Win8 Will Push ARM in 40% of Netbooks By 2015

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The duo will seemingly take the emphasis off solving heating problems caused by current (Intel) x86 solutions and drive industry innovation, thus resulting in even lighter, cheaper, and longer lasting battery standards.
Click to expand...

And this is why I'm excited.
 
Mobile Intel chips already run darn cool when idle and ARM chips will take a good bit of power when the utilization is @ 100% just like Intel's chips.
Intel will still be the leader because who wants to buy a netbook that is basically a Motorola Atrix dock (with internal computer)? I can't run any generic PC software on it, so it's a super phone dock - like - device. Stupid and meant for newbies!

Give me a real computer please. One that has over 10,000,000 'apps' for it ??

/rant
 
The thing is that we are moving towards 64-bit computing, and there aren't too many 64-bit apps right now. So it's pretty much a fresh start for both ARM and Intel in terms of available apps. :)
 
Frankly, as long as ARM processors give me better battery life in a smaller package and don't sacrifice too much processing power, then I'm sold. I wouldn't mind it a single bit if ARM took over the entire netbook market.
 
It will be interesting to see how many Windows programmers port applications to ARM. They will have to see significant demand to support anything other than x86. Even if the development tools are idiot-proof it will still add to their overhead with testing and technical support.

If there isn't significant third-party support then Win8ARM will end up running the same cross-platform apps that Linux distros already offer. This will mean that Windows just increases OEM overhead without offering any benefits. You would have to be seriously dedicated to IE and Wordpad to be satisfied with just the standard included apps.

Any bets on all of Office being ported? In spite of the announcement I'm not expecting more than a stripped-down version of Word, Excel, and Outlook.
 
[citation][nom]BluntObjection[/nom]So long as they add a box of crayons to the deal so I can draw a better Win8 GUI for myself, I'm game.[/citation]
I've got a better idea. Here's how it goes.
1. Get Windows 7
2. Use some resource hacker to change some of the icons if you want to.
3. Change the "Windows 7" text to "Windows 8".
4. Use some optimization tips.

That's what Windows 8 really should be - NOT windows 7 with a stupid useless tablet interface.
 
blah blah blah. Ive heard this all before. They get us excited over a new product that promises somethivg better and marketing brings a less useful product to market and changes the game, I'm looking at you ipad.
 
We are moving to 64bit? I have been using 64bit since 1995! It is just X86 that is playing with 64bit extensions. The extensions instead of a real 64bit chip is the reason why you don't see any performance gains by going from 32bit to 64 bit on X86.
ARM in other hand doesn't have 64 bit at all. But this should not be a problem since it is a PowePC chip. Like I wrote.
Just windows and X86 that are holding back real 64bit computing. Almost all programs on OSX is 64 bit native since 4-5 years back. It is just silly that you need to specify when you buy windows if you want a 64bit version or not. If 64bit worked, everyone with at 64bit capable computer would want it.
Gaming = Windows
Work = anyting other than windows

And the chap who thinks that ARM uses loads of energy under load: An ordinary dual core 1ghz ARM uses 2.5 watt under max load. A low voltage Intel uses about 17 watt. The difference is that i ARM you have everything inside the ARM chip. No need for a chipset. The chipset has been for example ATOMs big drawback. It is fine to have an ATOM that draws 4 watt. But you have to pair it with a chipset that draws 40 watt.
 
[citation][nom]shompa[/nom]And the chap who thinks that ARM uses loads of energy under load: An ordinary dual core 1ghz ARM uses 2.5 watt under max load. A low voltage Intel uses about 17 watt. The difference is that i ARM you have everything inside the ARM chip. No need for a chipset. The chipset has been for example ATOMs big drawback. It is fine to have an ATOM that draws 4 watt. But you have to pair it with a chipset that draws 40 watt.[/citation]

Perhaps ARM does have an advantage here then! I am curious though what the ratio is of computing power to electricity consumption of mobile ARM processors vs Intel are.

To my rant earlier, I did it because I think it would help engage conversation regarding A.R.M. vs x86 and software availability and access. I love competition and A.R.M. is welcome to compete with Intel and A.M.D., it'll help keep everyone on their toes!
But there is a big problem if you are used to using specific software on your computer, like circuit simulation software, other engineering stuff, photo editing, programming IDEs, etc.. Will those companies port to A.R.M.? Doubt it.
I am sure that A.R.M. netbooks will work just fine as a secondary computer, but as a primary one, don’t think so.
If your used to using popular linux software, I would suppose that you would be more likely to get your software eventually ported to the A.R.M. architecture, but if your primarily a windows user and software whore (like me), then getting an A.R.M. netbook as your main computer would suck.

Good luck ARM! I am confident that you can make a significant dent to the netbook market, but will never penetrate the laptop/desktop market significantly unless software companies really really invest in software development, and even then people can’t use old software on their new ARM machines… unless someone develops an x86 virtual pc!
 
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]I am sure that A.R.M. netbooks will work just fine as a secondary computer, but as a primary one, don’t think so. [/citation]
Netbooks by definition are secondary computers. I could not use my netbook as my primary computer.
 
40% sounds like much. And I tend to agree with previous posters questioning how many applications that actually will be converted to run on ARM. If a typical user uses only one application that isn't converted, then he cannot make the switch.

ARM might take a decent bite of the netbook/laptop market, but my guess is that it won't be that much. 10 % maybe.
 
I think AMD might have something to say about that 40% in 2015, Mr. Brown ...

... Code-named "Desna," the tablet-optimized chipset boasts Radeon HD 6250 discrete-class graphics, two 1 GHz "Bobcat" CPU cores and a TDP of only 5.9 watts.
Click to expand...

Coming with Win7 soon - this year from our good friends at MSI - so folks can have their x86 cake, and eat it, too.

Throw in a die-shrink (or two) by AMD prior to 2015, further advances to the SoC integrated FCH, better battery tech, etc., and the RISC-CISC line starts becoming even more nebulous.

If Mr. Brown keeps this up, Jen-Hsun Huang may have some competition in the bizarro-world.

 
[citation][nom]shompa[/nom]We are moving to 64bit? I have been using 64bit since 1995! It is just X86 that is playing with 64bit extensions. The extensions instead of a real 64bit chip is the reason why you don't see any performance gains by going from 32bit to 64 bit on X86. Just windows and X86 that are holding back real 64bit computing. Almost all programs on OSX is 64 bit native since 4-5 years back. [/citation]

you do realize that apple uses those very same intel x86-64 chips in their gadgets, right? the very same you say are holding back "real 64bit computing"?


 
I have an HP 500 tablet slate using Win7 prof. This tablet is 100% compatible with all our applications at home. We bought it 6 months ago. The cradle is set up in such a way that is just one more computer in our network via an already existing KVM. Using the keyboard and mice from the KVM to load software etc.

If you are a heavy user you just cannot use a tablet that is going to run some of the applications. Most of our large files do not reside in the tablet we read and write those huge databases from another huge PC in the network. The whole house has wireless access. If I need to run a heavy duty application that cannot run in the tablet then I remote to one of the huge PCs and run it there but see the results in the tablet. I cannot do all these things in an ARM tablet.

Intel based tablets are very easy to use and the commands are the same as huge PCs. I am not sure how windows users are going to use ARM Tablets; those users are going to be disappointed.
 
ARM, on the other hand, is calling their bluff by cranking up the performance of its tech to meet the x86 giants.
Click to expand...

Grow up. ARM chips are going to be woefully slow running at task other than Farmville and Facebook. Cannot wait for a Atom with SSE and Quicksync.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom