Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#11

Post by rbanffy »

runjake wrote: post #10
kenjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be surprised if more than 30% of their codebase cleanly compiled for anything other than a x86...

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#12

Post by kenjackson »

rbanffy wrote: post #9
kenjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The x86 comfort zone is always by your side. With virtualization (and app virtualization) you can run x86 apps seamlessly. Fortunately Office apps aren't CPU bound.

Right, this has always been the play on virtualization for the OS. Don't get stuck in legacy mode, virtualize, and move on. MS may finally be doing what everyone said they should do.

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#13

Post by bonzoesc »

dmethvin wrote: post #8

If 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.

That's a crazy thing to say. The UI, the APIs, etc. will all be based on Windows 7, and any all-CLR apps should run without change. On Windows 8 running on x86, current apps (and Windows 3.1 apps, and maybe DOS apps?) will undoubtedly still run.

It's just like the Mac Intel transition, but without an emulator to fill in the gaps.

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#14

Post by wmf »

kenjackson wrote: post #12
rbanffy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The x86 comfort zone is always by your side. With virtualization (and app virtualization) you can run x86 apps seamlessly. Fortunately Office apps aren't CPU bound. Right, this has always been the play on virtualization for the OS. Don't get stuck in legacy mode, virtualize, and move on. MS may finally be doing what everyone said they should do.

With virtualization (and app virtualization) you can run x86 apps seamlessly.

Not on ARM. Emulation is possible but will be really slow.

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#15

Post by roc »

So Microsoft sees a real threat in Chrome OS netbooks then?

That's the only place I see this being relevant. Windows in any form that can meaningfully execute legacy x86 code is not going into a non-PC device. (dashboard computers, pocket computers, pmps, phones, tablets, etc)

So the only thing left is netbooks. Is that really a relevant play in 2011? Do they think this isn't a feature Google can match and beat them to market on? Do they think the legacy of Windows will be a compelling alternative to the relative simplicity and security of Chrome OS in that market?

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#16

Post by kenjackson »

wmf wrote: post #14
kenjackson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The x86 comfort zone is always by your side. With virtualization (and app virtualization) you can run x86 apps seamlessly. Fortunately Office apps aren't CPU bound. Right, this has always been the play on virtualization for the OS. Don't get stuck in legacy mode, virtualize, and move on. MS may finally be doing what everyone said they should do.

With virtualization (and app virtualization) you can run x86 apps seamlessly. Not on ARM. Emulation is possible but will be really slow.

How slow? I did some quick profiling of Word and Excel doing basic stuff (text entries, making charts, but no hardcore calculations). Avg CPU utilization: 1%. Peak CPU utilization: 4%.

A factor of 10x slowdown would probably be reasonable. Is the current state of the art on ARM able to get it below 10x?

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#17

Post by rbanffy »

kenjackson wrote: post #16
wmf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With virtualization (and app virtualization) you can run x86 apps seamlessly. Not on ARM. Emulation is possible but will be really slow.

How slow? I did some quick profiling of Word and Excel doing basic stuff (text entries, making charts, but no hardcore calculations). Avg CPU utilization: 1%. Peak CPU utilization: 4%. A factor of 10x slowdown would probably be reasonable. Is the current state of the art on ARM able to get it below 10x?

Average CPU utilization is misleading. Just wait to see how long those small brief moments when you have 50% CPU utilization will extend into minutes under emulation.

And, BTW, nobody would buy a computer that can run only Windows and Office.

To be fair, only the Office part would have to run under emulation. As soon as the code calls into core Windows, the machine would be running ARM code. I don't know where the boundary is with Office.

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#18

Post by kenjackson »

rbanffy wrote: post #17
kenjackson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How slow? I did some quick profiling of Word and Excel doing basic stuff (text entries, making charts, but no hardcore calculations). Avg CPU utilization: 1%. Peak CPU utilization: 4%. A factor of 10x slowdown would probably be reasonable. Is the current state of the art on ARM able to get it below 10x?

Average CPU utilization is misleading. Just wait to see how long those small brief moments when you have 50% CPU utilization will extend into minutes under emulation. And, BTW, nobody would buy a computer that can run only Windows and Office. To be fair, only the Office part would have to run under emulation. As soon as the code calls into core Windows, the machine would be running ARM code. I don't know where the bo…

That's why I also noted the peak CPU utilization (4%).

I do agree that only running Windows and Office is not sufficient. But its a starting point for the discussion.

Re: Windows 8 to support ARM, System on a chip, architectures

#19

Post by nl »

rbanffy wrote: post #9
kenjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Office runs fine on ARM: http://docs.com/
Post reply on HN