Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Microsoft Shows Windows Running on ARM

Last response: in News comments
Share
Anonymous
April 14, 2011 2:20:36 PM

Hoo Boy bring it on, Come On MicroSoft, I want my Windows 8 Tables ASAP!
Score
0
April 14, 2011 2:23:00 PM

I guess they wanted to prove Gartner wrong... which should not be that hard.
Score
1
Related resources
April 14, 2011 2:23:53 PM

I don't think anyone, ever, has wanted Windows, unless it was necessary to run an existing software base. On Arm, this isn't so, and on tablets, it isn't so. Still, it's always fun to watch Microsoft try to expand outside their monopoly reach, and fail miserably once again. It's tradition.
Score
-10
April 14, 2011 2:25:10 PM

Looks way more interesting than WP7. Let's hope it's secure and efficient.
Score
-2
April 14, 2011 2:53:49 PM

TA152HI don't think anyone, ever, has wanted Windows, unless it was necessary to run an existing software base. On Arm, this isn't so, and on tablets, it isn't so. Still, it's always fun to watch Microsoft try to expand outside their monopoly reach, and fail miserably once again. It's tradition.

And why would that software base even exist if it weren't for Microsoft?
You got it backwards, like trying to put the carriage before the horses.
Consider the expansion of iOS on tablet market after it has been on phones for a few years. Same pattern. Nobody wanted tablets before, and now they're crazy about them.
I am not an Apple fan, but I am not blindingly denying their role in the development of the segment.
Try to look up "monopoly" before using it in a sentence; when there are multiple players on the field, that's not a monopoly. Some just play better than others, that's all.
Less hateful trolling (which I guess is tradition, too), and more objective analysis never hurt anyone.
Score
6
April 14, 2011 3:00:42 PM

K2N haterLooks way more interesting than WP7. Let's hope it's secure and efficient.


You should slap yourself for using the terms microsoft and secure in the same sentence. Slap yourself hard.
Score
-4
April 14, 2011 3:09:50 PM

TA152HI don't think anyone, ever, has wanted Windows, unless it was necessary to run an existing software base...

I don't think anyone, ever, has wanted to buy and put gasoline in their car, unless it was necessary to drive anywhere in it.
Score
4
April 14, 2011 3:19:43 PM

justnice980You should slap yourself for using the terms microsoft and secure in the same sentence. Slap yourself hard.

Better than Apple and security.
Score
9
Anonymous
April 14, 2011 3:23:52 PM

I want a full OS and don't think it is too much.
Score
1
April 14, 2011 3:29:09 PM

mayankleoboy1FIXED

Sorry, I must be missing something... what did you fix?
Score
3
April 14, 2011 3:41:37 PM

silverblueSorry, I must be missing something... what did you fix?
I read 4 or 5 times, and I still can't figure out what in the heck he fixed. XD
Score
4
April 14, 2011 4:00:43 PM

Hopefully they use this as an opportunity to shed some of the legacy features that only a small amount of users still use. It'll probably be incredibly stable since, on a tablet, you're not working with a ton of 15 year old peripherals that have emulated and sloppy ported drivers.
Score
2
April 14, 2011 4:09:43 PM

cool MS hasn't made a windows supported ARM since 1996
Score
1
April 14, 2011 4:45:03 PM

All good, me likes.
Now to bring Android+Chrome to full x86/x64 :)  :) 
Competition and choice are always good.
Score
2
April 14, 2011 4:48:05 PM

Yawn... Wincrap on other devices...oh wow!
Score
-5
April 14, 2011 4:57:40 PM

mayankleoboy1I DIDNT ACTUALLY FIX ANYTHING


FIXED :p 
Score
3
April 14, 2011 5:05:39 PM

I'd like to see how Windows fares against these light, mobile OS's on ARM devices.
Score
1
April 14, 2011 5:06:13 PM

Intel and AMD is having some competition now that the software giant is moving towards ARM processors. Nvidia suddenly have some chance of survival going with ARM instead of x86.
Score
1
April 14, 2011 5:14:11 PM

Compare the usefulness of an iPad, an Android Tablet, and Windows 7. Although personally I won't use ARM for for anything bigger than a phone/media player due to needing x86, I would happily pay the extra $100 to put Windows OS on a tablet. My phone does everything current tablets do and more, it can also make phone calls.
Score
2
April 14, 2011 5:23:23 PM

justnice980You should slap yourself for using the terms microsoft and secure in the same sentence. Slap yourself hard.


Yep thats why Microsoft totally dominates the corporate world.. due to weak security /end sarcasm. Please use your brain before issuing a statement, it should not be hard to add one and one!
Score
3
April 14, 2011 5:23:56 PM

TA152HI don't think anyone, ever, has wanted Windows, unless it was necessary to run an existing software base. On Arm, this isn't so, and on tablets, it isn't so. Still, it's always fun to watch Microsoft try to expand outside their monopoly reach, and fail miserably once again. It's tradition.

Broad sweeping generalisation time!
Some people just prefer it.
What you mean to say is that you don't like it and you can't understand why anyone else would either.
It's just all me, me, me, me, me.

People will be buying Android tablets, hooking them up to a PC and then installing Windows 8 on them, just because they can.
Score
5
April 14, 2011 5:27:16 PM

back_by_demandPeople will be buying Android tablets, hooking them up to a PC and then installing Windows 8 on them, just because they can.

Agreed!
Score
6
April 14, 2011 5:27:46 PM

milkteaIntel and AMD is having some competition now that the software giant is moving towards ARM processors. Nvidia suddenly have some chance of survival going with ARM instead of x86.


