Ubuntu Ports To ARM 279
nerdyH writes "Canonical will port Ubuntu Desktop Linux to the ARMv7 architecture. The announcement sets the stage for Intel to lose the traditional 'software advantage' that has enabled x86 to shrug off attacks from other architectures for the last 30 years. How long can it be before Microsoft responds with a Windows 7 port? I mean, x86 just can't do 'idle power' like ARM ... Nokia's N810 tablets can standby for several weeks, just like a cell phone, keeping you 'present' on IM, behind IPv4 NAT the whole time. The first Atom MIDs are standing by for 6-7 hours."
sounds to me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sounds to me... (Score:5, Funny)
More like (Score:3, Punny)!
Boo to both of us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At the time of posting, the parent was appropriately rated 3, Funny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well ARM not laughing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think Canonical will go through with it, but probably keep it at ARM's length.
sounds to me...Up in ARMs. (Score:5, Funny)
Well by ARMing Ubuntu, they'll be prepared to wage war on other OSs.
Re:sounds to me...Up in ARMs. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sounds to me... (Score:4, Funny)
Is the OP serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm misreading the tone of the summary. I honestly can't tell if it's is tongue-in-cheek or serious. The absurdity of it makes me think it's poking a little fun, but it reads to me like the guy was serious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's "hey, one can only hope". I know I do.
However, I think more important is that someone can now make a "netbook" without having to stick with intel, and still get a complete and modern desktop OS. An extra bonus would be the difficulties to switch to Windows XP.
Re: (Score:2)
I second these thoughts fully - I _WANT_ to see Ubuntu on ARM as a hobbyist.
Pandora (Score:4, Insightful)
I second these thoughts fully - I _WANT_ to see Ubuntu on ARM as a hobbyist.
Downside: It might make the next batch of Pandora [openpandora.org] preorders sell out that much faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, this is pretty cool for the Pandora [openpandora.org] project.
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
If for instance I produced a POS till system based on Linux it would be advantageous if I could run this on an ARM processor.
As Linux can run on many different platforms it also frees device manufactures to think differently about what computers can be in the future, and how they will be used in society (later versions of the OLPC set for 2010 are ebooks for example).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AMD had the Geode out first, which prompted Intel to counter with Atom and VIA to follow suit.
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Informative)
No, what NatSemi had bought was the craptacular MediaGX line from Cyrix, which was subsequently bought by AMD. "Geode" with AMD means the GX1 (Which is the NatSemi version...), the GX2 (now branded "LX"...), and the NX (which is a rebadged Athlon XP+ at extreme low power...).
The NX is AMD's answer to Intel's Pre-Atom embedded stuff (and was a good one...)- but AMD doesn't seem to have an Atom answer...yet.
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:4, Informative)
But the Athlon uses twice the power as an Atom 230 and is far from twice as fast. It is true that an AMD "system" can compete with the current Atom but this is only because of the horrible chipset used with the Atom. Package an Atom in a better "system" (like the Asus EEE Box) and you can drop the max system power usage to 20w.
Comparing the performance of the Athlon to an Atom 330 is a better comparison as both CPUs use 8w. In this situation, the Atom overpowers the Athlon in almost every benchmark.
Currently, the saving grace of the Athlon is that there are plenty of different options available to diy builders. The Atom is only available with a motherboard - and it's soldered on. Want firewire?, more then 2Gigs RAM?, better video?, - you're out of luck. The Atom is an amazing CPU but the Atom offerings are severely limited.
Re: (Score:2)
If for instance I produced a POS till system based on Linux it would be advantageous if I could run this on an ARM processor.
How? Via C7 processor will give you light power useage and you dont have to do anything special or recompile.
Plus why not simply use one of the 6 linux distros already made for that processor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Its proof the OP has about 0 idea what he is talking about. ARM CPUs are not meant to compete with the Desktop/Laptop CPUs, they often lack a lot of the features that those CPUs have. You won't see a whole ton of ARM based desktops anytime soon"
Where were desktops mentioned?
MIDS and netbooks are the target. But with netbooks being so popular, and high battery life being an issue, ARM could make inroads to intel's current netbook dominance. And even stop it entering the MID market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the target demographic for ARM is what will be affected by this, not a segment of the market that doesn't really have a keen interest in low-power high-performance processors.
It's much more interesting to figure out what a technology-combination will do than what it won't do.
