On 10/30/2012 7:19 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 29 oct 12, 21:06:36, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> >> The second big reason is that neither Microsoft nor ISVs will profit >> from a non x86 CPU architecture entering the desktop space. Supporting >> ARM would simply cost them money. So there's no incentive to support >> ARM, thus it's dead before it gets started on the desktop. > > AFAIU Windows 8 will be available also for ARM.
You're confusing a desktop ecosystem with an embedded ecosystem. Yes, Windows 8 will be preloaded on ARM based tablets, smartphones, etc. And there will be some ISV support for this ecosystem. But this is not a desktop ecosystem. The number of ISV applications will be tiny compared to current desktop ecosystems, and will be tablet/phone specific. You will NOT be able to purchase a retail Windows 8 DVD set and install it on an ARM based PC (if you can locate one), nor acquire third party full blown desktop apps for it. You're attempting to tie to distinct platforms/ecosystems together to make an argument for one of them with "evidence" from the other, and that simply doesn't fly. This sub-discussion in this thread is all about an ARM desktop machine. All of my comments relate to that, and that is what we're discussing. You and Tony (whose comments weren't worth replying to), are isolating my points and attempting to argue them out of context. I'm not sure what the goal there is, but the endeavor is futile. Look at my damn email domain for Pete's sake. I've been living/breathing the hardware industry since 1987, give or take a few months. Do you really think you can argue CPU architectures with "TheHardwareFreak" and win? It ain't gonna happen. ;) >> Third, "Wintel" is more than just nickname. It's already not in MS' >> interest to support ARM, and it's definitely not in Intel's interest, so >> when Intel says "don't do it", it's dead. > > While the Atoms and the -bridges are much better at power consumption > then their predecessors (and even at performance / Watt compared to ARM > as far as I recall) the ARM processors are still using significantly > less power, while their processing power is *already* good enough for > tablets and low power laptops. And now we've come full circle. I agree that some of the currently shipping ARM CPUs are more than powerful enough for a basic desktop machine. I stated this early on, and I think it would be great if we had them on the market. But, as I pointed out in detail, the financial motivation doesn't exist in the Microsoft/ISV nor ARM camps to create an ARM desktop ecosystem. Apparently some folks here haven't paid attention to details, and think I've been arguing *against* ARM on the desktop. On the contrary, I want ARM desktops. However, I know reality, and have been explaining why it hasn't happened, and probably won't. There's a big difference between the two. If an ARM "desktop" is ever to emerge, it will happen after Android has sufficiently penetrated society via smart phones and tablets and people are familiar with the interface. It will emerge as a tiny non expandable "PC appliance", if you will, something like a small set top box, plugging into an HDTV via HDMI, using wireless to hit the home cable/dsl wifi router, with a wireless KB/mouse. It will be marketed like similar mass market electronics, not like a PC. It'll have a price point around $200 USD. It will have a 'small' SSD. All new software will be acquired via internet, installed directly, no ISOs. It will have no media bay, only USB ports, media content being streamed solely via Netflix or similar. If there is going to be a future ARM 'desktop', it will be something like the above. Depending on who brings it to market, one might be able to install a standard Linux distro that supports ARM from a net install thumb drive, or you may be stuck with what's offered by the vendor before, until someone breaks it. It won't be your typical "desktop" but will be a desktop type machine nonetheless. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5090a500.7060...@hardwarefreak.com