Or it could end up proving arm is sufficient to phones and the like but seriously lacking in any area where some real computational power is needed due to its risc like instruction set that seriously hiders efficiency when doing anything but mundane things!
Score
-1
April 14, 2011 6:36:51 PM

Windows have failed a long time so miserably that Bill Gates is much richer than any other software house boss (or HW)
Score
-2
April 14, 2011 7:19:34 PM

rantocYep thats why Microsoft totally dominates the corporate world.. due to weak security /end sarcasm. Please use your brain before issuing a statement, it should not be hard to add one and one!


MS dominates the corporate world because of heavy investment and development for products the corporate world uses. Its about getting customers something they want and can use easily.

Now, they further improve dominance by using anti-competitive pricing, special "Exclusive" deals, using lock-in leverage in office and productivity packages, giving away "Free Support" deals to people considering a linux solution, etc.

But the majority of PCs in the corporate world are not Windows because it is more secure. Remember that the majority of security break ins at companies are still through PEBKAC exploits on Windows machines.

The majority of the internet on the server side is still unix/linux.
Score
-1
April 14, 2011 7:27:30 PM

ROFL at the "Windows is not activated" tag not even MS runs Genuine software.
Score
1
Anonymous
April 14, 2011 7:35:38 PM

@rantoc

you are aware of the alpha workstations and Sparc work stations right......

i would consider that serious heavy lifting
Score
1
April 14, 2011 7:37:40 PM

rantocYep thats why Microsoft totally dominates the corporate world.. due to weak security /end sarcasm. Please use your brain before issuing a statement, it should not be hard to add one and one!


The reason Microsoft dominates business is because more secure alternates flubbed their chance in the early 90s. OS2, UNIX variants - they all missed the chance to overtake Windows. And don't ask about Apple: until they went with a BSD operating system they were never in the running!

Also, did you count how many security fixes Microsoft just released this week? Over 60!
Score
-1
April 14, 2011 7:39:24 PM

rpgplayerROFL at the "Windows is not activated" tag not even MS runs Genuine software.


Well, considering this is a pre-release operating system, I don't see what they'd have to activate it against. That might be shortsighted of me, but that's the way I see it.
Score
1
April 14, 2011 8:07:28 PM

captaincharismacool MS hasn't made a windows supported ARM since 1996

To my knowledge Microsoft never had any windows OS that worked on ARM, with the exception of windows ce.
Score
1
April 14, 2011 8:12:08 PM

mikem_90MS dominates the corporate world because of heavy investment and development for products the corporate world uses. Its about getting customers something they want and can use easily.Now, they further improve dominance by using anti-competitive pricing, special "Exclusive" deals, using lock-in leverage in office and productivity packages, giving away "Free Support" deals to people considering a linux solution, etc.But the majority of PCs in the corporate world are not Windows because it is more secure. Remember that the majority of security break ins at companies are still through PEBKAC exploits on Windows machines.The majority of the internet on the server side is still unix/linux.

Since when is the OS to blame for a PEBKAC exploit?
Score
2
Anonymous
April 14, 2011 8:34:46 PM

@Vladislaus

if i recall winNT and win2k would happily install to an Alpha/Sparc workstation, which were ARM based
Score
-2
April 14, 2011 9:35:32 PM

AlphaForgotten@Vladislausif i recall winNT and win2k would happily install to an Alpha/Sparc workstation, which were ARM based


Alpha's were Alpha based. Sparc's are SPARC based. Neither are ARM.

Anyway, MS has been doing Windows variants on ARM for years. If this is something new, such as Windows 7 or 8 on ARM, or a new variant, the article failed to elaborate on that.
Score
0
April 14, 2011 10:48:28 PM

mikem_90Remember that the majority of security break ins at companies are still through PEBKAC exploits on Windows machines.The majority of the internet on the server side is still unix/linux.


If you educate the users and restrict the workstations it will prevent the users from making fatal mistakes like most ID10T ,PEBKAC & PICNIC exploits around, its not hard for the IT staff so set up with the right access that won't hamper work productivity with the right know how. Sadly not all corporations seem to think its worth spending the resources to educate their staff and securing the workstations properly so in a way you could say the exec's are the ID10T error not the workstations themselves.

Even with the old venerable XP as main client our company with over 40k workstations in the network we haven't had a single reported or monitored instance of security problem in the last 5 years, so i think i can say its secure enough from those user related issues.
Score
2
April 15, 2011 2:06:59 AM

The kiddies are always gonna do the "burn MS" thing. Windows 98 was horrible insecure, but only because it assumed the logged in user always had root level privileges. Its a spillover from the DOS / Win3.11 days. Starting with NT and beyond the OS was pretty secure, vulnerabilities always exist in complex projects and its a race between the manufacturer and the hackers to find / patch them. MS's early evil was that they did the "Apple" and refused to acknowledge many of the holes in the hopes of not looking bad. They've done an amazing job since Windows XP SP1 at patching and fixing things quickly. And this is coming from a guy who's career is mostly based on Solaris and SPARC's.

On a side note, I've successfully compiled GLDoom and other "open-source" OpenGL based games to work on a SPARC. Kinda cool to play vintage games on a SUN box. To make things even more spooky, using doxbox I've run Windows 3.11 ... on Solaris 10 ... in a dual UltraSparcIIIi system.
Score
1
April 15, 2011 12:51:20 PM

This is a good thing. All speculation of failure is irrelevant because more competition will have an overall positive influence. I'm looking forward to seeing what possibilities Win 8 will bring to the tablet market.
Score
1
Related resources
!