Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#2Interesting that Microsoft's answer to "Why?" seems to be "Because we can." by journalists. Hopefully they have a better strategy than that.
That said, I'm all for more ARM support in the world.
It looks like it will run .NET apps with little or no reworking. They probably borrowed a lot of the work of the .NET Compact Framework team for a reverse port. Expect native SDKs later, after the initial launch.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#3Interesting that Microsoft's answer to "Why?" seems to be "Because we can." by journalists. Hopefully they have a better strategy than that. That said, I'm all for more ARM support in the world. It looks like it will run .NET apps with little or no reworking. They probably borrowed a lot of the work of the .NET Compact Framework team for a reverse port. Expect native SDKs later, after the initial launch.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge.
Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy.
Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#4Interesting that Microsoft's answer to "Why?" seems to be "Because we can." by journalists. Hopefully they have a better strategy than that. That said, I'm all for more ARM support in the world. It looks like it will run .NET apps with little or no reworking. They probably borrowed a lot of the work of the .NET Compact Framework team for a reverse port. Expect native SDKs later, after the initial launch.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge. Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
Can the current ARM implementations even utilize 8GB of RAM at this point? I recall some OMAP issues with even 512 MB not too long ago.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge. Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
Can the current ARM implementations even utilize 8GB of RAM at this point? I recall some OMAP issues with even 512 MB not too long ago.
Regular ARM should support 4 GB and LPAE supports terabytes (although each app is limited to 4 GB). Current SoCs probably have much smaller limits, like 1 GB. Nvidia's core may be 64-bit, though, which would eliminate these restrictions.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge. Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
Can the current ARM implementations even utilize 8GB of RAM at this point? I recall some OMAP issues with even 512 MB not too long ago.
The Nvidia part at least will be based on the A15 processor, which includes Large Physical Address Extensions to allow up to 1TB memory.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#7Interesting that Microsoft's answer to "Why?" seems to be "Because we can." by journalists. Hopefully they have a better strategy than that. That said, I'm all for more ARM support in the world. It looks like it will run .NET apps with little or no reworking. They probably borrowed a lot of the work of the .NET Compact Framework team for a reverse port. Expect native SDKs later, after the initial launch.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge. Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
I think this no fad, and I think Intel must've seriously screwed up. Everyone knew that Intel was promising MS, "we're going to match ARM on performance per watt in the coming years". That roadmap must have disintegrated, as MS would not have come public otherwise.
The batteries will be a little smaller, to reduce weight, but 24 hours of operation on a single charge... that might becomes the standard.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#8If this is true, then Windows 8 is not a true successor to Windows 7. Current desktop/server apps assume binary compatibility with x86. This sounds much more like a scaled-up version of Windows Phone.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge. Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
I think this no fad, and I think Intel must've seriously screwed up. Everyone knew that Intel was promising MS, "we're going to match ARM on performance per watt in the coming years". That roadmap must have disintegrated, as MS would not have come public otherwise. The batteries will be a little smaller, to reduce weight, but 24 hours of operation on a single charge... that might becomes the standard.
In order for Windows on RISC to succeed, Microsoft and all 3rd parties will have to leave the x86 comfort zone and really support it.
Last time MS tried to be multi-architecture, they failed miserably. They couldn't even be bothered to port Office to non-x86 machines. And nobody buys a PC to run only Windows and Office. They'll have to do a whole lot more than they did and I don't think they would be capable of.
Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they can modulate Windows 8 OEM licensing price in order to convince some OEM to launch an 8 GB of RAM, SATA SSD ARM-based netbook with a x86-sized battery that gives it 48 hours of operation on a single charge. Then I can install a decent OS on the machine and be happy. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with an unsupported hardware. I have no illusion this fad won't be a short-lived one.
I think this no fad, and I think Intel must've seriously screwed up. Everyone knew that Intel was promising MS, "we're going to match ARM on performance per watt in the coming years". That roadmap must have disintegrated, as MS would not have come public otherwise. The batteries will be a little smaller, to reduce weight, but 24 hours of operation on a single charge... that might becomes the standard.
@rbanffy, they HAVE left the x86 comfort zone, see .NET.