Submitted by With a flood of ARM-based netbooks coming to the market starting somewhere end of this year, many hope it will be another opportunity for Linux to get some mainstream exposure. Since “normal” Windows doesn’t run on ARM, Linux is the only obvious choice. Right? Well, Warren East, president and CEO of ARM Holdings plc, has been dropping hints that Windows might make its way to ARM after all. At least, that’s what EETimes is concluding.
I find “dropping hints” far too strong a designation for the comments highlighted by EETimes. During a conference call, East said that “Microsoft will continue to play an important part in this [netbook] space. If there was Windows support for the ARM processor today clearly it would be a very different marketplace.” He then added: “Perhaps there will be support in future but that’s really for Microsoft to comment on and not for us to comment on, I’m afraid.”
From this, the EETimes concludes that Windows 7 might make its way onto the ARM architecture so that it can be used on all those netbooks coming out later this year. I find this a rather weird conclusion, simply because offering a version of Windows 7 for ARM would only be a very tiny part of the puzzle.
Because Linux relies on open source technology, getting it and all its applications to run on ARM is elementary – in fact, many distributions are already hard at work on full-blown ARM variants. For the Windows platform, all this is a lot more difficult, probably impossible. Even when you make the enormous assumption that Windows 7 will indeed be ported to run on ARM, what about Office? What about all of Microsoft’s other software packages? And that’s just Microsoft – what about the immense pool of 3rd party applications for the Windows platform?
The article on the history of OS migration Kroc covered a few days ago might bring some solutions, as it details several techniques used in the past, but I find it highly improbable that Microsoft would go through all the trouble of setting up one of those solutions for a currently completely non-existent segment of the market.
While some may hope for Windows 7 for ARM, it most likely won’t happen any time soon.
I’m pretty sure Windows Mobile works great on ARM. I know what you’re thinking ” but that’s only for phones”. Yeah, but that isn’t stopping android either.
I also doubt windows 7 ever making it to ARM, but Microsoft certainly has some ARM experience.
WinCE is not just for phones. Drive Ford car? It’s likely powering your car
It powers GPS, it… you know i was going to give off this giant! list, but lets jsut say it powers things from trafic lights to the guidance system in some of our offensive missiles. I think Systron Donner used it as their guidance system OS
Thank you for reminding me not to buy a new Ford. I am sure that, that nice Mr. Putin is breathing a sigh of relief that it is powering the guidance system in your offensive weapons.
Very offensive indeed.
yeah, because the OS is just shit no matter what you do to it because you have personally had bad experiences and/or had to help people with big issues and hear about viruses and worms and security breaches on the /desktop/ version of the OS.
*rolls eyes*
chrysler vehicles mygig(now uconnect) is QNX :p made by harmon becker
Thanks my last two vehicles have been Chryslers. I will get another if they survive. Minivans made in Canada from Canadian steel.
and QNX is god, I really do mean that. I am pretty sure its the OS that powers the universe.
My Fujitsu GPS Navigational unit has a sticker on the back claiming it’s running Windows CE. I wonder if it’s possible to hack it and see if I can access its real shell (Windows Explorer)
There is a reason why Tomtom is regarded being one of the best Car GPS systems out tehre, it does not use WinCE and therefore being faster and stable…
The average WinCE car navigation system is relatively slow and crashes way too often (there are exceptions however)
This is not Soviet Russia. We demand sources.
ROFL…that is a good one. Indeed, although I know Linux is considered rock-stable when it comes to embedded devices, I always wondered if a stripped down version of Windows or Windows CE can do a similar job, without any errors. Sadly, there seems to be no benchmarks or detailed tests out there comparing the two… 😐
My friends built in navigation freaks out sometimes, freezing the whole car’s entertainment/navigation & entertainment controls. The car lucky still works fine, but he has to disconnect the car’s battery to get the system to reboot. Not sure what OS.
Windows CE on ARM: VERY LIKELY!!!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b5/WinCE_3.0_for_Handhel…
this was version 3. its come a long way since then and GUI wise it looks like XP in clasic mode (sexy) as a desktop OS. Has HUGE power savings (way better than linux, its the truth, these CE devices are ment to be on for days, not hours). Best of all, many* .NET apps would compile for it.
Problem: Win CE 7 isn’t out yet, and thats the one thats going to kick ass and take names. Other issue, not Win32 compatible (who cares).
The good: Win CE ships with everythign you need and has TONS! of software (including alternate browsers, games, utilities, etc…) and have build in media player (windows media) with a whide variety of codes suported. Also there is Microsoft office for CE, and its not shabby.