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the Shark was more powerful (233MHz, which is roughly equivalent to a 466MHz x86 processor)
I had an iPaq PDA around that time with a 200MHz ARM CPU. I loaded Linux on it, ran some benchmarks, and I was saddened to find that its performance was not much better than a 33MHz 80486.
I'm not sure I believe your numbers since any 466MHz X86 would be a superscalar design, and AFAIK, ARM chips from that era aren't. The X86 in the Pentium-II timeframe would typically get a real-world throughput of one simple CISC operation per clock (using each of its multiple ALUs at about 50% efficiency), whereas the ARM
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, what opportunities does it open up that Debian on ARM doesn't? As you rightly point out, ARM platforms tend to be embedded, and in the embedded space the end user doesn't care about what distribution the developer used to build their system, since the distribution is usually completely hidden. In fact, there usually isn't a real distribution, since there's usually no way to provide updates or i
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't speak for the hardware vendors, but it does bring a stable release cycle. If you're basing off of Debian, do you plan for lenny or lenny+1, and what do you do when you slip, or when they slip? Several DDs seem to pride themselves on the fact that it ships "when its done". This is stupid for several reasons, the easiest of which to point out is that with no automated software testing, Debian only has a record of reported bugs, not all bugs. "Perfect" Debian releases is one more reason the software comes out later than sooner.
Canonical also likely brings something to the table, with their build infrastructure running on ARMs hardware. You might look at it like this: Canonical knows Debian well enough to hire and work with Debian when hardware vendors can't or don't. So yes, Ubuntu/Canonical isn't much different than Debian, but they're the go-to guy when you want Debian technology.
ARM was for Desktops, could be again (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, most current ARM cpus aren't much good for general computers (your run of the mill desktop or laptop). But don't forget that ARM was originally designed for use in Desktops, and derivatives of that design were for sale until a few months ago.
An ARM CPU could be great for a netbook or low power desktop -- the machines that currently use Intel's Atom. Multi-core ARM CPUs running >1GHz are on the way (or maybe they're already here, I haven't been keeping track), and they might easily have enough power (and power efficiency) for that task. Perhaps they'll be better suited than Atom.
The thing stopping non x86 platforms has always been software. FOSS avoids that problem -- if you have the source code then the program is only a compile away. Of course, Linux has long run on ARM CPUs, but open source programs weren't good enough substitues for what people wanted, so it didn't matter. Now, we may finally be approaching the point where people are willing to ditch their Windows, at least for simple tasks like the ones you'd do on netbook. Such an influential Linux distribution supporting ARM CPUs might finially make the platform viable.
Hell, perhaps a company planning an ARM based netbook asked Canonical to do this, and they saw the opportunity. This could be interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#History [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyonix_PC [wikipedia.org]
There will be problems with (Score:3, Insightful)
3D acceleration support, various binary-only drivers, flash player.
Also, it might take some time to tune browsers/JS engines on an arch with vastly different cache performance.
Of course all of this could get solved given some time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are confusing ARMv7 (which is the ISA of the current generation cortex CPUs (M3, R4, A8, A9) and the ARM7 (Which uses ARMv3).
Re: (Score:2)
If having a popular linux distribution support a processor was all it took to migrate "the droves" off x86 processors, we'd all be running PowerPC processors a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see this displacing x86 on the desktop anytime soon (x86 and x86-64 might outlive everyone here), but it could give x86 (and windows) some stiff competition in netbooks, MIDs, and other small stuff where keeping power consumption low (and thus battery life long while keeping weight and size low) is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe so.
Maybe the OP didn't know that Intel also makes ARM processors (the StrongARM arch).
Personally, I think this is just Canonical saying "let's get some small/low power ARM-based desktops out there, already!" - which is, IMO, a step in the right direction. ARM is more-or-less fast enough for most of what everyone does, especially with the arch's ability to have sub-processors for specific tasks.
No, this isn't an attack at Intel, so much as it is an attack at MS and a little something to encourag
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Intel sell their ARM/Xscale division to Marvell back in 2006?
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel has whored the x86 line almost to death. Microsoft, for it's part, has whored the Windows line to death - eg: Vista. The market has simply been 'fleshed-out.' There are new verticals to explore. The PC market has been played to death and that horse will continue to take a beating over the conceivable future; although, people are no longer fascinated by PCs or are no longer going to be woo'd by MS and Intel simply because they released a new OS/MB combination.
