Print 60 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Sep 15 at 8:20 AM

Surprise! Microsoft's Internet Explorer 10 preview was gracefully running an ARM CPU, unbeknownst to the audience. Microsoft employees let this little secret out later at the conference.  (Source: Engadget)
Watch out Intel and AMD, power efficient ARM processors will soon be able to run Windows

At CES 2011, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer showed off an early build of a next generation Windows operating system running on an ARM architecture CPU.  This week at Microsoft's MIX Developer Conference in Las Vegas, the company gave developers a surprise Easter egg -- a preview build of Internet Explorer 10 and its underlying version of Windows were running on a 1 GHz ARM processor.

Samsung Electronics (005930), Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN), Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA), and other ARM chipmakers have all been hard at work cooking up power savvy multicore offerings, which would be perfect for a netbook or notebook.  

Versus similarly clocked x86 processors from Intel or AMD, ARM processors would likely squeeze out an hour or two of extra battery life.  While die shrinks and the ever-rising leakage current may eventually largely negate this advantage, in the short term ARM presents the first compelling consumer alternative to x86 in decades.

Windows 8 is expected to insert Microsoft's Ribbon UI element into more locations, including Windows Explorer.  It is also expected to have deeper touch integration and tie together the PC version of Windows with the Metro UI that Microsoft developed for the defunct Zune and Windows Phone 7.

But the addition of ARM support is perhaps the most anticipated feature.

While ARM currently offers power advantages, how compelling a buy Windows ARM portables will be still remains to be seen.  By offering base Windows support, including access to its Office suite and other enterprise tools, Microsoft makes ARM accessible to the everyday consumer.

But exactly how far Microsoft is able to go with its compatibility efforts remains to be seen.  If Microsoft can add ARM support for the Direct X and sound libraries, for example, it would be a relatively trivial exercise for developers to recompile their executables for ARM-architecture Windows 8 computers.

Microsoft makes the world's most used development environment, Microsoft Visual Studio.  By adding tools to make it quick and easy to switch from x86 to ARM builds, Microsoft could make applications compatibility complaints largely a moot point.  

Likewise, if Microsoft can embed an ARM-specific virtual machine in the OS with an x86 emulation layer, it might be possible to run native x86 apps, as is, without recompilation.  This would be helpful in cases where a company didn't have the source and the application developer was unresponsive or unwilling to make the change.  Implementing the same sort of system to provide ARM emulation in x86 Windows would be even more helpful to ARM, because it would allow developers to effectively target the more efficient ARM architecture, while ignoring x86.

Ultimately the question also still remains how low Intel can price its options and how big the true gap in power efficiency will be.  Unlike in the past, Intel may now find its pricing ability hindered by new international scrutiny that prevents it from resorting to anti-competitive arrangements to try to stomp out pesky rivals like ARM. But the exact picture is unclear.

Even more unclear is the fate of Microsoft tablets.  Even if ARM takes off in the notebook space, it may do little to help Microsoft sell Windows tablets, with Apple and Android so deeply entrenched.  In that regard, Microsoft may find that it's just given ARM a free ride to major expansion.  If that's the case Microsoft's customers should still reap minor gains -- a positive for the company -- but Microsoft itself may not make significant in-roads in its market expansion hopes.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Power vs clock
By omnicronx on 4/13/2011 5:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all, IBM's power7 is a RISC chip and it manages to get 264.96 GFLOPS per chip, but the best core-i7 chip can only manage 69 GFLOPS.
And my 1992 Honda Civic only goes 120MPH while my Ferrari goes 400MPH!

You just compared a $10000+ 4GHZ 8 core Power 7 enterprise system vs a high end desktop chip that costs a fraction of the price.

Great comparison buddy, you clearly pulled that right from Wikipedia (yes others can use it too) and have no idea what you are talking about.

RE: Power vs clock
By raddude9 on 4/14/2011 7:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
The original comment said that x86 could beat every RISC architecture. Regardless of the performance statistics and price points, that's a very inaccurate thing to say

RE: Power vs clock
By SlyNine on 4/14/2011 10:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
So is basing your opinion on the theoretical flops number. But that didn't anyone.

RE: Power vs clock
By omnicronx on 4/14/2011 3:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
He said no such thing, you just interpreted it as such.

I'm sure he was implying on an Apples to Apples basis. (Notice how he talks about beating ARM in the near future, that clearly shows he is comparing mobile space architectures as ARM is nowhere close to Intel in the desktop space)

I was not necessarily implying you are wrong, in terms of RAW performance high end RISC chips such as the Power 7 series can be more powerful, but as stated in other threads, there are advantages/disadvantages to both.

So to merely post stats from Wikipedia and to make a Apples to Oranges comparison does not help anyone or prove anything.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki