backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on May 22 at 11:36 AM


Intel CEO Paul Otellini.  (Source: Androidheadlines.com)
Intel: Android is too fragmented, Windows 8 ARM devices won't be compatible with legacy apps

Intel Corp. is having a busy week. 

We reported yesterday that Intel is prepping to roll out more than 35 Atom-based tablets by the end of the year, including a number for Google's Android OS. But, according to CNET, Intel CEO Paul Otellini recently called Android's fragmentation "chaos."

"Apple's objective is to control everything end to end so they can control the experience and the pricing," Otellini said at an Intel's investor. "Google's model is to get as broad a base as possible because, how do they get paid? They don't get paid by selling Android. They get paid by clicks. At the end of the day, the more pervasive Android is, the more money Google ultimately makes because advertising revenue can accrue from it."

Otellini added that the software is going through "growing pains," but that it will eventually be rectified. His hopeful tone was similar to that of NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang's statements earlier in the week about Android's slowly being worked out.

Otellini compared Android's current state with Microsoft in the past, which ran on platforms such as DEC's Alpha, IBM's PowerPC, ARM, and MIPS "before settling predominantly on Intel's x86 architecture," CNET reported.

Speaking of Microsoft -- statements made by another top Intel exec have angered Microsoft. 

EWeek reported yesterday that Renee James, senior vice president and general manager of Intel’s Software and Services Group, suggested during an investor meeting that Microsoft will make different versions of its upcoming “Windows 8” for Intel and ARM-based devices. The ARM-based devices, she said, won't be able to run legacy Windows apps, which were designed to run on Intel's x86.

"There will be four Windows 8 SoCs for ARM. Each one will run for that specific ARM environment, and they will run new applications or cloud-based applications," James said. "They are neither forward- nor backward-compatible between their own architecture – different generations of a single vendor – nor are they compatible across different vendors. Each one is a unique stack."

According to Business Insider, Microsoft was not happy about her statements. The company replied:

Intel’s statements during yesterday’s Intel Investor Meeting about Microsoft’s plans for the next version of Windows were factually inaccurate and unfortunately misleading. From the first demonstrations of Windows on SoC, we have been clear about our goals and have emphasized that we are at the technology demonstration stage. As such, we have no further details or information at this time.

The vagueness of Microsoft's statement means that James might have been at least partially correct. More details should be announced in September, at Microsoft's developer conference.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Load of BS
By mindless1 on 5/22/2011 11:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
Who wants to run a program from 1996? MOST PEOPLE!

Despite what you might have been mislead to believe because you hang out on tech sites with computer enthusiasts, the average computer user (most people) aren't upgrading their hardware and apps all the time, they run the same hardware till it fails and if the app they are used to using still serves the purpose (or else why would they have used it in the first place?) there is little reason to pay money (one way or the other, everything has its costs) or relearn a new interface just to run some newer thing because someone else assumes newer is automatically better.

On the contrary, if you run the oldest app that will get the job done you tend to have a simpler interface, less bloat, fewer security holes. Yes there are downsides such as when a feature you want isn't there, limits to memory allocation, poor use of modern monitor resolution screen space, etc. Even if these things matter 2/3rd of the time it doesn't justify buying the other 1/3rd of your apps over again till you *need* to, or even spending the time to hunt down freeware, install, test, migrate files, etc.

I just wish I had consolidated more of my 1996 apps, I'd be able to do 200 things with the same amount of hard drive space it now takes to do 5 things (apps). If and when I need something newer, I can add that too and not be concerned about the old apps because it's such a small % of HDD space, memory or CPU utilization. Oh, and their smaller codebase makes them more easily/quickly ran from removable media, USB thumbdrives and such.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki