Windows XP and Windows 7 on ARM.


Pardon my ignorance, I am no expert on this but I had a thought. Couldn't Microsoft port windows 7 to arm and then just treat it like a CE replacement? When i got my Dell Axim, which was obviously arm, I never had any MS apps beyond what was in the OS and there was lots of software available for it including games and even audio and Photo editors. That;s Just a 200-400 (selectable) Xscale Arm. Why wouldn't an OS like Win7 be capable enough to run things? Even with the photo editor on PPC2002 I never had more than 32 MB of ram in use. What with larger and faster memory as well as onboard ram shouldn't it still be likely to outperform and have much more flexibility as a PPC OS replacement. Just cause it's called Win7 doesn't mean it's the exact OS under the hood...just similar look/functionality right? Keep in mind I am in no way suggesting I am right..it's just what came to mind. Still unless they were looking to launch a whole new mobile OS it doesn't make much sense. However, it would be a good time to roll out a new one if they can make it feel like 7 given the fact that there is genuine hype around 7 for it finally seeming like a good OS. Refresh everything.
 
No one said they couldn't. The question is if they would, the answer to which is "probably not".
Even if they got Windows 7 (or XP, or Vista, or any of the desktop Windows) recompiled for ARM, it wouldn't allow the playing of existing programs and games anyway, not without those also being recompiled. You gain absolutely nothing from having Windows, and Microsoft stands to risk much for little immediate gain.
In the long run, it'd be a good idea for MS to release some sort of ARM based OS which is much more than CE, before the market takes off and they lose all ground to Linux. However, unless their engineers are far more brilliant than anyone could imagine, or their marketing staff is really on their toes, it could be a financial disaster for them.
Note that I say it'd be a good idea for MS, not for consumers.
 
Well, that is what I am saying. If they ported Win7 over to Arm it would be nothing more than another WinCE right? It would require all new apps etc. Just like PPC did. I'm not saying they will or should. I was just saying if people have read that they were thinking about Win7 for Arm that it would just be "The next WinCE" right?

I guess I feel that maybe this wouldn't be so bad (as a CE upgrade) and wouldn't be good either (for us), they could probably make most Arm coded PPC programs work just make the interface and enhanced browsing features or something look like Win7 or dare I say actually make it usable more like a real functional desktop type environment unlike my PPC. It would be a disaster for consumers but Microsoft usually makes the OS's as disasters for us don't they..lol My point was not to validate the idea just to get opinions on whether or not it would just be another CE in reality.

I know I can't use Windows desktop software on my PPC, but that didn't stop me from wanting or needing my Dell Axim and them calling the OS "Windows"

I hope they don't otherwise people would just be screaming for a Pandora port and complaining it doesn't run XXXX game "that Windows 7 on my desktop does".

Keep in mind I have not used a version of CE higher than Pocket PC2002 so any comparisons between say CE6 and Win7 Arm, I could not make, I am just supposing Win 7 Arm would just be a minor CE6 upgrade with a Win7 facelift.

Point of my post and overall question I am asking is would Windows 7 Arm be basically a new Windows CE or would it be something else? If so what, like how would it differ? Of course until it would actually happen (hopefully not likely) what do you coder guys think would be the end result? (not talking about having to buy new software, and of course x86 desktop software would not work) Would it be just a CE that confuses people because of the name into thinking it would run regular software? Something in between CE and Desktop causing all new problems? (not compatible with either)

Sorry if my original post seemed to suggest anything else. You guys have a lot of knowledge including Linux (I don't know about yet) so I was curious as to what you thought it would be.
 
Windows 7 ARM?
I can't say where Microsoft would go with it, but considering the pathetic lack of compatibility it will have with Windows / x86 and the average stupidity of their users [Since everything Apple doesn't make ships with Windows by default]..

I think they would call it "Windows 7 Embedded" or something and make a huge statement about incompatibility, which nobody will listen to.

