ARM in more Netbooks than Atom by 2012

[Guest]

Several analysts are predicting that ARM processors will be in more notebooks than Intel's Atom processor by sometime in 2012.

ARM in more Netbooks than Atom by 2012 : Read more

 

[scarpa]

AMD join the netbook market right now!!!

 

[jacobdrj]

Is the ARM proc x86?

 

[deltatux]

The ARM processors are of their own hardware architecture. However, knowing how power efficient ARM processors are, I'm sure you'd have a netbook that lasts at least 7, 8 or up to 10 hours on a single battery charge.


I'd love to see ARM overtake x86. They already dominate the cell phone industry so why not?

 

[tipoo]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Is the ARM proc x86?[/citation]


No, ARM is a different hardware architecture than x86.

Netbooks with ARMs would be epic. They would lower price substantially, and battery life could be amazing.

 

[jacobdrj]

IIRC, they are power efficiant, but at the cost of useable speed. The atom is so populare because it is not only inexpensive, but it can easily run x86 based apps.

 

[tipoo]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]IIRC, they are power efficiant, but at the cost of useable speed. The atom is so populare because it is not only inexpensive, but it can easily run x86 based apps.[/citation]


Meh, the power savings and low cost are what i am interested in. thats the point of netbooks, after all.

100 bucks for a cheap netbook would be fantastic, even if the processor was far from the performance of even the Atom.

 

[DeadlyPredator]

ARM is crap, unless you wan't it in a router, dvd player or NAS... it's absolutly not x86 compatible so it will only work on a custom / ARM compatible linux OS or applications. Yes, you will pay 100 bucks for it!!! But you will only play mp3 with it, (maybe you will have a 4 gb ssd to store few of them...) and barely surf on the internet, as flash on a ARM processor is not very nice or have no more than 2 application active at the same time. For 100$... you will have 1/15 the computing power of a ION platform (x86!!) notebook at maximum 400-600$ and i'm not talking about graphics...

 

[descendency]

No 8086 = no hope. The 8086 architecture is popular for a reason. You realize how many people panic when facebook is updated, imagine having to learn an entirely different OS and program set...

I wish them well for competition sake, but it isn't going to happen.

 

[Guest]

There are netbook like devices with ARM already, they are called PDAs. The nokia N770/800/810 are good example of something that is like a netbook.

ARM is really making inroads, gone are the days of 200mhz processors typically seen in PDAs and similar devices. Now there are ARMs running 1 ghz plus. The TI OMAP3 is a great example of an ARM that is powerful enough to be used in a netbook and it can play HD videos.

ARM and linux are intertwined, no doubt the biggest factor in linux gaining popularity is ARM, and ARM making inroads is because of linux. These two make a potent combo, perhaps deadly enough to kill the atom + windows in the netbook market. Once netbooks have fallen to ARM+linux, it is only logical to conclude that the desktop market is up for grabs as well.

 

[Hatecrime69]

while the idea of somebody taking intel down a notch is good, I still can't help but think that the linux os is plain and simple, just too complex for the average person witch really hurts arm's possibilities since it's not going to do windows any time soon and apple is being..well, apple with osx (probably the most user friendly nix/bsd variant out there)

For amd though, I personally don't mind them not trying to do the netbook market, with their troubles it's probably best not to spread yourself out too much just to match what intel offers (an amd chipset/igp in a netbook would be killer though)

 

[tipoo]

[citation][nom]deadlypredator[/nom]ARM is crap, unless you wan't it in a router, dvd player or NAS... it's absolutly not x86 compatible so it will only work on a custom / ARM compatible linux OS or applications. Yes, you will pay 100 bucks for it!!! But you will only play mp3 with it, (maybe you will have a 4 gb ssd to store few of them...) and barely surf on the internet, as flash on a ARM processor is not very nice or have no more than 2 application active at the same time. For 100$... you will have 1/15 the computing power of a ION platform (x86!!) notebook at maximum 400-600$ and i'm not talking about graphics...[/citation]


I really wouldn't mind paying a one-time 100 dollar fee for a netbook with an ARM, even if the internet is slow on it. its still better than Smartphones, which often cost much more.

 

[Master Exon]

This article would make a lot more sense with a technical description of why ARM is different, and then a performance comparison. (2 systems running Ubuntu, one atom, one ARM)

 

[tipoo]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]This article would make a lot more sense with a technical description of why ARM is different, and then a performance comparison. (2 systems running Ubuntu, one atom, one ARM)[/citation]


That wouldn't make sence, the two would have to be coded differently so any comparisons would be irrelevant to true performance.

 

[JimmiG]

For me, the great thing about a netbook is being able to run XP and all my standard applications on such a small, inexpensive device. I would never buy a netbook that doesn't run x86 code. It would be like an oversized, overclocked smartphone, and not much like a computer at all. If I wanted to run proprietary, non-x86 applications and OS, I'd just get an iPhone.

 

[lejay]

Unlike x86, ARM is not x86, it is ARM.

 

[hairycat101]

[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]That wouldn't make sence, the two would have to be coded differently so any comparisons would be irrelevant to true performance.[/citation]

I think the fact that they are coded differently is exactly why a head to head comparason would be useful. I'd love to see how much of a performance hit we would be taking for running an ARM processor.

 

[Guest]

Via is at the moment your only alternative, and that 100% fully from Windows 7.
ARM is good for basic linux OS, but even Ubuntu starts to become pretty loaded.
ARM will probably do best in os'es like the EEEPC's first Xandros version, and other easy desktop versions where you have a couple of tabs and program-icons on the screen.

 

[DeadlyPredator]

I tried to repair a computer with a via samuel2 CPU... it was horrible. Can't get a web cam working with msn messenger and playing a mp3 at the same time. But the current via processors looks far more capable than before, I would prefer to see them in a netbook instead of a ARM.

 

[garydale]

[citation][nom]deadlypredator[/nom]ARM is crap, unless you wan't it in a router, dvd player or NAS... it's absolutly not x86 compatible so it will only work on a custom / ARM compatible linux OS or applications. Yes, you will pay 100 bucks for it!!! But you will only play mp3 with it, (maybe you will have a 4 gb ssd to store few of them...) and barely surf on the internet, as flash on a ARM processor is not very nice or have no more than 2 application active at the same time. For 100$... you will have 1/15 the computing power of a ION platform (x86!!) notebook at maximum 400-600$ and i'm not talking about graphics...[/citation]

ARM is a full-featured processor that can run modern apps reasonably well. It's fully supported by Debian so you can run the latest (v5/Lenny) version on it. While Adobe has been pitiful in getting 64bit versions of their products (Reader, Flash, etc.) out, that just shows why Open Source is important. There are Open Source alternatives to Adobe's products.

 

[garydale]

[citation][nom]Hatecrime69[/nom]while the idea of somebody taking intel down a notch is good, I still can't help but think that the linux os is plain and simple, just too complex for the average person witch really hurts arm's possibilities since it's not going to do windows any time soon and apple is being..well, apple with osx (probably the most user friendly nix/bsd variant out there)For amd though, I personally don't mind them not trying to do the netbook market, with their troubles it's probably best not to spread yourself out too much just to match what intel offers (an amd chipset/igp in a netbook would be killer though)[/citation]

Too complex? Actually it's Windows that fits the "too complex" appellation. The reason people think that Linux is "complex" is threefold. Firstly, they usually have to install it themselves. Secondly, it's not "Windows" so they're not used to it. Finally, it's not something they can usually talk to friends about fixing. It's "community" is different.

Moreover Linux installers are better than Windows in that they try to accommodate having another OS on the machine. This gets you into issues like partitioning. Buy a computer Linux pre-installed and you eliminate these problems.

And self-help groups like the Ubuntu community forums help with lots of problems should they arise.

Personally, I find having to run multiple malware defenders on a Windows box a real pain in the butt. Linux's better security model and the ease of installing new software and updates makes it the better choice for most users.