The bad: …Theire are currently not plans at MS to impliment such a thing. I have personally asked Mike Hall (though this was some time ago) about something like this, he didn’t seem excited about it like i am. (prove me wrong Mike, prove me wrong).
With the right BSP creting your custom CE image for your x86 based low power computer is easy* and worth it. I really hope MS pursues this with WinCE 7
I sure hope windows mobile 7 is more stable than 6.x, especially if it’s going to see wide use on netbooks. Windows CE itself is just the base upon which an embeded CE-based os can be built, however, so there’s nothing saying that a device based on Windows CE has to use Windows Mobile, and CE itself seems stable. As is typical with Microsoft, the kernel is pretty good… the userland sucks.
Microsoft is working on singularity right now – people are thinking it’ll become a replacement for Windows where I think you might end up seeing it being the replacement for Windows CE and Windows Embedded.
For me, I have no personal hatred against Microsoft or Windows; what frustrates me is the lack of attention to details rather than monumental faults in the system itself.
Getting back to Arm, I’d say if they do have a plan – they are already working on a solution to it but I think it’ll turn out to be too little too late when it comes to ARM.
Just an interesting side note; vodafone NZ is selling mobile broadband bundles with a netbook in a 24 month contract. It’ll be interesting to see how ARM, Microsoft and mobile phone companies are going to work together to come up with packages for end users. People might boohoo the whole ‘well, the data allowance is small’ but the reality is that the vast majority don’t use gigabytes upon gigabytes. My parents has 3gb allowance per month and would be lucky to use it all. So the new ‘outlet’ for these netbooks in the future will be as a mobile device being sold by mobile phone companies.
Hey where’s that article you said you were going to do about custom building WinCE for the desktop (X86)? I’m still curious as to what could be done on my ASUS EeePC 901…
–bornagainpenguin
Not only has CE 7 not been released yet, I think that something like 6.5 has been delay and not even released yet.
I think you are confusing Windows Mobile versions with Windows CE versions.
The current version of Windows Mobile is 6.1, based on Windows CE version 5.2. I cant seem to find any information on what CE version is behind Windows Mobile 6.5, but it’s unlikely to be greater than 5.5.
It will be a long while yet before CE makes it to version 7.
I just bought some stock in ARM Holdings and I hope Microsoft stays the hell away. I’ll take my profits from the all the other licensers, thank you very much.
Toshiba just bought a license for their security based chips and Apple will probably also be using ARM for their current and future gadgets. Go ARM!
hate to burst your bubble slick but MS and ARM are good friends.
http://search.arm.com/search?q=Microsoft&spell=1&access=p&output=xm…
Good friends? I doubt that. But I’m sure ARM will take Microsoft’s money.
I doubt it. More likely migrating to Power.
Now, that would be rather ironic. Apple migrated off of PowerPC, only to migrate back to that architecture again just on different devices. I can’t help but find something kind of funny in that.
I wonder why they would choose PowerPC, the ARM guys have all kinds of System-on-Chip based solutions with GPU options and all kinds of in hardware decoders which all save power (more efficient than software) and shutdown when not needed anymore if I’m not mistaken.
*shrug* explain why Apple would buy a company that designs Power SoCs and is now hiring CPU engineers.
Well, I did not know that. I just knew they bought chip-engineers, that could be for anything, not just CPU’s.
The bought them because they were a cheap way to acquire a very talented group of processor engineers. They have guys that worked on Alpha, Strongarm, Sparc, Opteron, etc. If you think those guys couldn’t turn around and build an awesome processor with a different ISA then you’ve got your head up your ass.
sp, processor architect
Except Apple hasn’t made such devices with Power in the past so the statement is completely incorrect.
Wasn’t MS building an OS based on a managed kernel and drivers for the next version of windows mobile? Wouldn’t that be the appropriate platform for them for ARM (.NET everywhere)
Windows CE or “normal” Windows ported to ARM will have no significative advantages over linux on these netbooks.
Why ? Because the only significative advantage of windows over linux is the capability to run x86 or x86_64 binary and proprietary programs. Windows on ARM will not have this ability.
Linux is more modular, has many diferent possibilities of GUI customization and is more secure and is immune to windows malwares.
Windows CE is modular, has lots of GUI customization options, and is immune to desktop windows malware.
blah blah blah
But linux is superior to Windows CE in almost all features, it is free as beer, it already has many programs and it is not only a gadget OS like windows CE.