It will have the same general Start Menu / wallpaper / screensavers, if that's what you're asking. If you really need those, though, just throw some custom themes on your favorite window manager and install xscreensaver.
 
lulzfish said:
If you really need those, though, just throw some custom themes on your favorite window manager and install xscreensaver.
Easier said than done; xscreensaver can be a bitch to install, and Compiz isn't ES compatible :p
 
I personally don't want to install themes of anything. The discussion was about MS porting windows 7 to Arm. What i don't get is that I stated I thought that if they did it would be nothing more than a new version of CE with Windows 7 looks and same basic PPC functionality with maybe a few more Horses under the CE hood and tweaks to make it seem more fo a desktop and less crippled like PPC. There are some decent software titles for my PPC2002 device. It seemed I was told yeah they could do it but they wouldn't and it was assumed I thought it would be x86 compatible if it did, and having a PPC I knew that already. I clarified that I would like to know then if they DID port Windows 7 I was curious as to whether you all thought it would in fact be another Windows CE or if you thought they would try to force it to maintain working just like windows albeit with Arm compatible apps only. But never mind already. I don't want Win7 on my Pandora and hope they never decise to call something Win7 for a hand held as it would open up all new problems with people getting angry cause "it IS for Arm after all so I want to play Crysis" etc.

i was just trying to make conversation and share the thought that it could be better in theory and have much more power and functionality than the PPC realm currently does and could be more useful in that dried up market.. I still don;t want it to happen as I wouldn't use it. After all I am not going to need my PPC when Pandora arrives. I just don;t know why but if someone like me says they are not an expert everyone thinks you are dumb and want things to look like full windows or run x86 stuff. I'm not an expert, but I'm also not a tard. In any case I'm done with the topic and moving on.
 
I don't really care what MS does with a theoretical ARM port... I suspect they'd keep it looking like Windows CE to avoid confusion, but that only matters to the people who would be confused with the notion of distinct architectures, such as my parents.
 
Poem58 said:
If they ported Win7 over to Arm it would be nothing more than another WinCE right?

wrong. Win7 is entirely different architecture, different API and different "ecosystem" as they call it. Windows depends on independed software vendors, as part of the upgrade loop which drives profits (Microsoft upgrades OS, vendors upgrade application software to use the new OS, customers upgrade both OS and application software). As one cannot upgrade OS on a mobile device, well not in supported manner, such loop does not exists for WinCE. Which is part of explanation of why mobile devices come with all sorts of programs preinstalled.

Atom-based netbooks changed the balance only slightly, because they use desktop software compatible with x86, i.e. Windows XP. However, ARM based netbooks are different story and Microsoft might want to release Win7 for this market segment, otherwise it would be given away to Linux. For this move to succeed, they need independent software vendors to release software as ARM binaries. The tricky part is that these would have to be Win32 ones, not WinCE ones.
 
Thanks Bronek for actually discussing this.I wasn't gonna check the thread anymore. So despite what you are saying about architectures and stuff which better explains what I meant by a CE replacement with different functionality more like a desktop. You are saying That it would not be CE compatible which is fine. But if they ported Win7 to arm and it had to run Arm compiled software, even if it were Win 32 Arm software not PPC Arm software that does then in fact create a CE replacement that just like Win CE needs special software that only runs on this platform just like Win CE. So not CE, not really a replacement, yet still, very similar for many reasons.

So I take all you say to mean yes, it could be a new CE replacement for say a netbook that while not CE program compatible (but could they make it so to allow PPC software to migrate easier?) does exactly the same job. A special OS that has to have all software specifically made for it that won't run on anything else and future software generations could break that program compatibility.

