Windows 7 For Arm?

[PoisonedV]

yup. the comments on that site really scrape the bottom of the barrel. from tesla free energy conspiracists to diehard obsessive linux or windows fanboys.
edit: oh woops my bad thats gp32x ;D

 

[spaceballs3000]

I think Microsoft should develop an OS from the ground up. Or Fork a Linux build

Yeah, they developed something from the ground up and named it Vista. Didn't do them much good though.

This is a lie, more than half of the code base is the same, no ground up stuff except for a few components.

 

[DavidBowman]

Windows 7 on ARM makes no sense for several reasons. The first and most important being that any devices that run on the ARM platform *simply don't need it*. I can still browse the internet, check email, open and edit documents, listen to music (etc., etc.) on the software that is already available for those devices.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Second, it would increase the costs of those devices significantly. Who here would like to pay $530 for a Pandora because it comes bundled with Windows?

Really, Windows can offer nothing to the ARM-based device market that could justify the work and expense of bringing it to said market.

As far as MS forking a Linux distro... well that's just crazy talk. They would never make a profit that way. Besides, it would be a violation of the GPL for MS to sell any Linux distro. The best they could do would be to sell support for it like RedHat.

 

[lulzfish]

They developed MS DOS from the ground up bought MS DOS IIRC and everything after that was just additions, substitutions, and multiplications of the original base.

 

[nightwheel]

Microsoft would have to have some fancy virtual or simulated x86 software that doesn't use much cpu and ram to be able to run regular windows programs on arm in a arm port of normal Windows.

 

[Svartalf]

Windows 7 on ARM makes no sense for several reasons. The first and most important being that any devices that run on the ARM platform *simply don't need it*. I can still browse the internet, check email, open and edit documents, listen to music (etc., etc.) on the software that is already available for those devices.

No kidding.

QUOTE

Second, it would increase the costs of those devices significantly. Who here would like to pay $530 for a Pandora because it comes bundled with Windows?



Because then people would foolishly think that they will be able to run things like WoW natively on a gaming handheld...

QUOTE

Really, Windows can offer nothing to the ARM-based device market that could justify the work and expense of bringing it to said market.



WindowsCE brings all that they can justifiably bring to the table and many players are phasing out that for LiMo and Android because WindowsCE doesn't bring enough to the table and it costs quite a bit more than the commercial support options for the Linux-centric answers do.

And, if you think that Linux isn't ready in this space, you might want to play around a bit with a G1 phone first.

QUOTE

As far as MS forking a Linux distro... well that's just crazy talk. They would never make a profit that way. Besides, it would be a violation of the GPL for MS to sell any Linux distro. The best they could do would be to sell support for it like RedHat.


Uh... As long as they abide by the terms of the license, it wouldn't be a violation of the GPL in the slightest. There's nothing IN that license that would preclude them doing it. But don't bet on it happening more for the reason that if they did that they'd have to admit defeat completely.

They're doing something- my insider info sources indicate that this is the case. What it is, remains to be seen, but Windows 7 isn't all that and a bag of chips- and it's not a lot more than a UI cleanup of Vista with a bit more draconian DRM applied to it. Seriously. Windows 8 is expected to be the first clean-slate implementation of ANYTHING MS has done in the OS space since NT 3.1.

Backwards compatibility's KILLING them at this point.

They developed MS DOS from the ground up bought MS DOS IIRC and everything after that was just additions, substitutions, and multiplications of the original base.

Heh... Isn't that the profound truth?

I'm kind of amazed, the truth be known, of just how many people keep trying to run this one up the flagpole, thinking that they'll get a better system as a result or be able to play their Windows or X-Box games or that studios will now port their stuff over to the Pandora because of it.

The reality is: You degrade the overall performance of the machine compared to Linux when you use WindowsCE and Windows 7 is still entirely too bloated for most netbook configurations. It doesn't fit as nicely. It doesn't run as fast. It takes up more memory. It doesn't do what you think it will for you.

 

[viridior]

Not to kill this topic, because it was bound to come up anyway...

Did anyone else notice how long it is taking companies (that design applications solely for Windows in the first place) to redesign/recompile their software for x86_64? Its not like every PC processor made in the last 2/3 years suports it, and every new computer comes with it, and yet it is still very hard to find x86_64 versions of the vast majority of the software out there. Sure you can argue that most of it may be unnecessary since x86_64 supports native execution of x86 code, but with ARM that is not the case.