Windows user will want the full “windows experience”, which means install the popular and old x86 binary programs. If they cannot do this, linux will be an alternative and cheaper solution than Windows CE solution.
Ok I understand the necessity of Linix on ARM but seriously, why in the world would someone want Windows on ARM? I am ignorant in this field so what’s the advantage of an ARM based Windows 7 over an Intel one? You will still end up paying for a Windows license which will increase the price of the computer.
If you are willing to run Windows you may as well go with Intel/AMD over ARM, something that you know will work well, it is well supported and it’s fast.
If you run Android or Linux, I fully understand the need for it.
This is just my opinion.
Edited 2009-05-02 03:53 UTC
Netbooks are not about fast, they’re about being extremely portable and long battery life. Something ARM still has a huge leap over anything else. I agree about wanting to run Windows. IMO it is a completely stupid, but Windows (l)users want that garbage.
They will be utterly dissappointed, no matter if the vendor goes towards windows xp for arm or wince, what they really want is to get the binary compatibility to windows xp for intel. This cannot be done (emulation is way too slow on ARM)
So what they will end up is a windows machine unable to run their latest warez they get from their friends, this is worse than linux where they at least have a software pool tailored towards their distribution and processor. So any vendor going towards such a thing will get a load of returns from users wanting to buy a windows machine!
Well there is no advantage, the funny thing is those stupid tech journalists think probably once it is ported everything else runs. They do not have a clue that windows being ported only does not help at all that all the software ecosystem has to be ported as well.
But oh well thank god windows is ported…
I’m sorry, but this is old news, this is the same quote they had 2 months ago from the same guy.
Windows apps, for the most part, are distributed as binary executables.
Windows apps, for the most part, are separate from Windows itself.
A significant percentage of Windows apps, and drivers, plugins and codecs and the like, are not written by Microsoft.
Its all about the apps.
If Microsoft did port Windows 7 to ARM, it would be an expensive and closed OS for ARM which did not work with a lot of hardware, and one with no applications to speak of available for it.
… it will be very funny when customers will return their arm/winmo to the retailer saying “i can’t install my msoffice/nero/dvdshrink/whatever_appli that a friend of mine borrow me, give me a real windows”
i hope user when learn that computer!windows …
remind me the linux netbook return rates …
Spot on. In the mind of the normal consumer things like Windows CE … and by extension putting the ARM processor in netbooks, will relegate them right back into being the stupid little ‘toys’ things like the Psion Netbook were – cute, but ultimately either returned by angry consumers or relegated to the back of the sock drawer along with the Geode powered thin clients, all those winCE 1.x and 2.x handhelds that you only actually used for a couple weeks, the atari portfolio, and noodle-doodle products like the “New Internet Computer”.
There really are two big problems ARM is going to face in the netbook market:
First is overcoming the public perception of ARM based netbooks as “upsized handhelds” instead of the “downsized notebooks” that make the intel based ones so popular. ARM based chips have been put in endless crappy slow handhelds for a decade – giving it a reputation that is going to be hard for it to shake.
Second is the mindshare that x86 Windows has… a mindshare which is the reason so much effort goes into backwards compatability in windows, WINE for *nix flavors, is why Parallels for the MAC sells like hotcakes and why even Apple provides a mechanism for booting Windows on their products.
Of course that mindshare would likely be easier to beat if Open source software for the desktop didn’t consistantly come across as tinkertoys compared to their windows equivalents – with the possible exception of Firefox, VLC and maybe blender it’s a fairly accurate description of the state of open source applications, where most of it, even the desktop managers no matter how pretty and fancy the graphics or visual effects, from a functionality standpoint feel like a trip in the wayback machine to windows 3.1
Though, that windows XP seems faster and more stable than linux on everything from the crappy little first gen sub-ghz intel mobile’s right up to the dual core atom doesn’t help. Long gone are the days of linux being smaller/faster – assuming such days ever REALLY existed. Having watched this **** for about fifteen years now, I still say it NEVER did – More secure, more stable – FINE, I can agree to that. Faster? LEANER? IN YOUR DREAMS!!!
Though 99% of that can be blamed on X and not Linux itself. If X itself didn’t suck so bad everyone and their brother wouldn’t be developing their own toolkits and WM’s to sit between it and applications to actually make it USABLE!