My whole point was that since PPC2002 has software I got good usage out of, despite it ONLY working on my PDA. I still enjoyed my PDA and it's experience. I would think that if you made Windows7 Arm. As you said all software (Win32 for this OS) would have to be compiled for Arm. Thus making the experience close to if not the same as for Win CE. This software will ONLY work on this device and you will be limited by what companies want to take the effort to make any software for this platform. I was thinking that although Pandora will be replacing my PPC usage, A netbook style (maybe in between netbook and Pandora) sized machine with decent powered Arm etc. and the extra features a Win7 Arm version could provide (obviously they would have to trim down the OS some but generally it would kick Win CE's but then) may not be such a horrible thing.
No more horrible than when I bought a PPC. It served my needs and would have done so much better if it had the capabilities something like a Win7 port could bring.
However, turning a netbook into this, still in my eyes feels like the old palmtop CE devices where it made you think you would get a PC experience, but never delivered. It would be horrible for Pandora as there would be the never ending questions of why we don't move Win7 Arm to Pandora to play Crysis, yada yada yada.

I just wanted to share what I saw as a possibility of why they would do such a thing or what I saw being the possible usage and drawbacks for this. Let's just hope it never happens.

P.S. I know in general you would say you cannot upgrade the OS on a mobile device, and yeah you don't really see that, however I know that my instructor in school had the first Dell Axim and due to when he purchased it and the rollout of the next version of CE there was a legal and supported OS upgrade they mailed to him. So it's possible to upgrade mobile OS's as even mine had OS "updates" and "patches" I had to flash in to fix early PPC2002 problems, but they were making more money on selling you the next version hardware they made for the next full OS. So they didn't want to give away more capabilities.
The whole CE and PPC platform was a bit of a pain in the butt, battery memory backup, sharing storage with usable ram, the price for what you actually were capable of doing with the device. These are why PPC is dead and Pandora will shine. So much more capability, flexibility, and overall more bang for buck. MS should pay attention to this.

Here's one, MS will now create a Pandora clone and place Win7 Arm on it. Then it will fail due to all the problems we have already mentioned here. Yet the original Pandora and OP team will chug along for years eventually making new devices etc. showing MS that it is the OS that is the problem. they will ignore it and do it again and again and again...
I can't wait to get used to Linux!
 
Poem58 said:
I can't wait to get used to Linux!
If the demos, promises, and samples of UI are any indication, there won't be anything to get used to. It'll just be another interface, just like the Wii, PS3, or XBox interfaces. Except you'll have the option of going deeper if you want to. Those that don't want to just stick to the standard UI and it works fine.
Honestly, why do people still think of Linux as some great beast that needs to be conquered? It's currently in use in so many things, from routers to PVR units (and a toaster or two), that you probably don't even realize you've already used it.
 
lulzfish said:
Install some themes on somebody else's favorite window manager, then!
My point was that the only possibilty of emulating the Win7 UI atm is by doing it with Compiz. The Win7 window manager isn't very complex (aka hasn't got a lot of features) but has a terribly complex UI ("Aero": a two-layered "aura" texture + a gaussian blur mapped onto that windowframe of theirs + a drop shadow) which is a PITA to emulate.

BTW, my favourite window manager is KWin by far; it has neat modern compositing features (XRender!! And look at what's coming in KDE-4.3!) and there's no other WM out there I think that let's you define an action for middle-clicking the maximize button :p
 
The whole point about porting Win7 to ARM is about creating a new "ecosystem", i.e. OS in which independent developers will release their own software (closed or open source, it's not relevant in this context). That software creates part of the "ecosystem" as well. The other part of ecosystem is attached hardware and its drivers. This is very much unlike Windows CE, because the latter one does not need big "ecosystem" due to large number of bundled applications. "Regular" Windows does not have such a bundle; Windows users normally buy (or use free; or pirate) application software the need.

So, for Win7 ARM to succeed (which may stand for "migration effort to pay off"), there must be large number of independent developers building binaries for Win32 ARM. This is where the risk is.
 
