Microsoft at CES: Next version of Windows will run on ARM

primesuspect

Microsoft at CES: Next version of Windows will run on ARM

Thrax

Mind. Blown.

//EDIT: Porting windows to ARM will make it a serious contender for mobile devices for the first time. ARM chips are more efficient than their x86 counterparts, and will be able to run the world's most familiar OS for the very first time. Amazing.

BuddyJ

Oh hey Android.

primesuspect

This is huge news. Huge, huge news.

Garg

Holy shit. I didn't believe the rumors for a second, so I'm kind of still expecting a giant letdown. Exciting stuff.

Of course, how many programs will be ported to ARM is another story.

mertesn

If they're written using Windows APIs they probably won't need much porting, if any.

QuadWhore

Now I really need a change of pants.

Windows running on ARM? I'm actually excited about windows 8 now.

drasnor

Which ARM architecture(s) are they going to support? A whole lot of ARM implementations out there still lack hardware floating point (FPU) and memory management (MMU) which are things that nearly everyone takes for granted these days.

How is software distribution going to be handled? The only other company out there that's run two architectures simultaneously is Apple, and both times they did it they didn't do it for very long. Are we going to see things like fat binaries again? I can't imagine that being a real solution with the size of today's software.

Thrax

Given the date of Windows 8's release, I suspect it's the ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore and the ARM Cortex-A15 MPCore.

drasnor

Thrax wrote:

Given the date of Windows 8's release, I suspect it's the ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore and the ARM Cortex-A15 MPCore.

Doesn't that exclude every device on the market today?

Thrax

Don't quote me on this, but I heard that W8-ARM is initially being designed for a couple specific sets of hardware. As Windows 8 is pegged for late 2012, Cortex-A9 should be common, and A15 should be the "go-to" core for MIDs and laptops.

primesuspect

Where does Tegra 2 figure in to this?

Thrax

Tegra 2 is Cortex-A9, and they announced at CES that they are on track to produce an NVIDIA-branded ARM CPU. With Windows 8 announced for ARM, guess who just realized their dreams of a mainstream CPU?

Crazy times, friends.

drasnor

Thrax wrote:

Tegra 2 is Cortex-A9, and they announced at CES that they are on track to produce an NVIDIA-branded ARM CPU. With Windows 8 announced for ARM, guess who just realized their dreams of a mainstream CPU?

Crazy times, friends.

Color me skeptical. You could get Windows on Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS for awhile too, but Microsoft quickly withdrew support. We'll see.

Thrax

Unlike Alpha and PowerPC--ISAs both the staple of competitors--ARM is an ISA that Microsoft desperately needs to break into to support the future of its business. Windows Phone 7 is doing so-so, and Windows 7 has basically been a dud on tablets, but both categories of devices are the next big growth sector.

Microsoft can't afford to ignore or get out of ARM. This is a very different situation, I feel.

RootWyrm

FYI, ARM does not go by CPUs. ARM goes by major revision and is licensed as an IP Core. Current generation (e.g. Qualcomm Snapdragon) are ARMv7 AKA Cortex IP. (This is not to be confused with ARM7 Family. Yes, it is confusing as hell.) Cortex comes in ARMv7-A, -R, -M and -ME suffixes.

The systems Microsoft demoed today are in fact, ARMv7 based. These are also the processors you are going to see in the low-cost desktops favored by businesses. VDI isn't going where anyone was hoping, because frankly, VDI still doesn't work. (Could you use a system, even for work, where you had a 1-2 second delay on every keypress?)

When talking Alpha, PowerPC and MIPS, it's a very different issue. Alpha and PowerPC (in a second) were single source, single vendor setups. Alpha from DEC on limited systems, PowerPC on even fewer systems. MIPS just never saw any uptake at all. ARM is an entirely different ball of wax; it's a heavily licensed, widely distributed IP core utilized by no less than a dozen unique manufacturers to produce hundreds of different parts for even more integrators. That said, the read I've gotten is that it's not going to be a device specific build target. That's bitten Microsoft in the past hard, and they remember it. It's more likely going to be a requirement set, presented typically as an approved device list to cut down on support migraines.

drasnor

RootWyrm wrote:

FYI, ARM does not go by CPUs. ARM goes by major revision and is licensed as an IP Core. Current generation (e.g. Qualcomm Snapdragon) are ARMv7 AKA Cortex IP. (This is not to be confused with ARM7 Family. Yes, it is confusing as hell.) Cortex comes in ARMv7-A, -R, -M and -ME suffixes.

This isn't quite right. The IP cores consist of the various versions of Cortex (A, M, et al.) and the architecture version is ARMv7. Stating that Windows will support the ARM architecture doesn't necessarily mean that it will a) support any ARM architecture revision, b) support any ARM IP core, or c) support any ARM-based device. At every level we have a problem.

I had written something long and windy, but the point can be summed up by saying that there's no standard under ARM for how to build a complete computer as you know it. In the mid-80's we standardized the PC hardware architecture. The pre-boot environment is almost universally BIOS with a few EFI machines out there. No such standard exists for ARM and each different OS requires a different pre-boot environment. Many ARM devices don't use a pre-boot environment or an OS.

I think it's very likely that you will see manufacturer-built Windows for specific devices in much the same way as you see it today with all the flaws of that model. I can imagine manufacturers not making a serious effort to release updates on devices over a year old. I won't be able to drive down to the store and buy Windows 8 ARM edition and load it on my graphing calculator.

primesuspect

I think Dras is on the right path; we'll see device-specific builds of Windows, much like we have Android today, or at least hardware guidelines for Windows support.

"In order for your device to run Windows 8, you must have such-and-such CPU using such-and-such display that supports these resolutions and blah blah blah"

I think we're getting off track here and assuming that we'll be building desktop PCs with ARM CPUs and installed OEM copies of Windows 8 for ARM on it. That's not how it's going to look, at all. There will be a very narrowly defined specification and I am reasonably sure we're not going to be able to order Windows 8 Home Premiem OEM for ARM on Newegg.

Cliff_Forster

I'm not trying to spoil the party, but if the software still is not optimized for a mobile experience, none of it will matter. Fact remains, Microsoft has yet to make a mobile OS that is worth a damn.

This is the little thing Apple and Google have figured out, maybe you need different operating systems for different applications. And twelve versions of Windows with certain features locked/enabled is not what I mean.

So what if I can run Windows mobile twice as long on more efficient hardware, if Android, Iphone OS, WebOS, and RIM all have better mobile software, none of it matters.

What Microsoft needs to do is actually design a real working mobile OS. Maybe Windows 8 will address all of this, but somehow, I doubt it. Microsoft is ignoring that mobile is not the same ole Windows world, nor, does it want, or need to be. If Microsoft wants to compete they need to come up with some radically different software for the mobile space. Perhaps, something more like this?

Thrax

Thrax wrote:

Don't quote me on this, but I heard that W8-ARM is initially being designed for a couple specific sets of hardware.....

drasnor

In response to Cliff, yeah software matters at the end of the day. As far as user experience is concerned though, the user interface is just a shell wrapped around the operating system's more technical features. My favorite example is Ubuntu Netbook vs. Ubuntu Desktop. They run the same software but look and feel entirely different. Below the graphical user interface they're more or less identical. Ubuntu and Linux-based OSes in general are put together to allow that sort of thing. See the variety in user experiences on the Android platform? Microsoft doesn't need to use the same shell for the desktop and ARM versions.

MAGIC

Cliff_Forster wrote:

Fact remains, Microsoft has yet to make a mobile OS that is worth a damn.

I like Windows Phone 7. I would say it is worth at least a damn to people who like the features it provides. Nice opinion though.