Intel: Windows on ARM Won't Run 'Legacy Apps'

Status
Not open for further replies.

cbrownx88

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2009
24
0
18,510
0
Honestly, Kudo's to Wintel....

Compatibility is something us from the 'PC-era' take for granted. I'm not looking forward to relying on any other companies (beyond Intel/MS) to provide the updates necessary to run on my new gear! Screwed we are...
 

pelov

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2011
423
0
18,810
15
I really hope the word 'cloud' dies a horrible hindenburg-like death. We're still very far from "the cloud" being viable. In an era where ISPs are capping bandwidth somehow the notion that I can download the information instead of my PC doing the work just doesn't sound right. Furthermore, US internet infrastructure is laughable at best when compared to other developed nations (nordic, eastern european and japan/south korea). There are a lot of things that need fixing before the cloud becomes feasible and relying on the cloud to bring forth an ARM revolution is simply unrealistic.

Kudos to intel and AMD in realizing this (or maybe they're just happy they're the only real x86 license holders). It sounds like intel has a card up its sleeve, i just hope it isn't another atom.
 

socalboomer

Distinguished
Sep 13, 2008
90
0
18,630
0
Anyone notice that nobody from Microsoft is quoted here - only from Intel. . .who stands to profit if people stay away from any ARM based Windows installs. . .

Not saying she's wrong, but I would prefer to hear from Microsoft on this matter, not Intel.
 
G

Guest

Guest
HAHAHAHA... I dont want legacy crap on my new Arm Powered windows 8 device thank you very much, for that I will stick to my PC!

And by saying they will not have forward or backward comparability within the ARM architecture i simply cannot believe, why would Microsoft branch to ARM with one off designs for specific SoC sets, no not a chance.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
So, its just "windows 8." By name. But no actual NT code? So perhaps its repackaged wp7 OS. And so we'll have a longer product name? "Windows 8 64bit professional traditional retail"
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
1,636
0
19,860
27
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]So, its just "windows 8." By name. But no actual NT code? So perhaps its repackaged wp7 OS. And so we'll have a longer product name? "Windows 8 64bit professional traditional retail"[/citation]

Don't forget the "Windows 8 64bit Samsung SOC ARM Cortex A9+ Dual Core professional retail"
 
Figures as much that this would come at some point so this is no surprise plus ARM does not offer the raw power that of PowerPC or X86 when most are barely 1ghz or less and only focus on Integer calculations rather than Floating Point with reduced and more simple instructions. ARM is no replacement for gamers and professionals that depend on raw performance or support for existing applications that are not likely to be ported to ARM or moving over would be to costly.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
Oh really? Thats like saying Microsoft giving up win9x compatibility when they change to WinXP NT kernel system.

When consumer showing up their money wanting an OS that support both combined, I dont see how Microsoft gonna reject this, especially there is a huge advange if your OS can run both ARM/x86 base apps by using emulation regardless of what the CPU(Arm/x86).
 

molo9000

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2010
646
0
18,990
6
Microsoft should take a look at how Apple managed the transition from PowerPC to Intel: Universal binaries, PPC and X86 and X86-64 versions of the OS on the same disk, software emulation of the old architecture.
Apple hasn't shipped a PowerPC Mac since 2006 and yet they still support PowerPC emulation in Mac OS 10.6.

Windows 8 is going to bomb if they don't get this right. Try explaining to a consumer why he can't install the same programs on his desktop and his tablet even though both run Windows 8....

Btw: Do phone makers have to modify Android for different SoCs? Is Intel serious that ARM based SoCs aren't compatible with each other?
 

MeanSquare

Distinguished
Jul 9, 2008
37
0
18,530
0
As my daughter might say, "Well, duh!" Of course ARM can't run legacy apps, just because it's running Windows. We're talking machine code incompatibility here.
On phones, MS "solved" this issue by tacking a CE, Mobile, and then Phone on the end of the moniker to indicate that it was a different OS. That wouldn't work in the case of tablets, where you're supposed to be running full applications.
The only solution seems to be running a virtual machine, as Apple did post-PowerPC, at the cost of slowing performance. You might not notice that on legacy apps anyway.
Games? Forget it. Emulation would make them too slow and the various bits get written in optimized assembler to goose speed even more. The graphics rendering might need to be redone for tablet graphics "cards" as well. It's probably more work to rewrite and recompile it all than it would be worth until (if) the ARM tablets take a substantial market-share.
 
G

Guest

Guest
OMG, how am I going to run Norton Antivirus '95?

Seriously, few need to run old software anyways. Only businesses require legacy software.
 

schmich

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
284
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]socalboomer[/nom]Anyone notice that nobody from Microsoft is quoted here - only from Intel. . .who stands to profit if people stay away from any ARM based Windows installs. . .Not saying she's wrong, but I would prefer to hear from Microsoft on this matter, not Intel.[/citation]
I might be wrong on this but logically I think I'm not (if I am please correct me). Legally, an emulation software would most likely require an x86 license from Intel. Having an x86 emulation for ARM to run legacy apps would be AGAINST Intel's interest. So Intel would is not going to 1) make an emulator 2) license it to eg. Microsoft to make one.