It's my understanding from the vague impression I've gotten of Windows programming I've gotten over the years, that the .NET framework is supposed to be super cross-platform. My brother claims to have compiled a bytecode application that ran on both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, so I suspect Windows 7 / ARM will have most .NET applications working out of the box, assuming they don't use native code anywhere.
 
lulzfish said:
It's my understanding from the vague impression I've gotten of Windows programming I've gotten over the years, that the .NET framework is supposed to be super cross-platform. My brother claims to have compiled a bytecode application that ran on both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, so I suspect Windows 7 / ARM will have most .NET applications working out of the box, assuming they don't use native code anywhere.
Well, you are better off with Mono for .NET apps anyways, so there's no need to port Win7 for those to work.
Except, of course, for the "PInvoke whore" programs that insist on using native Windows libraries for everything. (*cough* PaintDotNet *cough*)
However, the PInvoke-using applications wouldn't work on ARM Win7 either because of their platform dependence so Mono is your best shot anyways.
 
Bronek, Of course under the hood the Win7 Arm would Not be CE, I have no idea why you would even suggest I thought it would be. I said it would just be another Windows CE. I have no idea what the heck you mean by bundled applications.I have used Windows CE from earlier iterations up to PPC 2002. Aside from a Rather useless browser and limited tools like email client that really was not useful to me since the device had no wifi, there is nothing more than a calender and calculator, every "bundled app" is bare minimum in functionality and destroyed by most freeware let alone commercial offerings. Every bit of useful software including media players and even file managers that had any usefulness at all were third party software. Not sure about this ecosystem stuff but my point was if any OS was made for Arm and therefore did not run any software a previous "Windows" would due to having to be Arm code not x86 code. How is that any different aside from built in features and under hood code, from what Pocket PC is. An Arm OS that can only run software made for it. I was not trying to argue technical issues but the simple layman's view. And If I saw a netbook with Windows 7 Arm listed on the box i would know instantly that for my real life usage and experience, it's exactly like Windows CE. It does only what it does, and can only run software especially made for it. Nothing else. Just like my PPC. If I were still in the market, It might be interesting depending on what this hypothetical OS's abilities were, which I could only imagine could make a mockery of MS's current handheld OS. However for the average consumer especially one who never owned a Pocket PC, they WOULD think it would run the stuff they had for their desktop and being raging mad and returning them en mass for it.
Anyway, as I said I was just trying to throw out idea's and thoughts. Seriously, now I am done. Topic over, for me at least.
 
second.exodous said:
That still doesn't answer the question why would anyone want Windows on the Pandora or a device like it? This won't be your main computer.

Wait... R U implying, that myself, or anyone else would use WINDOWS on the MAIN computer? What else? Store important data on it? Run a server? srsly, d00d ;)
 
mrtymek said:
second.exodous said:
That still doesn't answer the question why would anyone want Windows on the Pandora or a device like it? This won't be your main computer.

Wait... R U implying, that myself, or anyone else would use WINDOWS on the MAIN computer? What else? Store important data on it? Run a server? srsly, d00d ;)

I run XP and Vista on all my machines except for the old 486 laptop that runs Linux for a laugh (though it has to boot into DOS before LoadLin or it won't run).

All my data and my development is done in Windows. Why, what's wrong with it?

D.
 
The only thing I Linux is really good for is servers and low-power devices like cellphones and MIDs that aren't meant to be as fully-functional as a traditional computer.

It's really not all that well suited to desktop use unless you do nothing but programming.

I have 4 laptops and three of them run linux. The only time I ever turn on the Linux ones is when I need to get some more advanced programming done or I need to do some cross-platform testing.

I use Windows 7 on all my 'productive' computers. It's much more stable than Vista, and so far has been just as good or better than XP. I haven't had to spend any time trying to fix things odd glitches and quirky behavior, it doesn't segfault when I miss a minor bug in my programming, it has a higher level of integration and standardization, so everything behaves the way you'd expect it to. There's a handful of things that could use improvement, like the structure of the Control Panel, but most of the problem areas rarely ever need to be used, so it's not really too much of an issue.

It takes less learning to have a stable Windows installation than it takes to have a stable Linux installation, so I suppose it's the lazy man's OS. But the line between lazy and efficient can be rather fuzzy at times.
 
Back
Top