Edited 2009-05-03 07:39 UTC
errrr, just no.
before the iphone era, when i showed people my phone, an htc blue angel, they always think “wow! this guy has the same computer (winxp) that i have i my desk, but portable!!!”
just because my phone was a pda with a big screen, a keyboard, and it cannot fit in a pocket (wich is wrong, i put this in my pocket …), the internet was in, and most of it, windows was on it.
now, when people will see arm/winmo netbook, they will see: a big screen, a keyboard, it can’t fit in a pocket and certainly not calling people (phone app), so it’s a computer, like a winxp notebook ….
Edited 2009-05-03 09:47 UTC
What on earth are you on about?
Linux beats Windows on the same hardware in every single aspect, including the quality of desktop applications.
This is not Soviet Russia. We demand sources for statements of fact.
(1) So in Soviet Russia they don’t demand sources for statements of fact? Is that what you are saying? I think you got it backwards from what you intended, or something.
(2) Why did you not post the same demand for the garndparent unsupported statement, which was this utterance: “Though, that windows XP seems faster and more stable than linux on everything from the crappy little first gen sub-ghz intel mobile’s right up to the dual core atom”.
I demand sources for BS FUD such as that.
PS: BTW … OK, sources:
http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33
http://ubuntulinuxhelp.com/why-is-linux-faster-than-windows/
http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows…
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/what-makes-l…
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/why-linux-still-runs-faster-tha…
Quality of applications? You won’t find anything on your menus after you have installed Windows that can touch most of these:
http://tuxarena.blogspot.com/2009/05/top-10-kde4-applications.html
Edited 2009-05-03 12:13 UTC
Quality of applications:
My install of Kubuntu Jaunty also has these out of the box:
http://www.openoffice.org/
http://about.openoffice.org/index.html
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/customize/
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/security/
http://okular.kde.org/
Whereas I looked at a XP netbook recently, and out of the box it included a 30-day trial version (trial version!! how lame!!) of MS office and it also included IE6 crapware. Windows didn’t have a PDF viewer at all.
The quality of Windows distribution applications comes nowhere close to Linux distributions.
PS: Remember, the topic of this thread is Windows on ARM. If Microsoft ported Windows to ARM, what you would get is the Windows desktop OS and lame applets like Notepad, Wordpad, Calc and Paint.
http://www.osnews.com/thread?361402
Whereas is Ubuntu was ported to ARM … then one would get Ubuntu, which is a hundred times more functional.
… actually a port of Ubuntu to ARM is already underway.
Edited 2009-05-03 12:45 UTC
Which is exactly what my article states.
So what is your beef? Where is your problem?
Those are all fine links, but they are not sources to back up a factual statement. I think you need a lesson in the difference between “fact” and “opinion”.
“Linux applications are better than Windows applications” is an opinion.
“Ubuntu comes with more functionality out of the box than Windows does” is a statement, which can become fact by providing the proper sources to back this claim up. However, in this specific statement sources are not required, since we all know this to be true.
The statement you made is an opinion, and the links you provided do nothing to turn that opinion into fact – they only back up your opinion. My own opinion is that if I were to look at the quality of applications, I’d say Mac OS X is the best *overall*, then Windows, then Linux. However, this is just my opinion. It’s not fact.
It’s a subtle difference that’s hard to grasp, especially for fanatics, but there you have it.
Edited 2009-05-03 12:47 UTC
The statement to which I responded was also opinion, yet you had no qualms with it.
I provided several links backing up my opinion.
You have nothing.
Furthermore, on the same hardware, benchmarks will show that Linux beats or equals the best performance of Windows … and it absolutely spanks Vista. (Vista won’t even run on a netbook, for example, but Linux will, quite nicely thankyou.) We all know all this to be true, too (as do the people who run supercomputers, or those who run high-performance databases, or critical web servers, or low-resource embedded devices), so where is the rub? What has got up your goat?
We are talking about a “port to ARM” … by one party.
If you took the OS and all the software that could be ported (ie. one party has to have all the source code, and rights to distribute it, in one place) … the order would be:
Linux
…
daylight
…
Mac OSX
Windows.
Easily.
Self evidently true.
Edited 2009-05-03 13:05 UTC
What opinion am I trying to profess here, then? The one in the article is one you agree with… The one I mentioned in my comment… Well, I don’t feel the need to seek confirmation for my own opinions all the time. Oh, and application quality is such an enormously inherent subjective thing that you can provide ten billion links either way, and you still wouldn’t convince anybody either way. It’s pointless.
I’m sure of it.
I guess I’m living in some alternate universe then, since I used Vista on my Aspire One quite nicely whythankyou. Sure, it took a few months of updates and a service pack, but hey, we’re there now. Fanatics like you are still stuck in January 2007.
…?
What are you on about? Supercomputers? What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Mandarin foxtrot application wooden floor cat banana table stone car bicycle left field! So there!
Performance. Scalability. Portability to different platforms. Reliability.
All required for supercomputers, large high-performance servers, mundane servers, workstation class machines, desktops, notebooks, netbooks, PDAs, mobile phones and even lesser embeded devices.
Oh … and soon to come ARM netbooks as well.
Performance. Scalability. Portability. Reliability. That is to say … quality. Software quality.
Linux has it, Windows doesn’t.
In spades.
Edited 2009-05-03 13:20 UTC
As always, once your error in thinking has been pointed out (namely, presenting opinion as fact), you are trying to weasel your way out of your original statement by coming up with a seemingly similar, but actually completely different statement.
You said that Linux applications were better than Windows applications. That’s your original statement. Now, you are focussing on ONE specific, tiny aspect (portability) and applying it to ONLY Linux – not its applications. You were talking about application quality – not software quality.
God you’d make a good politician.
Edited 2009-05-03 13:28 UTC
Pfft.
Nice try at deflection, but you missed your target.
To illustrate … I pointed out to you that even though I made a statement of opinion, so too did the poster I responded to. Yet you seem to have issue only with the fact that I made a statement of opinion, yet you apparently had no issue at all with the original poster.
In the interim, I have posted copious support for my opinion, you have nothing at all … yet you are now lamely trying to get back to complaining about the fact that I made a statement of opinion … on a discussion board … and on topic to boot.
WTF ??
Over. And goodnight, I’m going to bed.
Edited 2009-05-03 13:41 UTC
Thom, you might as well give up. There’s no arguing with a zealot… even if it is amusing to watch them weasel and fidget back and forth once you get ’em in a logical bind.
What was the point of that? Thom was outpointed every which way and had no comeback, and tried two or three times to deflect the issue, yet you claim that it was the other way around? Amazing.
Then you claim that the party with the facts and the backup, the supporting opinion, the non-accusing party, the defendant against unfounded and clearly selectively applied accusation in the first palce, is the “zealot”?
Get real.
Edited 2009-05-04 02:50 UTC
You did not present facts. You presented opinions that were basically the same as yours, that does not mean they are facts. But then again, you rarely seem to comprehend the difference between the two.
Pfft.
Those are not facts? Why are they not facts? What is it about those facts that makes them somehow non-factual?
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/why-linux-still-runs-faster-tha…
That part highlighted in italics are not facts? Why should real-world reports of the poor performance of Windows compared with Linux on the same hardware be discounted as facts? I’m really curious to hear why you would think that.
Actually, you won’t find much at all in the way of useable applications on your menus after you have installed Windows. So a port of what is on a Windows install CD to ARM won’t make for a functional netbook … compared with a port of what is on a Kubuntu\Ubuntu install CD.
That, unequivocably and undeniably, is a fact.
PS: Don’t bother trying to claim “but you can just download any applications for Windows (missing after first install) from the net”. You can’t do that for Windows on ARM … Windows applications on the net are almost invariably x86 binary only.
Edited 2009-05-05 03:49 UTC
Haiku is comming to ARM!
http://www.haiku-os.org/gsoc2009_announced_students
:p
Please leave the Microsoft bloat-pig out of (H)ARM’s way. What is the need to port it to ARM! just wait until you need a f*ckin’ antivirus (beacuse you WILL need one sooner or later)and you’ll consume resources, rendering it uselessly slow. Never really understood the NEED of such unsecure,ill-ridden, expensive and close software. People are presented with an (almost perfect) alternative and they are afraid (or too incompetent) to take it.
Microsoft…just roll over and die over the ARM segment and architecture…it’s just too good and promising for you to screw it up.
Microsoft’s mobile operating system is worse than their desktop operating system. Have you ever used a Windows Mobile phone? Awful.
Yeah, but I’ve seen worse… like Openmoko, for example. Wm 6.1 isn’t as bad as some earlier releases–still buggy, of course, but as typical with Microsoft it’s built on a good kernel with a userland that was designed by someone smoking something very potent.
A quick summary of Microsoft’s attempts at ODF support in their updated Windows Office 2007 SP2 would be “Epic FAIL”.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090503215045379
Every other software vendor who has made an attempt at ODF support, including the Microsoft-sponsored effort from CleverAge does a far, far better job than Microsoft.
Incompetent? Or deliberate?
Can we expect a similar result for a port of Windows to ARM?