ARM: Vendors Want a Single Chip Design, Single OS

[exfileme]

ODMs are interesting in a single architecture, single OS deployment across their product stack.

ARM: Vendors Want a Single Chip Design, Single OS : Read more

 

[gm0n3y]

Does anyone seriously think that having only one OS and/or one chip design is a good idea? Ever heard of competition or innovation? Notice that the article mentions Huawei, which is basically run by the CPC. The rest of the world realizes that innovation requires competition. This is why us techies always cheering for AMD, otherwise Intel will go back to the stagnation of the Netburst days.

 

[dextermat]

I think the most important question is : what does the consumer wants

 

[lamorpa]

I'm interesting in a single architecture too! Interesting!

 

[lsc]

What vendor's want is for us to give them our money without them having to sell anything to you. What vendors want is not to spend anything on R&D, Marketing, Logistics and Supplies and still profit with huge margins. So if ARM wants their chip to be the one Chip to rule them all, they can try, but if they succeed, it would be dark times for us all.

 

[slomo4sho]

I would be more interested in a OS variety with the option of installing drivers for hardware support.

 

[electrogonzo]

"It certainly leaves Intel and AMD out of the picture." Really? I could've sworn AMD has procured an ARM license already. Or does that license only extend to the very specific security needs that AMD requires in their server chips?
Also, it's not like x86 isn't scalable just like ARM. Linux runs on x86 as well as ARM. Heck, we've even seen x86 implementations of Android and Chrome OS.
AKA, ARM is spewing nonsense in a marketing scheme.

 

[janetonly42]

Linux

 

[Marco925]

[citation][nom]electrogonzo[/nom]"It certainly leaves Intel and AMD out of the picture." Really? I could've sworn AMD has procured an ARM license already. Or does that license only extend to the very specific security needs that AMD requires in their server chips?Also, it's not like x86 isn't scalable just like ARM. Linux runs on x86 as well as ARM. Heck, we've even seen x86 implementations of Android and Chrome OS.AKA, ARM is spewing nonsense in a marketing scheme.[/citation]
ARM Licenses its technology out. It doesn't mean they want a single CPU, they want a single CPU Architecture. so it wouldn't leave AMD or intel out of that scenario

 

[dalethepcman]

If they made an physical chip that contained the hypervisor and translation / emulation that would allow you to simultaneously run arm or x86 code it sure would make my life easier...

As for a single chip / single OS, never going to happen.

 

[house70]

Single architecture does NOT mean single chip manufacturer.
I would like the prospect of BYOD in everything PC related, from desktop (where it's already happening) to mobile. One could buy whatever h/w works for him/her and install whatever Linux-based distro they want. Everyone wins (except for the cell carriers, they'll be left accepting people's devices instead of dictating what devices to buy). I am actually hoping that the upcoming Motorola X phone with their timid configurator to open a new trend like that.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Does anyone seriously think that having only one OS and/or one chip design is a good idea? Ever heard of competition or innovation? Notice that the article mentions Huawei, which is basically run by the CPC. The rest of the world realizes that innovation requires competition. This is why us techies always cheering for AMD, otherwise Intel will go back to the stagnation of the Netburst days.[/citation]

ever look at what the consoles can do with ancient hardware?
1 os for a chip design means you can really pull out 100% of that chips potential.

is it great for competition... not really, but never discount the benefits of it.

 

[milktea]

IMO, single-chip/single-OS scalable solution is actually a good idea. It's just a mess out there. I'm glad that somebody is thinking about 'consolidation'. But I don't know if I'd go with the ARM architecture.

 

[blppt]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]"This is why us techies always cheering for AMD, otherwise Intel will go back to the stagnation of the Netburst days."[/citation]

I dont consider Netburst to be "stagnation"---it just happened to be a very poor design choice path for Intel. If you remember back then, the buzzwords that sold PCs were mhz/ghz, and the deep pipeline P4 architecture would allow Intel to "wipe the floor" with AMD in terms of clock rate. Thats why AMD went back to their old "Mhz equivelancy" ratings (Athlon XP 2400+ was not clocked at 2.4 ghz). Problem was, the Netburst architecture was based on the idea that Intel would have no problem pushing to insane speeds like 10Ghz, and well, they hit a roadblock with power consumption WAYYYY before that.

That aside, it was a poor choice, but remember, Intel couldnt afford to stagnate---the first gen Athlons had been putting the heat on Intel's P3s long before the P4, so it wasnt like they were complacent.

 

[annymmo]

How about taking a page from desktop, laptop pc's and introduce BIOS/UEFI.
Add standardized communication paradigms PCI and other things like from desktop, laptop computers.
It has all been made already. They just need to start looking at these solutions and implement them.

Microsoft already started to demand some uniformity for some things. The handset builders didn't want to have anything to do with it and now we see it hurts the arm-based industry as a whole.

ARM you have work to do, some reference (easy to use) designs to design and dangle it in front of all the clients. (I guess not many would say no to reference designs that reduce investment cost and risk)

 

[twelch82]

One OS isn't a bad idea. One interface is a bad idea. Nobody would have complained about Windows 8 if it came with a desktop-centric interface on the desktop, and a mobile-centric interface for mobile, but was running the same code under the hood. In fact, being able to run mobile apps in a window would have been a nice benefit.

 

[kenyee]

ARM chips aren't a single architecture....they're messy as hell if you look at all the Linux patches for all the wacky variants.

 

[scannall]

The way I read the article it seems what they are saying is that companies want a single chip design, and single OS. Within their company. Company 'A' may settle on something different than company 'B', which went with a different chip design and software stack for their products.

It isn't saying the same chip and OS across all companies. At least that's the way I am reading it. It isn't very clear though.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]kenyee[/nom]ARM chips aren't a single architecture....they're messy as hell if you look at all the Linux patches for all the wacky variants.[/citation]
Yeah...v5, v6, v7, v8, v9 v10? I'm pretty sure i made some of them up :lol:

 

[rebel1280]

"Google's ultimate goal is to have Android/Chrome OS everywhere: on laptops, in cars, in HDTVs, and in kitchen appliances."

Scary thought O_O

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]kenyee[/nom]ARM chips aren't a single architecture....they're messy as hell if you look at all the Linux patches for all the wacky variants.[/citation]
Yeah...v5, v6, v7, v8, v9 v10? I'm pretty sure i made some of them up :lol:

And on top of the official ARM releases, you also need to add vendor-specific variants/extensions since chip manufacturers who maintain their own HDL ARM designs usually do so to customize it for their own purposes.