enough stuff in the cloud that we will have true platform independence. With multiple web browsers all becoming more compliant with standards, we have easier access to the same things on different platforms. Look at ChromeOS: for the majority of the average users tasks, they are able to perform them easily on that platform.
As long as Project Denver (or any TI/Qualcomm SoC) has a workable standards-compliant web browser and basic software support, it will be a threat to the x86 platform for the average user's laptop/desktop. I never thought the day would come when I could choose between Intel and TI and Nvidia chips to run Windows on.
Your idea to magicaly recompile things like game code for a different CPU architecture is simply absurd. And even if someone decides to invest the huge amount of resources to port for example game code over to run on ARM, there are still several dozen libraries which ALL would have to be ported too, but where you don't have access to.
Why in hell would I care to deliver a game on an empty platform anyway? Maybe because I have a bizarre fetish for Nvidia and want to reach their clients only for whatever absurd reason?
Well that is nothing but wishful thinking. It takes a huge amount of resources to port a game to any platform.Again, games are already developed for PowerPC first. Then they're recompiled for x86. Once your code is portable enough to go between those two platforms, it should easily port to others.