While it may be very exciting to run Windows 7 on the Pandora (and maybe the hardware requirements wont be as intensive as their x86 brethren) you will have a hard to finding any software to run on it unless it is open source and you get a coalition together to recompile it all for it. It might be nice to play Spider Solitaire though.

 

[Bronek]

.... I don't know what's wrong with the legacy stuff? I like being able to run ~10 year old games and programs I have laying about. If you say it's causing bloat, buy a new PC, Vista x64 runs amazingly on my year old ~£450 PC, most of us here make that much in a month; even after tax, food and rent.

there is lots wrong about the legacy stuff, like DDE, registry, stupid APIs like IsBadCodePtr, atoms and windows classes, GDI and window management, etc. The modern system must bend over, reach with left hand to the right pocket and is generally crippled to have all of this stuff implemented, which is rarely used anyway. It has nothing to do with hardware; it's about the system.

More to the point - given that Windows 7 is of Windows NT descent, which some 10 years ago was portable on 4 hardware platforms (MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha and x86), all running on rather old processors well under 600Mhz, there is little in a way to let Microsoft port Windows 7 to ARM. Apart from this little issue : lack of market interest.

People simply are not going to port, build and market their programs for the new processor, if there just 1 machine which could run them.

 

[Patrick R Ludvigsen]

the only reason i run windows is because of the windows programs and even now i'm starting to use less of those

 

[DavidBowman]

Uh... As long as they abide by the terms of the license, it wouldn't be a violation of the GPL in the slightest. There's nothing IN that license that would preclude them doing it. But don't bet on it happening more for the reason that if they did that they'd have to admit defeat completely.

Are you sure?
QUOTE

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

...

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

B) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.



If it's a fork of a Linux distro published under the GPL, Microsoft can not sell it for a profit. They can sell support, and maybe charge a nominal fee for the medium upon which it is distributed, but that is all. But I completely agree that it would be admitting defeat.

Not to kill this topic, because it was bound to come up anyway...

Did anyone else notice how long it is taking companies (that design applications solely for Windows in the first place) to redesign/recompile their software for x86_64? Its not like every PC processor made in the last 2/3 years suports it, and every new computer comes with it, and yet it is still very hard to find x86_64 versions of the vast majority of the software out there. Sure you can argue that most of it may be unnecessary since x86_64 supports native execution of x86 code, but with ARM that is not the case.

The 64-bit issue has been a thorn in my side for years now. My current desktop runs on a (now outdated) dual core 64 bit processor, and it annoys me to no end that very very little software takes advantage of its power.

 

[verm71]

Yeah, they developed something from the ground up and named it Vista. Didn't do them much good though.

Don't think so. Lots of code re-use. If they're going to develop an OS from the ground up, it will likely be based on Singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)

Some code in Vista dates back from Windows 3.1. I kid you not. Go to C:\Windows\Fonts. Then click File > Install New Font

When's the last time you saw a dialog box in Windows with all your drives in a drop-down box like that? And how about that "Network" button? All Windows 3.1. Maybe NT 3.5.

 

[dj51d]

If it's a fork of a Linux distro published under the GPL, Microsoft can not sell it for a profit. They can sell support, and maybe charge a nominal fee for the medium upon which it is distributed, but that is all. But I completely agree that it would be admitting defeat.

Actually, there is no reason you couldn't charge for copies. From the terms and conditions of the GPL, term #4 in GPL V3 "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee." and term 1 in GPL V2 "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. " The thing that would likely stop Microsoft from selling there own customized Linux distribution is that anyone who purchased a copy would be able to redistribute it under the terms of the GPL(well, the GPL covered parts, of course) for free.

 

[DavidBowman]

Exactly. There'd be no point in charging for a copy. What I really meant was that unlike today, where they are charging you a license fee for the OS, they wouldn't be able to do that under the GPL v2/3.

 

[Chip]

Microsoft has to do something for the emerging ARM netbook / subnetbook market. WiMo doesn't even begin to cut the mustard as a real OS for anything more powerful than a cell phone, and CE is too long in the tooth for anybody to take seriously. There is exactly zero chance that they will sit back and let Linux own this form factor, but it's anybody's guess what they will end up doing.

It could be a recompiled version of Win7 (highly unlikely), a massive update of CE, a rebranded Linux distro or something else entirely. It may or may not be installable on the Pandora by legitimate means. It may or may not be installable at all.

