Therefore the question becomes, is it worth it for companies? If you are a consumer or a business you may want/need that Microsoft office, or that CS5. ARM's success will depend heavily on the software developers shoulders. It will either make or break them (good JDKs from their side will make things much easier).
However with smart phones adoption becoming more and more universal, there is already a great amount of software available and the faster their chips get, the more likely they are to be useful in desktop situations. Imagine being able to buy word for android and use it on both your phone and ARM computer.
Also windows 8 is supposed to have arm support, and Apple is rumored to be switching to arm in 2015 when their A15 design is planned to be released. From a company standpoint this makes a lot of sense for Apple. This means they can then use the same software branching over from one device to the other, only needing minor fixing or scaling issues. Currently 40% of their quarterly profits comes from Cellphone sales and will most likely continue to be their cash cow for the foreseeable future.
Will ARM completely replace x86? Unlikely. I see them evolving in parallel until quantum computing arrives. There will still be many cases where one or the other is better (be it power, speed, cost, or something else), so I can well imagine when going into a store in 2016 that there will be a wide variety of machines around to chose from depending on what use you need it for. Ultralow power devices for home automation, or powerful number crunchers for data-mining, CAD or GPGPU computations.
Welcome to the post PC era!
And before anyone starts commenting on that last sentence my quick definition for post PC: a time where not all digital actions are solely based on the use of personal computer but can be used with other devices. Or simply put, 15 years ago when you wanted to check mails, check the web, or edit a spreadsheet you had to use a PC. Nowadays you can use your cellphone, a tablet or other device to achieve the same goals without the need to own a PC, therefore post PC.[/quotemsg]
Most people just want to do stupid social-y stuff with computers, which they did with telephones before computers were around, they did that with computers when the Internet was developed since it was more convenient than telephones, and then with smartphones since they were more convenient yet. They don't do much for real work with them. Real work will continue to be done on suitable machines, and suitable real computers will continue to be made. Sure, they might be more expensive and harder to find, but they'll still be around. Compare it to being able to buy good-quality non-powered tools once power tools became ubiquitous. You can still buy good crosscut saws, axes, and reel lawnmowers despite various powered saws, chainsaws, and engine-powered mowers becoming ubiquitous. They just are special-order items and cost more.
Right and we know how well emulation works. It sucks. Heck people complain when a program is using the JVM and not written straight out in c++. Emulation didn't work with PPC and it certainly won't work in the future either. Although there is what I would call an abundance of processing power in today's desktops, I doubt that an ARM CPU will be anywhere near the performance levels of what we have today.Also, decompilation is prohibited by almost every proprietary software license out there as well, so even if there was a good decompilation/recompilation system, it would probably get sued out of existence. About the best you could do is to do "dynamic translation" a la the Transmeta Crusoe/Efficieon, where program binary's amd64/x86 instructions get fed directly to the CPU and the CPU translates from x86/amd64 into native ISA code. That was a lot better than full-on software CPU emulation as the translation got roughly 80% of native CPU speed compared to 10% or so for purely CPU emulation, but it's still notably slower and more power-hungry than native code. I believe it also added quite a bit of complexity to the CPU, so you further reduce theoretical CPU performance by devoting needed transistors and watts to translating from x86/amd64 to native compared to just executing native code.
This is unfortunate indeed. For that very reason I still run several machines with XP, since some of the software I just can't get to work via virtualization, or is not available anymore. Some might now so, oh just buy an updated version! Well a "new" version was never made and having a custom program written to replace what is working now is extremely expensive and simply not worth it. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.History would say the question to "is it worth it?" is a resounding "no." Like I said before, there are TONS of currently-used business applications that refuse to run on anything newer than 32-bit Windows XP + IE6. It took 6-7 years after amd64 CPUs debuted for Windows to considered usable on that ISA, and much of that usability is based on the ability of am64 CPUs being able to directly execute old 32-bit x86 code directly. The only people who run exclusively or nearly exclusively 64-bit programs on amd64 machines are running Linux or another open-source UNIX-based OS, not MacOS or Windows.
Well yes and no, in a sense speed was a major hindrance. It's not been till recently that mobile processors have made many modern application uses possible. When I look at the iPad I still marvel at the technology. It is truly mesmerizing at what it can do. I would never write a paper on one, but I must admit nowadays when I just want to quickly check an email, or toms I grab the tablet instead of powering up my PC. Yes size is an issue but to a large part this has been circumvented by the use of touch input. By removing the physical need for touch input, the screen estate has increased substantially in recent years. Remember were still talking about mobile devices that are meant to not replace but augment PCs. But your right I will never trash my desktop. I can't live without multiple screens and there have been multiple occasions while using excel that I just wanted to take a dump on my netbook. Saying that though, I have written a 30 page document on my netbook once I hooked up an external monitor and keyboard.The problem with smartphones isn't processor speed, it's the limitations of form factor of the device. A smartphone with a 4" screen and maybe a thumb keyboard (or worse, an on-screen keyboard) isn't going to be a very pleasant machine on which to run a word processor and type something. Netbooks with their 90%-sized keyboards and 10" screens are painful to use for using a word processor; a smartphone would be absolutely awful. There is a reason why normal-sized 14-16" laptops and desktops with 20+" screens still exist- they are simply better machines to work with.
In a sense I am hoping that ARM will become a big player in the future. Intel has enjoyed total market dominance in the last few years and a bit of competition is direly needed to keep technological progress going, not to mention price competition, which I as a consumer really want.Most people just want to do stupid social-y stuff with computers, which they did with telephones before computers were around, they did that with computers when the Internet was developed since it was more convenient than telephones, and then with smartphones since they were more convenient yet. They don't do much for real work with them. Real work will continue to be done on suitable machines, and suitable real computers will continue to be made. Sure, they might be more expensive and harder to find, but they'll still be around. Compare it to being able to buy good-quality non-powered tools once power tools became ubiquitous. You can still buy good crosscut saws, axes, and reel lawnmowers despite various powered saws, chainsaws, and engine-powered mowers becoming ubiquitous. They just are special-order items and cost more.