Intel: Clover Trail Will Support Linux At Another Time
Intel has raised some eyebrows by confirming that Clover Trail, the Atom chip targeted at tablets and subnotebooks, will not support Linux.
However, the company said that just because Clover Trail will not be supporting Linux initially, it does not mean that there won't be a Clover Trail version for Linux.
In a statement sent out to media, Intel reiterated that the "current version of Clover Trail supports Windows 8 tablets." However, Intel has plans to extend Clover Trail to Linux/Android, Intel spokeswoman Kathryn Gill told us. It is unclear how this chip will differ from the processor built for Windows 8. Gill said that Intel is "not commenting on the platform specifics or market segments that at this time."
"Stay tuned", she said.
Of course, Intel's strategy makes sense and should not be surprising. Intel needs to court Microsoft with a Windows 8-tailored processor and give traditional x86 tablet and subnotebook buyers a good reason not to defect to ARM territory. Intel needs a processor that looks compelling next to Nvidia's Tegra and rival chips from Qualcomm and Samsung. The thin line between sub-notebooks and tablets is a critical battlefront for both ARM and Intel. Intel cannot afford to give up notebooks, while ARM needs tablets to stand its ground. It is reasonable for Intel to focus on Windows 8 first and then look at Linux next.
Ahh wait, should have read who the author is first.
Ahh wait, should have read who the author is first.
There might also be performance optimizations for Windows 8 that Linux isn't made to take advantage of and Intel doesn't want to jump through hops for that right now given that they already have other CPUs that support Android and other Linux distributions. However, I admit in that I'd be surprised if Linux doesn't find a way even before official Intel support for it.
If Intel doesn't make a driver for this CPU that is compatible with Linux (assuming that Intel made changes that would break current Linux compatibility) and doesn't give anyone the needed info to develop one, then there's nothing that could be done.
Their original statement said Linux wouldn't be supported 'initially' but all the tech sites blew it way out of proportion.
Intel is already fixing that with valleyview atoms, which will have an in house GPU, similar to ivy brigde's which already have a top notch open source driver.
Linux, being as flexible as it is, is bound to have plenty of distros tailor-made for tablets, and if not then someone will start working on one. That being said, the more important point imo is that the atom processors are used in netbooks. The incompatibility of these processors GPUs with Linux is the sole reason I dont own a netbook as of right now. Its just not acceptable to use a power-hungry windows OS on a netbook instead of a streamlined optimized to the point Arch-Linux distro or similar.
The CPU doesn't need a "driver". The CPU will work fine on Linux, most likely as well as with Windows. It is almost definitely just graphics drivers, which are a major problem for PowerVR graphics.
Ever hear of Medfield?
CPUs do need drivers and unless you have one of these CPUs to prove that Linux will run on it at this time, you have no clue if the CPU itself would have trouble with Linux. That the problem is probably more related to the graphics is a good point, but it doesn't mean that there couldn't have been changes in the CPU that don't agree with (current versions of) Linux (at this time).
I have to agree with the other posts pointing out that AMD has a serious opportunity here,....there is plenty of room for them to slip in through the cracks and take a foothold. Microsoft is beginning to see the percentages of windows users to overall slide,...maybe not drastically but it is a slide nonetheless. Intel at the same time has been unable to get a strong position in the tablet and mobile phone markets and see's a joint-semi-monopolistic venture with MS as a way to do so. At the end of the day what Intel and MS are doing is bad for consumers.
You evidently haven't read Medfield reviews.