This is quite unfortunate since one of the main reasons for Win 8 on ARM would have been the ability to run all the applications. However you can understand Intel's decision.

Considering people have managed to emulate complicated consoles such as the PS2 maybe we'll see illegal x86 emulators for Win 8 ARM.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]nusk00000L[/nom]OMG, how am I going to run Norton Antivirus '95?Seriously, few need to run old software anyways. Only businesses require legacy software.[/citation]
i run acdsee 8 pro for home use. i cant upgrade even though i want to because they took out key features in newer releases that make them unusable.

there is allot of software that i use thats old with no viable upgrade solution

not to mention games.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
943
6
18,985
0
"Legacy Apps" may not work out of the box, but if you have access to the source code you can recompile for ARM and if you don't there will probably be virtual machines and emulators available.
 

palladin9479

Distinguished
Moderator
Jul 26, 2008
3,250
7
20,865
45
[citation][nom]schmich[/nom]I might be wrong on this but logically I think I'm not (if I am please correct me). Legally, an emulation software would most likely require an x86 license from Intel. Having an x86 emulation for ARM to run legacy apps would be AGAINST Intel's interest. So Intel would is not going to 1) make an emulator 2) license it to eg. Microsoft to make one.This is quite unfortunate since one of the main reasons for Win 8 on ARM would have been the ability to run all the applications. However you can understand Intel's decision.Considering people have managed to emulate complicated consoles such as the PS2 maybe we'll see illegal x86 emulators for Win 8 ARM.[/citation]

Except we already have an x86 emulator, known as Bochs or QEMU. I've run Windows 95 x86 on my Sun UltraSparc III+ using Bochs before, it wasn't pretty and it was missing network support but it worked. And this is from opensource, imagine what would happen if someone actually wanted to create an optimized 32-bit x86 on ARM emulator.

For the "different SOC" you saw, that really ~really~ depends on drivers. Each different SoC will require a different set of drivers, namely in the memory controller and video processor departments. Android runs into the situation and they've made immense headway in incorporating lots of vender driver support into the Android kernel or as a loadable module. Remember ARM isn't a single CPU, its a licensable architecture / ISA. Different implementations of the ISA will require customized drivers from the vendors.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"i run acdsee 8 pro for home use. i cant upgrade even though i want to because they took out key features in newer releases that make them unusable.

there is allot of software that i use thats old with no viable upgrade solution

not to mention games."


Well then, I guess that'd place you in this group:

"FEW need to run old software"
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
LOL, I'm willing to bet Intel fed their customers the EXACT OPPOSITE speech when they tried to sell them Itanium. If I recall, Intel had to release an x86 emulator for Itanium just to get a few sells. What's to stop someone from releasing an x86 emulator for ARM? Sure, it won't run games, but I bet smaller, simpler apps would probably be passable.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I find it interesting the Wintel tried the whole tablet thing years ago and declared it dead because they could not see beyond a standard PC. Fast forward and Apple introduces the Ipad to a lot of scoffing from "Professionals" who said "been there and it sucked". Major win for Apple for not listening to the naysayers. My point is while I'm glad Windows 8 will run on ARM processors, i doubt many will care because it will be to little to late. For the first time in history less than half of all internet connected devices run Windows and that percentage will continue to decline as Android and Ios gain in user preference. With options like Google Apps, Google Voice and a host of other freebies at our fingertips, Windows will continue to lose relevance to the average user. This trend could possibly even creep into the corporate world as comfort and security grows with working in the cloud. Microsoft's foray into the mobile world has been a failure and that can not be disputed. People don't want the Vole on their phones or tablets and there isn't any reason to think that trend will change. What does this have to do with Intel? Lots! Intel rode to fame under the hood of Dos and then Windows Computers. These two are joined at the hip when it comes to their bread and butter called computers. Don't believe me? Windows phones and Intel video cards are prime examples of these companies thinking their clout will carry them through for the win....WRONG! In the end what counts is consumer preference and the preferred Android/Ios ship set sail to victory long tago. Wintel; prepare for your battleship to be sunk.
 

ProDigit10

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2010
585
1
18,980
0
Darn!
In other words the ARM version of win 8 is another bloated Windows CE!

Forget about anything that could have been interesting in Windows 8!

Windows 7 will be the OS for the remainder of the 12 years, unless intel changes it's policy, and makes legacy support possible on an ARM system.

Windows 7, no matter how bloated it is, with tuning it can be made about as fast as XP.
I doubt any upcoming OSes will be more efficient.

The least MS can do is make backwards compatibility with DOS, and Windows 9x/XP apps on their ARM version!
ARM is seen as slower than where X86 is currently. Thus it'd make sense to include DOS (via a dos emulator); possibly even older win programs via a 32 bit virtual platform, as long as it can run efficient!

Otherwise win 8 is nothing but an old car painted in a new color.
 
G

Guest

Guest
As long as I can play pong on an emulator and access my old data then move forward. I do know people that are insistent that their business software cannot be replaced and higher tech's(geek squad) to come in and throw in a kvm switch so they can run win98 to print out a bill on a dot matrix...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS