Windows on ARM a reality.

[runawayprisoner]

Very much so...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/12/microsoft-pushes-out-preview-build-of-internet-explorer-10/

IE10, Aero Glass, you name it.

nVidia confirmed the CPU (or SoC) to be a Tegra 2. Not too shabby.

Now let's see how they handle x86 cross-platform compatibility. But I'm liking the look of it. Looks like we'll finally have our version of Windows that's always-on and always connected on devices that last days on their battery.

And no more heat. Now let's see Silverlight on ARM...

 

[Patranus]

Embedded windows died a long time ago.
Its pretty much pointless now.

What the point when most apps are being pushed on the web and an embedded linux is so much cheaper.

I guess if you want to embed .NET applications for touchscreens it might be nice but I mean a nettop is just so cheap.

 

[Bryf50]

Embedded windows died a long time ago.
Its pretty much pointless now.

What the point when most apps are being pushed on the web and an embedded linux is so much cheaper.

I guess if you want to embed .NET applications for touchscreens it might be nice but I mean a nettop is just so cheap.

Not sure what this has to do with Windows 8 being ARM compatible. Windows 8 isn't an embedded operating system.

 

[Patranus]

Not sure what this has to do with Windows 8 being ARM compatible. Windows 8 isn't an embedded operation system.

What else are you going to use Windows 8 on ARM for?
(And that is exactly my point)

 

[Bryf50]

What else are you going to use Windows 8 on ARM for?

The same thing you use Windows on x86 for.

 

[Patranus]

The same thing you use Windows on x86 for.

So you are going to have developers port applications to ARM and after that you are going to have worse performance then you would get on a low powered x86?

LOL.

Like I said, if you are talking strictly .NET then you might have a point.

Windows on ARM was pretty pointless when they did it with NT and is pretty pointless now.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So you are going to have developers port applications to ARM and after that you are going to have worse performance then you would get on a low powered x86?

Kind of curious why you think that? I know we can't know for sure until we get some benches with final hardware, but given that ARM has two orders of magnitude in power useage and an enormous amount of die space to expand when talking about a desktop part, why do you think it would perform considerably worse then x86? Perhaps when we get more details on 'Denver' we would be able to get a better guesstimate.

What else are you going to use Windows 8 on ARM for?

Portability, don't underestimate that. And, back to the previous comment, why do x86 devs have to port their code to ARM? Have you considered that the inverse may be something people would be interested in? Certainly it isn't going to be used by Goldman Sachs or Pixar anytime soon, but for general consumers there is actually quite a bit of potential in the market. If that is realized or not remains to be seen, but there is certianly potential.

 

[DivideBYZero]

So you are going to have developers port applications to ARM and after that you are going to have worse performance then you would get on a low powered x86?

LOL.

Like I said, if you are talking strictly .NET then you might have a point.

Windows on ARM was pretty pointless when they did it with NT and is pretty pointless now.

All of your points are invalid until you've used it.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Y'all seem to think this is a one-way ticket.... from desktops to phones. It's not. It can go towards desktops as well... Don't forget that ARM came from a microcomputer (Acorn) which had, at some point, the potential to become the next PC.

 

[SunnyD]

So you are going to have developers port applications to ARM and after that you are going to have worse performance then you would get on a low powered x86?

LOL.

Like I said, if you are talking strictly .NET then you might have a point.

Windows on ARM was pretty pointless when they did it with NT and is pretty pointless now.

First off, they never did Windows (the desktop OS) on ARM, with the exception of Windows CE which was designed as an embedded OS. They did Windows NT on DEC Alpha, MIPS and PPC, which are/were big iron, server and desktop CPUs.

Second, looking at where ARM is today, pushing out dual and quad core designs scaling up to 1.5GHz and beyond, I would venture a guess that Windows on ARM will scale quite nicely in this environment, the main limiting factor being RAM.

Thirdly, since you bring up .NET, well, that's where Microsoft would like developers to go - A pseudo-interpreted language that is hardware agnostic. Given Microsoft's expertise in compiler technology, I would guess that a customized ARM .NET JIT engine will bridge the performance gap and likely see applications run close to par if not better than their x86 counterparts. It may take some time to get there, but I wouldn't count it out.

Finally, of course legacy apps that are native x86 are going to be problematic. I don't know why it's even brought up as it's obvious ARM would have to emulate x86 in some way. But then again, Microsoft would LOVE to get people away from native x86 code anyway.

 

[smartpatrol]

I have heard that API compatibility is more important than ISA compatibility. It theoretically should only take a re-compile to port from Windows x86 to Windows ARM, right?

I have a feeling Microsoft will require apps to have both an x86 and ARM version in order to be sold in the Windows app store. It would make a lot of sense for MS to use the app store as a way to avoid confusion over compatibility issues (ARM, x86, optimized for tablet UI, etc.)

 

[SunnyD]

I have heard that API compatibility is more important than ISA compatibility. It theoretically should only take a re-compile to port from Windows x86 to Windows ARM, right?

I have a feeling Microsoft will require apps to have both an x86 and ARM version in order to be sold in the Windows app store. It would make a lot of sense for MS to use the app store as a way to avoid confusion over compatibility issues (ARM, x86, optimized for tablet UI, etc.)

The windows app store will be relegated to WPF, Silverlite and pure .NET apps. There won't be any need to recompile anything because it will all be bytecode ready for the .NET JIT runtime. Basically it'll be the same thing as Java. Only apps written in legacy APIs (Native Win32/64) would need to be recompiled with the appropriate libraries, which themselves would need to be recompiled. The biggest headache will be device drivers, which will need a significant amount more of work to re-engineer to be compatible with the platform.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Second, looking at where ARM is today, pushing out dual and quad core designs scaling up to 1.5GHz and beyond, I would venture a guess that Windows on ARM will scale quite nicely in this environment

You do realize that Tegra 2 is slower than a single core Atom.

 

[SunnyD]

You do realize that Tegra 2 is slower than a single core Atom.

You do realize that NVIDIA isn't sitting still with its Tegra line? You do realize that Qualcomm and TI are making ARM SoCs too, right? You do realize that all three of those mentioned companies have plans to have quad core parts out before the end of the year, right? You do know that ARM itself isn't sitting still on the architecture, right?

Atom's performance comes with its own price too. Namely power efficiency.

 

[RobertPters77]

@Patranus

Completely disagree with everything you said. Hospitals and Enterprises will gobble up embedded windows products. Desktop functionality, In a tablet? Why the hell not? All win 8 tablet needs to succeed is a little x86 backwards compatibility.

 

[Patranus]

@Patranus

Completely disagree with everything you said. Hospitals and Enterprises will gobble up embedded windows products. Desktop functionality, In a tablet? Why the hell not? All win 8 tablet needs to succeed is a little x86 backwards compatibility.

Desktop functionality in a tablet?
Windows tablets have been around for 10+ years and the market has categorically rejected them. Just because you move it to ARM doesn't change anything.

Like a previous poster said, a single core ATOM CPU is lightyears faster than the highest end ARM chip. ARM offers no advantage in running desktop applications. Notice how you can run an Android emulator on any crap x86. Now go try doing the opposite on your top of the time ARM.

The only thing that Microsoft would be able to control are .NET applications.
So what you end up with is an OS that is very limited in its use.

 

[Genx87]

One thing people should look at when it comes to application compatibility. I imagine Win8 will have virtualized software support. Meaning, the OS will have a layer that emulates an x86 machine for that software if the software isnt ported.

I think ARM support on Win8 is huge. It will erode x86's dominance in the windows world and shrink that market more and more every year.

 

[dguy6789]

Desktop functionality in a tablet?
Windows tablets have been around for 10+ years and the market has categorically rejected them.

That's because every single one has been garbage. Using a touch screen on a UI designed for a mouse does not work. The OS has to have a touch friendly mode for every single option and setting(something that Windows 8 will have) Now that the tablet market is a big deal, expect to see plenty of nice tablets. Windows is still by far the most important OS in the world.

 

[Genx87]

Desktop functionality in a tablet?
Windows tablets have been around for 10+ years and the market has categorically rejected them. Just because you move it to ARM doesn't change anything.

Like a previous poster said, a single core ATOM CPU is lightyears faster than the highest end ARM chip. ARM offers no advantage in running desktop applications. Notice how you can run an Android emulator on any crap x86. Now go try doing the opposite on your top of the time ARM.

The only thing that Microsoft would be able to control are .NET applications.
So what you end up with is an OS that is very limited in its use.

Which version of windows has been designed for tablets in mind? Since there hasnt been a version built for anything other than x86 since the WinNT days. That means tablets have been held back by a power inefficient platform(x86). And poor design based on a KB and mouse.

ARM isnt standing still and Windows 8 being designed for ARM tells me Microsoft is designing it for mobile and ultra mobile space. Meaning it will be much more efficient and touch friendly than their previous stuff.

ARM offers ultra portability. That is a definate plus for desktop applications most people utilize on a daily basis.

 

[Patranus]

One thing people should look at when it comes to application compatibility. I imagine Win8 will have virtualized software support. Meaning, the OS will have a layer that emulates an x86 machine for that software if the software isnt ported.

I think ARM support on Win8 is huge. It will erode x86's dominance in the windows world and shrink that market more and more every year.

While you can emulate ARM on x86, you aren't going to emulate x86 on ARM.

And that is the entire point of why this is pointless.

 

[Genx87]

While you can emulate ARM on x86, you aren't going to emulate x86 on ARM.

And that is the entire point of why this is pointless.

Why?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Why?

Performance. Even quad core Tegra 2 would just be adequate for running Windows, if you add in the performance overhead of emulating x86 it would be painfully slow.

 

[Genx87]

Performance. Even quad core Tegra 2 would just be adequate for running Windows, if you add in the performance overhead of emulating x86 it would be painfully slow.

That would really depend on the efficiency of the hypervisor. And what efficiency's are picked up by not having backwards compatibility within the platform design. And we have no idea what the requirements of Win8 will be on ARM. The video shows a pretty complex fishbowl by browser standards running smoothly on current generation Tegra 2.

 

[smartpatrol]

You probably won't be emulating many x86 programs anyway. Most of the big name commercial software will probably be ported to ARM pretty quickly, and of course all of MS's first-party software will be ready on day 1. Anything open-source (VLC, emulators, browsers, whatever) will probably be tested and ready well before the official Windows 8 launch.

I would hardly call that "limiting", especially when you compare it to iOS and Android. Yeah, it's not going to offer identical functionality and full compatibility with x86 programs right off the bat, but it is still a hell of a lot more powerful and flexible than the other mobile OSes.

 

[runawayprisoner]

That is if you are assuming other mobile OSes will just stay the same. Apple is pushing out iOS 5 in a bit, and Ice Cream is already rumored to be around the corner.

Also even though ARM might be slower than x86, there are fundamental architectural advantages to ARM that can help it gain better performance over x86 in the long run, especially considering that some of the heavylifting work like video decoding, video encoding, and 3D rendering can be delegated to dedicated processors.

So arguably, user experience can get close to x86 level given proper optimizations, which x86 has been lacking for a long while now.

Beyond that, since Microsoft is pushing the envelope, as I mentioned, other companies will be forced to follow suit at some point. What is important though, is that Windows, not embedded, but mainstream, is finally coming to ARM, which means ARM is finally recognized as being a viable computing platform for the future, and its mobile advantage over x86 is already apparent.