 

[garydale]

[citation][nom]JimmiG[/nom]For me, the great thing about a netbook is being able to run XP and all my standard applications on such a small, inexpensive device. I would never buy a netbook that doesn't run x86 code. It would be like an oversized, overclocked smartphone, and not much like a computer at all. If I wanted to run proprietary, non-x86 applications and OS, I'd just get an iPhone.[/citation]

I'm confused as to why you prefer proprietary x86 applications to open source ARM applications. I run Linux on a 64bit x86 box and note that people running Windows rarely get the 64bit version. But when they do, they usually end up running 32bit programs. I run pure 64bit because I don't rely on M$ or some other proprietary vendor to produce a 64bit version of their applications.

I could switch to PowerPC, ARM, or an IBM mainframe and run the same applications without resorting to emulation. Windows XP users on the other hand can only run on what Micro$oft supports - x86. I can even run most Windows programs, but don't because there are better Linux alternatives that don't require keeping track of multiple activiation keys.

It's worth noting that most netbooks give you the option of running Linux or Windows. However, the XP you get is an antique, stripped down version shoehorned into the netbook. The Linux versions are either cheaper or more powerful and feature an up-to-date edition of Linux and the various applications.

I find it strange that Windows users point to their shackles and claim that they are beautiful jewels.

 

[hairycat101]

[citation][nom]garydale[/nom] Firstly, they usually have to install it themselves. Secondly, it's not "Windows" so they're not used to it. Finally, it's not something they can usually talk to friends about fixing. It's "community" is different. [/citation]

So the fact that most people have no idea where to turn to for help is somehow a plus for linux?

I know most folks also want something with a different feel to it so that they can spend more time trying to figure out how to do what they already knew how to do in windows.

You've sold me. I can't wait to switch my parrents, grandparents and friends to an OS with no good support so that they can get confused and frustrated with trying to re-learn what they already have a basic mastery of.

 

[garydale]

[citation][nom]hairycat101[/nom]I think the fact that they are coded differently is exactly why a head to head comparason would be useful. I'd love to see how much of a performance hit we would be taking for running an ARM processor.[/citation]

Agreed. Cross-platform benchmarks are available. However, we don't see them very often because most Windows users just care about their x86 computers. And since Apple went x86, even the PPC platform performance seems to be disregarded.

The ARM processor fairs quite well on price/performance and power/performance tests from what I've read. However, anecdotal evidence doesn't replace hard numbers.

On the other hand, some things don't always show up in benchmarks. While a CPU may lack the power to decode h264 video, it may be paired with a chipset that can. We'll probably have to wait until we start seeing ARM-based netbooks.

 

[garydale]

[citation][nom]hairycat101[/nom]So the fact that most people have no idea where to turn to for help is somehow a plus for linux? I know most folks also want something with a different feel to it so that they can spend more time trying to figure out how to do what they already knew how to do in windows. You've sold me. I can't wait to switch my parrents, grandparents and friends to an OS with no good support so that they can get confused and frustrated with trying to re-learn what they already have a basic mastery of.[/citation]
Having a different community is neither a plus nor minus. It's just a difference you have to accept. It's the same with the Mac.

And anytime you switch to something better, you have to accept that there will be a learning curve. However it's hardly an insurmountable obstacle. Otherwise we'd still be running MS-DOS. I remember being taught how to use a mouse! They actually offered classes on it, believe it or not.

As for your parent and grandparents, they make ideal people to switch to Linux. It's harder for them to mess up. I could make a fortune if I charged people every time I had to fix something they broke in Windows. The "basic mastery" you talk about mainly carries over - Firefox is Firefox and an office suite is an office suite on both platforms. The learning curve between M$ Office 2003 and 2007 is larger than the learning curve between M$ Office 2003 and OpenOffice.org v3.0.

And who said there was no support for Linux? There's a lot of support and it's superior to what you find for Windows. However you're not going to call the local "Geek Squad" to get it. They just want to fix Windows because that's what they sell.

If you want Linux support, you call the people who make their money from Linux. Again, just because it's different doesn't mean it doesn't exist.