Windows 8 on ARM Will Require Deeper Integration

It's good to see Microsoft is taking ARM seriously as a Brit its good to see the UK making waves in the computer industry the likes of which we haven't done since the days of the Sinclair Spectrum and BBC Acron (the company where ARM was originally created.

Is there any news on how Microsoft is going to get around the compatibility issues concerning x86 software running on the ARM instruction set?

WHat I want to know is when Micro$oft is finally going to ad ARM integration to Windows Me?

I wonder how many people will actually make their iFad's useful and install windows 8 on them. iFad in its current form is to computers, what the Wii was to consoles. A gimmick that the masses bought, played with, then reverted to using their pc's and phones. Hopefully Windows 8 will actually show people what a tablet computer should do.

*spoiler* (it's supposed to do more then make fart sounds, and play iTunes)

This is just another talking point to bump the fact that MS is finally going to support ARM as a proper platform (not with some bastardized version of CE). The same exact thing could be said for the litany of x86 variations that exist, they simply aimed at the lowest common denominator of the platform simply to ensure that it would run on any of them (even if at atrociously slow speed)

what's an x64 desktop or laptop???

Does this mean it will be difficult to port to my newly acquired $99 HP Touchpad?!

Desktop software on a 10" touchscreen is completely useless.
Tablets need purpose made software.

64-bit.

x86 is 32-bit.

i just want something portable with 2 usb ports so i can offload pictures from my camera to an external hd. why can't manufacturers make something useful?!

It sure is going to be a lot of work. There's the whole issue of x86-64 codes running on ARM and vice versa.

You just want a laptop or a netbook, then? Nobody's stopping you my friend!

Get the Toshiba Thrive. USB, SD card, HDMI ports are full size. It's a little thicker and heavier than other tablets, but it's also more versatile.

He's just teasing because 64 bit is also x86. So it should technically x86-32bit or x86-64bit.

that thrive actually looks pretty sexy

You know what would love to see released with Windows 8?
Standard x86 processors with integrated ARM cores.

Think about it; with simple tasks like web browzing and word processing you could shut off the x86 portions and save a ton of power.
When you need a little more processing power, or you are working with non ARM optimized applications, power up the x86 cores and gate off the ARM section.

Especially with mobile computing, on the fly switching between x86 and ARM cores could conceivably extend battery life quite a bit.

"Even if you use native C/C++ code, these tools will enable Metro style apps to target specific hardware if you choose."

Why couldn't the compiler produce a single executable containing code for BOTH (that Windows 8 would choose from depending whether it runs on ARM or x86)?

Will ARM processors run crysis?

Must be the way in which the code functions at the hardware level. Windows 8 probably will be able to differentiate where it's being installed, but to do that on individual programs would make them pretty big and complicated to code. At least, that's my understanding.

Why do they have to at all?

Do you really want every executable on your computer to be twice as big? Because that's what you're asking for. I think it's a much better solution for the user to just download the appropriate file. It's not like it's hard.

As a side note, I'm shocked at the consistent lack of knowledge about technical areas like these on Toms Hardware. No, Microsoft doesn't need to make the x86 instruction set run on ARM.

What they're doing is putting an ARM compiler on the x86 platform. Then all you have to do is click the ARM entry under target platform, and bam, you just ported your software over to ARM. Somehow making ARM understand x86 instructions, or writing a wrapper to translate the opcodes is about the worst possible way I could think to solve this problem.

Somehow, someone will make a transformation pack from XP to 8, Vista to 8, 7 to 8, but will they also make an 8 to XP transformation pack, or just 8 to Lion? ARM will get emulators to run x86 so people can play Kings Quest, while someone will make an emulator for ARM so people can play Angry Birds if they don't feel like playing Angry Birds x86... ;-)

even apple didn't put their full OS on the ipad 2 they used their phone OS(and ipad2 is using a dual core 1ghz.) I can't imagine windows 8 being resposive on a tablet unless they produce a severly cut down tablet edition. and then I'm left wondering - why didn't the just update their phone OS like apple. Never mind will wait and see. apple patents on tablets might make it all irrelevant.

Good to see that you don't need any evidence or experience to draw a conclusion. Nothing to see here, standard fanboy.

P.s. It runs fine on a tablet. In the future, you might want to base your opinions on facts, rather than a strict hierarchy of Apple > Microsoft.

Your right I have no experience of micrsoft 8 running on a tablet. Theres a reason for that - there are none available to the general public. I was speculating on basis that
a) my w7 machine runs okayish on 2.66 dual core with gtx260 to accelerate any graphics.
b) I have an old 2.1 ghz athlon that makes surfing the web of vista sp2 ( same as w7 practically ) like walking through treacle
c) everyone I've read who knows about OS development ( pc pro magazine UK contributers and editors etc) say MS is bloated to ensure multiple compatability between programs and drivers. A lot these features just won't be needed on an windows tablet
d) windows 7 on a tablet was regarded by the industry as a failure.
e)looking at your w7 computer would you want to run it on 1ghz dual core with 512mb of memory. even just for surfing? I wouldn't
f) a windows 7 install takes over 10gb thats a hell of a lot of disc space to use if you've only got 32gb or 16gb to play with.

Based on these facts I speculated that either w8 will need a special tablet edition or tablet install to ensure only the neccessary parts are installed OR they would be better using their already good and ARM ready phone OS for their tablets.

thats all I'm guessing. at no point did I say apple were better than MS. MS is more open, cheaper and more flexible. I hate itunes and I hate the way apple tries to lock users into using apple only products. I bought one apple product and I'm not making the same mistake again. There was nothing in my posting praising apple just pointing out that even apple couldn't make their full OS work for a tablet.

perhaps you've used a demo and know that w8 tablets work fine. If you have fair play to you but no need to assign opinions to people that they don't have just to confirm your own prejudices and sense of superiority.

I am not an apple fan boy. all I'm saying is on 1gh dual core a full blown w8 installation might be a bit too big. apple didn't manage it and I doubt windows will unless they use a cut down version. this doesn't mean apple are better. it just means I think w8 desktop edition will be slow on a tablet unless it cuts out unneeded junk with either a special install for tablets , a special tablet edition or by using a beefed up verion of their phone OS.
thats all I said.

read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. and if you have used an w8 tablet how about being constructive and sharing the experience with the group.