Re: Advice on system purchase
On 10/30/2012 7:19 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 29 oct 12, 21:06:36, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> The second big reason is that neither Microsoft nor ISVs will profit
>> from a non x86 CPU architecture entering the desktop space. Supporting
>> ARM would simply cost them money. So there's no incentive to support
>> ARM, thus it's dead before it gets started on the desktop.
> AFAIU Windows 8 will be available also for ARM.
You're confusing a desktop ecosystem with an embedded ecosystem.
Yes, Windows 8 will be preloaded on ARM based tablets, smartphones, etc.
And there will be some ISV support for this ecosystem. But this is not
a desktop ecosystem. The number of ISV applications will be tiny
compared to current desktop ecosystems, and will be tablet/phone
specific. You will NOT be able to purchase a retail Windows 8 DVD set
and install it on an ARM based PC (if you can locate one), nor acquire
third party full blown desktop apps for it.
You're attempting to tie to distinct platforms/ecosystems together to
make an argument for one of them with "evidence" from the other, and
that simply doesn't fly. This sub-discussion in this thread is all
about an ARM desktop machine. All of my comments relate to that, and
that is what we're discussing.
You and Tony (whose comments weren't worth replying to), are isolating
my points and attempting to argue them out of context. I'm not sure
what the goal there is, but the endeavor is futile. Look at my damn
email domain for Pete's sake. I've been living/breathing the hardware
industry since 1987, give or take a few months. Do you really think you
can argue CPU architectures with "TheHardwareFreak" and win? It ain't
gonna happen. ;)
>> Third, "Wintel" is more than just nickname. It's already not in MS'
>> interest to support ARM, and it's definitely not in Intel's interest, so
>> when Intel says "don't do it", it's dead.
> While the Atoms and the -bridges are much better at power consumption
> then their predecessors (and even at performance / Watt compared to ARM
> as far as I recall) the ARM processors are still using significantly
> less power, while their processing power is *already* good enough for
> tablets and low power laptops.
And now we've come full circle. I agree that some of the currently
shipping ARM CPUs are more than powerful enough for a basic desktop
machine. I stated this early on, and I think it would be great if we
had them on the market. But, as I pointed out in detail, the financial
motivation doesn't exist in the Microsoft/ISV nor ARM camps to create an
ARM desktop ecosystem.
Apparently some folks here haven't paid attention to details, and think
I've been arguing *against* ARM on the desktop. On the contrary, I want
ARM desktops. However, I know reality, and have been explaining why it
hasn't happened, and probably won't. There's a big difference between
If an ARM "desktop" is ever to emerge, it will happen after Android has
sufficiently penetrated society via smart phones and tablets and people
are familiar with the interface. It will emerge as a tiny non
expandable "PC appliance", if you will, something like a small set top
box, plugging into an HDTV via HDMI, using wireless to hit the home
cable/dsl wifi router, with a wireless KB/mouse. It will be marketed
like similar mass market electronics, not like a PC. It'll have a price
point around $200 USD. It will have a 'small' SSD. All new software
will be acquired via internet, installed directly, no ISOs. It will
have no media bay, only USB ports, media content being streamed solely
via Netflix or similar.
If there is going to be a future ARM 'desktop', it will be something
like the above. Depending on who brings it to market, one might be able
to install a standard Linux distro that supports ARM from a net install
thumb drive, or you may be stuck with what's offered by the vendor
before, until someone breaks it. It won't be your typical "desktop" but
will be a desktop type machine nonetheless.