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

51–60 of 78 posts

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

#51

Post by ssp »

kenjackson wrote: post #25
ssp wrote: post #21

There is the idea that Windows is such a terrible system that the only reason people are staying with it is that they need their legacy applications. It's not entirely without merit, but for a lot of people and businesses, Windows actually works rather well. The importance of x86 is overstated too. Many applications will be pretty close to a recompile away. There is of course the usual chicken-and-egg issue that all…

Enterprise LOB is almost all .NET and web now. Native apps are increasingly just consumer apps.

It isn't clear to me how portable .NET is in practice, but then I don't think it's a problem either way. Enterprises would not want to run some old .NET binary on a new system with a new operating system unless there was vendor support for it.

And if there is vendor support, then they would probably just get something certified for the ARM systems.

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

#52

Post by jmtulloss »

jdabney wrote: post #47
brianwillis wrote: post #43

Can one of you clever people explain what is meant by the term "system on a chip"? Is it just a marketing buzzword, or is there more to it than that? I've tried wikipedia, but just got even more confused.

A system on a chip is a single chip that integrates all or almost all other chips on a motherboard into one chip. So this chip will have a cpu, graphics, memory controller, network controller, io such as usb. That way you can have basically one chip that is all or most of the computer. Sometime RAM and normally storage is separate chips but you basically end up with just a few chips on a very small, normally low powe…

It's also great for power and size constraints.

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

#53

Post by Hoff »

Porting an OS onto a new box can be technically quite interesting, but is only a fraction of the aggregate effort involved.

It's the business issues that matter. Whether you can recoup the costs, and when.

Application availability, third-party support, hardware vendor support, testing, and whether there's enough of a draw (coolness, compelling price advantage, better battery efficiency, whatever) to pull your user bases to the new platform, and pull in new customers.

There's the additional risk with whether and when key vendors will move. It might well technically be a recompile and go for the applications, though the vendors of key applications are probably going to need to see a sufficient market, or they may want some funding for porting. Vendors tend to be (reasonably) loathe to accept this porting and testing and support load without some form of revenue plan.

Emulation and translation are technically possible, though that too can be problematic; various vendors can tend not to support emulated or translated code. For understandable reasons, more than a few vendors wouldn't support their applications on Windows on Alpha via FX!32, for instance.

I'm also surprised that Microsoft is discussing this now; whether this is a cudgel on some providers, a palliative for their partners considering adding other OS platforms (Android, WebOS or otherwise), customers that are accepting other OS platforms, or whether they're really (seriously?) talking about a project and a potential product that's two years out.

Wondering what their particular motivation(s) here might be, still.

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

#54

Post by kenjackson »

ssp wrote: post #51
kenjackson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enterprise LOB is almost all .NET and web now. Native apps are increasingly just consumer apps.

It isn't clear to me how portable .NET is in practice, but then I don't think it's a problem either way. Enterprises would not want to run some old .NET binary on a new system with a new operating system unless there was vendor support for it. And if there is vendor support, then they would probably just get something certified for the ARM systems.

What do you mean certified? LOB apps aren't certified.

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

#55

Post by rbanffy »

kenjackson wrote: post #48
rbanffy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Remote Desktop you are running Office on the machine that has a fast network and only transferring the pixels that change. That's not, probably, what jawee was saying.

But I use Office completely w/o a network connection quite often. It's not a web app. It rarely touches the network. Just about the only time I hit the network is when using Excel to access a relational store or if your document is on a file share (and even then the document is stored locally after opening it). I assumed he meant something where the network latency would impose a keystroke-level degredation in perfor…

I think jawee's point is that little latencies (memory, cache, IO) quickly add up to make emulation much harder than that.

The picture may not be that grim if at least timing-critical parts of Office can be made into fat binaries. I would not bet on straight emulation of uncooperative code, however.

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

#56

Post by ssp »

kenjackson wrote: post #54
ssp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't clear to me how portable .NET is in practice, but then I don't think it's a problem either way. Enterprises would not want to run some old .NET binary on a new system with a new operating system unless there was vendor support for it. And if there is vendor support, then they would probably just get something certified for the ARM systems.

What do you mean certified? LOB apps aren't certified.

I don't know what an LOB app is.

EDIT: The flamewar detector is preventing me from replying, but I don't think anybody is really disagreeing all that much.

I agree with Ken, most of the business applications in big corporations are based on .NET. (J2EE used to be big but from what I am seeing .NET is eating J2EE's lunch)

The only thing I am saying is that even if the bytecode theoretically makes it possible, businesses will not generally want to move their applications to a new operating system and platform without the involved vendors supporting it. Hence, .NET vs native is not all that important, because they would just get new versions from the involved vendors anyway.

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

#57

Post by solutionyogi »

ssp wrote: post #56
kenjackson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean certified? LOB apps aren't certified.

I don't know what an LOB app is. EDIT: The flamewar detector is preventing me from replying, but I don't think anybody is really disagreeing all that much. I agree with Ken, most of the business applications in big corporations are based on .NET. (J2EE used to be big but from what I am seeing .NET is eating J2EE's lunch) The only thing I am saying is that even if the bytecode theoretically makes it possible, business…

LOB - Line Of Business

I agree with Ken, most of the business applications in big corporations are based on .NET. (J2EE used to be big but from what I am seeing .NET is eating J2EE's lunch)

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

#58

Post by kenjackson »

ssp wrote: post #56
kenjackson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean certified? LOB apps aren't certified.

I don't know what an LOB app is. EDIT: The flamewar detector is preventing me from replying, but I don't think anybody is really disagreeing all that much. I agree with Ken, most of the business applications in big corporations are based on .NET. (J2EE used to be big but from what I am seeing .NET is eating J2EE's lunch) The only thing I am saying is that even if the bytecode theoretically makes it possible, business…

LOB stands for Line of Business. These are applications usually built in-house and help the business perform their job.

For example, a company may have a matching donations program, and they may have a LOB app that employees go to to submit requests for matching funds, see status, list of qualifying charities, etc...

Large enterprises are often filled with hundreds, if not thousands of these applications. These applications are often what dictate the platform a company uses.

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

#59

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

brianwillis wrote: post #43

Can one of you clever people explain what is meant by the term "system on a chip"? Is it just a marketing buzzword, or is there more to it than that? I've tried wikipedia, but just got even more confused.

Instead of having a motherboard with the RAM, CPU, GPU on different components, you integrate them on a single die or chip.

It is going to cost you a lot of money to do it right(you can use multiples dies inside a die but the real thing is just using one single die), but if you can sell enough(like Apple) you win on price per unit, reliability, mount cost, size volume and weight.

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

#60

Post by redthrowaway »

te_chris wrote: post #41
redthrowaway wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Putting Android on the iPhone I get, but I don't see too many hackers out there wanting to flip off Apple by installing Windows , of all things. To put it another way, how many macbook pros are running Win7 solo, aka w/o bootcamp or VMware?

Flip off apple? Really? Apple sell them a device, they own it and do what they like with it. I don't think achieving something non-trivial like getting windows 8 running on an ipad is flipping off apple.

I think it's more thumbing their noses at Apple's propensity to lock down their devices. There's no challenge putting windows on an unlocked device, but putting apple's traditional competitor's os on a product that apple's best and brightest had supposedly locked down must carry some kind of thrill.
Post reply on HN