Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
AMD Windows Intel Hardware

Taiwanese OEMs Consider ARM Products For Windows 8 167

Posted by timothy
from the just-being-polite dept.
siliconbits writes "At CeBIT 2011, we went around the stands from some of the biggest component manufacturers in the world and asked them a simple question, would you consider bringing out ARM products (barebones, laptops, tablets, motherboards) for Windows 8? The answer was a unanimous yes; like Microsoft, the same firms that have been faithful Intel and AMD partners for years are prepared to explore other territories as soon as Windows 8 will go live."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Taiwanese OEMs Consider ARM Products For Windows 8

Comments Filter:
  • Re:ARM Windows (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @02:04PM (#35398454)

    It's the same as with Windows 64 bit and why we didn't saw much of it despite the prices for RAM are very low. I guess with Windows 7 the developers finally released some software for 64 bit. That's what, like 9 to 10 years since AMD came with the amd64 architecture?

    The reason 64-bit wasn't was adopted quickly was more about need vs features. The model MS choose for their 64-bit migration (LLP) meant that 32-bit programs were backwards compatible. So there was no need for a consumer to get 64-bit Office because 32-bit Office would work fine in 64-bit Windows. If all the 32-bit programs worked either way on 64-bit or 32-bit OS, there wasn't as much as a push to migrate. Unfortunately 64-bit Windows would often times require new drivers. So there were more negatives moving to 64-bit on Windows unless the consumer had a specific need like more memory addressing. For the most part, businesses were more open to using 64-bit Windows Server as there was a need in many cases to access more than 3GB of RAM.

    Software companies that wanted to take advantage of 64-bit for Windows had to maintain separate 32-bit and 64-bit binary and source code versions during the migration. While the 32-bit version would work on either Windows flavor, the 64-bit would not work on a 32-bit OS. Many companies were reluctant to maintain two versions especially if moving to 64-bit provided no real advantage.

    The Linux/Unix/OS X model (LP) took a different approach as that model focused more on forward compatibility. A 32-bit program could be made into a 64-bit program with a recompile and testing to ensure there were no special scenarios that required 32-bit addresses, etc. Software companies would have to maintain two binary versions but for the most part could maintain one version of source code. With Linux/Unix/OS X, a great deal of software was open source so that it was far easier to make this migration.

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?

Working...