Whatever it is, the most important thing to remember is what it will not be. What it will not be is a way to run desktop Windows games or applications on the Pandora. Whatever MS comes up with will not change the fact that x86 compiled binaries will not run on an ARM processor without emulation, and x86 emulation on ARM is very slow.

So it really doesn't matter whether MS ports Win7 to ARM. It won't give us anything that Linux doesn't, and it certainly won't be as free.

 

[Kramy]

But is that Microsoft's only strength? It already works with stuff? I don't know. Personally, I have been really impressed with the Xbox 360 Software wise. There are some things that need to be improved, but things like global defaults, messaging, party system and easy UI make me believe MS could make an unbelievable OS.

Or the file transfer bug, when transferring large files over a local network would just stall out. I used teracopy to get around it, because the Hotfix didn't work.

Like I said, IF MS can pull off Windows 7 perfectly and than lead that way from there on. Than good. But Vista has shown me the huge undertaking it is for them to keep the core they have and try to build on it.

Microsoft's biggest weakness has always been that some of their programmers are geniuses and some are average joes.

I remember reading about how MIDI got improved in WinXP. (multi-second freezes)
CODE
http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=77


But at the same time, while Windows features are getting mucked up badly, the kernel and low-level stuff is remaining solid and robust.

Some code in Vista dates back from Windows 3.1. I kid you not. Go to C:\Windows\Fonts. Then click File > Install New Font

When's the last time you saw a dialog box in Windows with all your drives in a drop-down box like that? And how about that "Network" button? All Windows 3.1. Maybe NT 3.5.

I know. Years back I delved quite heavily into windows modding. Some programs are still 16bit executables - I was amazed at how much old crap is still installed, just to preserve compatibility with Win9x apps/installers.

All my modding left me with the conclusion that the Windows Kernel is actually quite light on resources. It also boots quicker than a linux kernel does. Mind you, after the kernel loads, Windows has to load all that crap and padding. (the rest of the OS)

I have a 1.2ghz Via Eden that goes from power-ON to desktop in approximately 14 seconds, (WinXP) but that's only possible because I stripped all the crud out.

 

[Username]

You speak the truth, Chip. They need something for the new ARM market, but the only advantages it could have over any other OS would be a more familiar interface for people who already have Windows experience (which is still a big step).

 

[cameroncros]

Microsoft should give up on their windows kernel and simple do what they are good at, designing user interfaces. The only difference between vista and windows 7 is a new prettier interface. And im sure people would pay for that interface.

 

[valhalla]

Did anyone else notice how long it is taking companies (that design applications solely for Windows in the first place) to redesign/recompile their software for x86_64?

there is a difference between x86_64 and arm in that x86_64 happily runs x86 stuff, so companies have no real reason to work on a port that won't give them any additional marketbase.

With the emergence of arm based netbooks, however, it is not unlikely that microsoft will be forced to develop a full OS for ARM, whatever it will be based on, and (some) companies will be forced to port their applications as well, if they don't want to loose the segment. I don't think that this will include hardcore games (they can't be played on netbooks anyway) but there are probably going to be comunication and production applications, and possibly casual games.

It's a bit like the passage between PowerPC and x86 for apple: companies were forced to do the port and they started to publish "universal" binaries (packages with both executables) quite soon. Of course we're not going to loose the x86 market as soon as the PowerPC one did, so the translation won't be as quick or as complete.

As for the benefits on pandora: this is going to take time, and windows for arm may be sold like plain windows, and an installation may be feasible, or it may still be customized and sold more like WiMo, tied to the device, and nobody will be able to do and distribute lawfully a port.

Also, an emergence of windows arm applications may lead to the developement of arm wine, but judging from previous history it may not be ready before pandora 3 is out

That said, I'd rather have linux or another FOSS system with as many FOSS apps as I need and a bit more, thanks

 

[spinghed]

Microsoft should give up on their windows kernel and simple do what they are good at, designing user interfaces.

lol

seriously?

 

[ashdjones]

I reckon within the next 15 years Microsoft will create a Unix based system, maybe BSD based like OSX. It seems to me that they need a new kernel that is easily portable for the (possible upcoming) jungle of cpu architectures and one which has strong security features ready to build on.

That's just my prediction though, I don't see the big deal with universal binaries myself - most people won't be able to tell the difference and it works perfectly on OSX.