Intel's Haswell Chips Pushing Windows RT Into Oblivion 321
SmartAboutThings sends this excerpt from Technology Personalized:
"Intel has started shipping the fourth generation Haswell chips for tablets, which brings power-efficient processors and hence much better battery life to Windows tablets. According to IDG, Intel has now started shipping new low-power, fourth-generation Core i3 processors, including one that draws as little as 4.5 watts of power in specific usage scenarios. These new Haswell processors could go into fanless tablets and laptop-tablet hybrids, bringing longer battery life to the devices. This is a great news for Windows lovers, who have had to sacrifice performance for battery life (and vice versa) until now. Now, with almost 50% better battery life as promised by Intel for Windows tablets, the OEMs have no real need to come out with Windows RT based tablets and hybrids anymore."
Now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Now, with almost 50% better battery life as promised by Intel for Windows tablets, the OEMs have no real need to come out with Windows RT based tablets and hybrids anymore."
Why would a manufacturer buy an OS nobody seems to want instead of using Android? What's MS's advantage here?
At the cost of cost of a diverse ecosystem (Score:5, Insightful)
From a purely technical standpoint; this makes a lot of sense. Backward compatibility, fewer architectures that devs must target, lower dev and maintenance costs for OS vendors, and so on.
However, I can't say I'm really happy about the idea of Intel gaining even more dominance in the market. AMD is still holding on, but their answer to "low power" is "we can do better graphics than Intel in less power than Intel + dedicated graphics" which is a nice perk but also addresses neither the high end of the PC market (where they can compete on price, but not really on performance) nor the tablet/smartphone/ultrabook end (where they would need at least one and ideally two steps up in manufacturing process to match Intel).
ARM reaching into the tablet/netbook market seemed like a viable competitor; less powerful at its top end than even a mid-range Intel chip, it could operate comfortably in power ranges that Intel had no answer to. Now... not so much, and with the possible exception of legacy devices and really cheap/underpowered computers (RaPis, smartwatches, etc.) ARM risks becoming irrelevant to the "daily computer-using world". I don't care one way or another about ARM in particular, but there should be *something* out there (in reasonable usage) other than x86/x64.
Yet again, its about legacy Windows software ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now, with almost 50% better battery life as promised by Intel for Windows tablets, the OEMs have no real need to come out with Windows RT based tablets and hybrids anymore." Why would a manufacturer buy an OS nobody seems to want instead of using Android? What's MS's advantage here?
For the exact same reason people have been using Windows for decades. They want to run specific Windows based software. With these tablets running x86 rather than ARM the legacy x86 applications become usable. Assuming drivers and other factors cooperate.
Re:Now.. (Score:3, Insightful)
We are talking about Windows RT here. There are precisely 0 legacy apps.
Re:Now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Another sensationalist headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference hardware-wise between Surface RT and Surface Pro is significant. The RT is still fairly light and easy to carry around. The Pro is significantly larger and heavier due to a larger battery and more cooling capabilities built in, and still has less battery life. In fact, the additional size and weight was sited as one reason why the Pro wasn't any good as a tablet. Cutting the thickness and weight of tablets is not just a packaging and shipping advantage.
The only way for x86 chips to reduce both heat and power consumption on load (because face it, if the processor heats up significantly at max load, an additional cooling system would have to be included in the machine's design) is to cut performance. And given x86's overhead, that'll never truly be able to compete with ARM.
Of course, RT is plagued with numerous software and hardware problems and probably was dead on arrival anyway. But new x86 chips are far from being the reason it hasn't and won't take off.
Re:Now.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Haswell had jack to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's policies with the Surface had everything to do with killing RT. They couldn't have better engineered Surface RT to fail if they tried.
Confusing name - identical to a product the same size and shape and not at all the same thing that is released at the same time. WTF?
Inferior screen compared to Surface Pro
Window 8
Missing "Start Menu" being replaced by "Start Button"
No initial boot to desktop
Apps are only available through the market and with a minimum $1.50 charge
No side-loading of apps.
No backwards compatibility
No ability to load anything that isn't approved by Microsoft. All of the disadvantage of Apples walled garden with none of the glamour
Poor CPU choice to begin with
Not enough RAM
Poor heat management
The price was far too high
No ability to join a domain
Can't legally use it for work if you read the license
Metro should have been an option and never a forced interaction
The worst thing of all was that Microsoft blatantly ignored their users feedback about Windows 8!
This arrogance left a bad taste in the mouth of many and word of mouth killed the Surface RT.
Microsoft could have made a killer Surface RT that would have done very well if they hadn't been so arrogant. The attempt to force their "market" and the Metro interface - whatever the consequences killed the Surface. By the time Haswell came out Surface RT was already dead, lost along with a few million missing tablets in a warehouse somewhere.
Re:Now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
haswell makes full windows with 100% backwards compatibility in a tablet device a desirable thing. Everything from photoshop to your VB app written a decade ago that you no longer have the developers or source code or funding to rewrite is now viable on a windows tablet device.
I don't think anyone is going to use a tablet for Microsoft Office. A tablet screen is way too small for Photoshop or a CAD program, and nobody's going to waste a $1000 license (Photoshop) on a tablet. The only thing a tablet is good for is media consumption, and what programs does Microsoft have for that that isn't already out there, usually for free and superior to Microsoft's?
Just Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Linux users and Mac users will profit from it as well. Haswell chips have been in the new MacBook Air and a number of other devices, not just "Windows" tablets.
Microsoft marketing FTW.
Re:Now.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dock your tablet (Score:4, Insightful)
A tablet screen is way too small
Not when you dock it. Add an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor to any tablet with Bluetooth and HDMI out, and you can carry one device that shifts between desktop mode when you're at a desk and tablet mode when away from one.
Re:ARM computers (Score:5, Insightful)
I will let people crap all over a post that's basically regurgitating Intel Developer Forum drivel, and I'm certainly not going to say that WinRT has a future.
But I will NOT let you trash talk Alpha.
The Alpha was simply a much better processor than anything from Intel at the time. It was pretty much the fastest out there, though you might argue with some high end POWER or MIPS 10K or something.
Maybe you were running Windows and x86 programs on the Alpha? Those weren't blazing. But native Alpha programs were fast fast fast. And the architecture is clean and beautiful. Just beautiful.
So you can say that ARM has not much advantage over x86 today. That's probably true. You can say that ARM sucks, has too much complexity, and the system architecture is an abomination. That's probably true also. But you leave the Alpha out of your talk unless you know what the hell you're talking about.
Re:Now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can use the mouse, still? The tablets generally have a touchpad built into the cover and there are always bluetooth options available.
If you were looking to run something old you would probably use either of these options.
Re: Now.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more than that though office is a big deal on the desktop sure.
Lots of internal it type apps target windows. And lots of utilities. Throw in enterprise concerna and fuggetaboutit - running full windows is a requirement, not an optional thing.
Re:and judging by Surface sales figures (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason OEMs don't have to bring out RT tablets?
Microscopic - actually sub-atomic customer demand. Microsoft wrote-off almost a BILLION USD on unsold tablets!
So, an OEM would have to:
A - Sell competing against Microsoft
B - To non-existent buyers
C - Profit!
Re:Now.. (Score:4, Insightful)
that ancient VB6 app will probably still work fine - its been used for the last 10 years after all, so why would you think its not fit for purpose?
What usually happens is the adequate-but-not-pretty VB6 app is replaced by a new web app wirth all the latest "cool" technologies and ends up costing a fortune to develop and doesn't really work.
Old stuff tends to work, that's why its still used. Technology used to make it is irrelevant.