No one can doubt the success of Windows XP. IMHO, it was too successful. People have found a system that meets or exceeds their expectations/needs. We nerds can wax philosophic all we want, the market's trend is going another direction. Small appliances with enough power to complete the jobs people need completed will be performed by footprints that are smaller and smaller - both in terms of power consumption (THINK GREEN!!) and physical dimensions.
Maybe MS/Intel arn't worried - they should be. The next time you see a police car take a good look at all the digital equipment running inside that squad car. There are no less than 2 cameras in the cars now - 1 dash cam and 1 rear view mirror cam. Some cameras are actually built into the flashlights they use to blind you with as they approach your vehicle to site you. What kind of computers do you think are running that equipment? Let me tell you from experience: Whatever gets the job done! If they can get a free OS to perform it's job that is much more attractive to the designer/builder than the MS tax.
There are many markets yet to explore. Some young, financially-poor, hungry engineer is now currently exploring markets unbeknown to us. He's the guy hoping the giants stay asleep. The people who build his equipment also hope the giants stay asleep. As soon as someone's idea takes off, there will be many off-shoots that will be wanting to have a piece of undiscovered market share. Ti and companies like them are counting on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the OP serious about Ubuntu's port to ARM causing Intel to worry and Microsoft to follow suit?
Well, a couple of years ago it also wouldn't make much sense to claim that this little operating system kernel called linux would worry a software giant like Microsoft. Lo and behold, at this very moment we are seeing multiple multi-national OEM selling flagship products with linux-based operating systems.
Silly things have this strange habit of really happening in real life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True - after all, Debian has had an ARM port for years and that didn't have any earthshaking impact.
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Debian is a binary distribution, thus no end-user compilation is necessary. You're thinking of Gentoo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After a release, Debian does not alter packages with the exception of security updates. It's an intended policy. If you want something fresher, go elsewhere or use Sid. Note however, that Debian Stable is likely to be very secure, comparatively.
Re:Is the OP serious? (Score:4, Informative)
I've been using Debian Sid as my home operating system for years. I'm well aware that they offer source packages; I've used them myself. Naturally, if you want to install a source package you need to compile it on your own computer. However, this is true of any distribution, regardless of its style of package management. The statement I was responding to was "the CPU will never, ever go idle, it will always be compiling!", which applies (with a bit of hyperbole) to source-based distributions like Gentoo, but not to primarily binary ones like Debian, the presence of source packages notwithstanding.
Ubuntu Alone (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubuntu alone is not going to "set the stage for Intel to lose the "software advantage"", or anyone else for that matter, by switching to ARM.
Sure, a few thousand people will be able to switch to an ARM device without blinking, but the rest of the 99.9% of the worlds computer users won't give a flying piece of monkey poo.
Re:Ubuntu Alone (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubuntu alone is not going to "set the stage for Intel to lose the "software advantage"", or anyone else for that matter, by switching to ARM.
Sure, a few thousand people will be able to switch to an ARM device without blinking, but the rest of the 99.9% of the worlds computer users won't give a flying piece of monkey poo.
Really? All it took was a a tiny company in Cupertino, CA, a rogue division in Boca Raton, FL, and a tiny company in Albuquerque, NM, to change IBM's world.
Re:Ubuntu Alone (Score:5, Interesting)
> Ubuntu alone is not going to "set the stage for Intel to lose the "software advantage"",
> or anyone else for that matter, by switching to ARM.
You are missing the big picture. Go look at lilliputing.com's similar story. This is about netbooks. If Canonical is investing in a full port this tells us somebody bigger than the generic Chinese outfit we already know about is planning to introduce an ARM based netbook, which also is isn't news to we who have been paying attention because ARM themselves said as much weeks ago. We still don't know WHO this mystery major vendor is though.
> Sure, a few thousand people will be able to switch to an ARM device without blinking, but
> the rest of the 99.9% of the worlds computer users won't give a flying piece of monkey poo.
Have you used an EEEPC running their customized Xandros? It 'just works' and in the last month they have added a full repository where you can just click to add from a quickly growing list of additional apps. I haven't seen Ubuntu Netbook Remix yet but I'm confident that if they put their minds to it thay can produce a similarly seamless experience on a preloaded machine. And the end user won't even realize the machine isn't x86 compatible and won't care as long as it 'just works.'
The big change will be these new ARM netbooks won't have an option for XP. Some might get roughed up enough by Redmond to offer a WinCE option but who in their right mind would pick Pocket IE and Office viewers over a full Firefox and full version of OO.o?
WTF? If AMD64 can't do it with a full x86 core... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am reading this summary as a complete joke.
We are having problems moving to AMD64, and those processors include a full speed x86 compatibility mode. Until there is an ARM7 core that has a full x86 mode I don't think it is going to go anywhere on eliminating the "software advantage" of x86.
We can't even get such smallish things as flash to be offered in 64-bit mode, so what happens to larger Windows only stuff?
Plus Wine wouldn't work, since it isn't an emulator.
Re:WTF? If AMD64 can't do it with a full x86 core. (Score:4, Interesting)
there are flash plugins for ARM, mind :)
Wine CE (Score:2)
Plus Wine wouldn't work, since it isn't an emulator.
Some sort of "Wine CE" would probably work. Windows Mobile runs on ARM CPUs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You might have problems running x86 software on x86-64 operating systems on x86-64 CPUs. But many issues are specific to certain operating systems. Missing 64-bit browser plug-ins can be solved by running a 32-bit browser and 32-bit plugins. It's also possible t
Re: (Score:2)
We are having problems moving to AMD64
ORLY?
I run 64 for years now, and the _only_ problem I encountered was the lack of a Flash plugin, and I hope this will be rendered obsolete soon (theora, svg+js,)
Re:WTF? If AMD64 can't do it with a full x86 core. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gnuflash will come along. Flash is already available for some non-x86 architectures.
Who cares about windows-only stuff on a mobile internet device or a netbook?
As for the rest of Linux stuff, there are already arm ports of a hell of a lot of thing, debian runs fine on arm.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason x86 has a software advantage is that it runs Windows (and DOS). Linux and others have been made to run on anything from bicycle shoe strings to galactic overlords, but if you want to run (desktop) Windows, x86 is pretty much your only choice.
Re: (Score:2)
True, which is why, aside from a very small set of closed-source applications for Linux (Adobe Flash and EVE being the main ones that I use), the premise of the summary that Ubuntu being available for ARM is going to change anything on the desktop is qui
Re: (Score:2)
The only problems with AMD64 at the moment are related to legacy software and closed source software. Whilst the kernel and compiler obviously needed to be adapted, in user space land the changes weren't so great (an int is still 32 bits, etc.) Obviously sloppy pointer code also needed updating. But mainstream Linux distributions have supported AMD64 for years now.
You could probably run Wine under QEMU if you really w
Year of Linux on the Desktop? (Score:4, Funny)
Now that Ubuntu has finally ported to the ever-popular ARM architecture, maybe 2009 will be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A mere 10 bn processors shipped - yes, only 1e10. Wusses.
http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/18043/18043.html
Debian did it first (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm... so Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian, and Debian has supported ARM for like... forever. Ubuntu just hasn't followed suit until now.
Not to say this isn't significant. Just give Debian some credit.
Re:Debian did it first (Score:5, Informative)
Debian also has had SPARC, SPARC64, Itanium, Alpha, MIPS, etc. for years. What's the big deal?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well give credit to the Linux kernel, which runs on dozens of architectures, and other upstream software providers.
I've been hoping that free software would be the way out of the x86 mess, but with all the x86 netbooks and Apple's Intel switch, things look even worse than a few years ago. Netbooks in particular seemed exciting at first, being a niche where Linux is especially strong, but most of them are still based on x86 just so that you can still run bad old Windows.
Also, it seems to me tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Might as well give credit to GCC, that compiles to all those platforms which Linux is ported to, and some more.
It's GNU/Linux for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Well being that Ubuntu is a derivative distribution. But with more of a focus on Desktop use and Less on Server use. I would suspect there is still a fare amount of work to be done. Being a slower processor (and sorry Ubentu is not a super speed OS on low end systems, it is actually quite slow) So many of the default apps may need to be changed as well work in some apps to work better with the ARM platform, that Debien doesn't put in high priority. Just because you can port an App from one Architecture to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL says share the code, not share the credit.
The GPL [gnu.org] has a few requirements to "keep intact all notices".
Intel builds XScale (Score:2)
Xscale uses the ARM architecture and is built by Intel. So, either way Intel makes money.
Re:Intel builds XScale (Score:4, Informative)
Not anymore. Intel sold the XScale division to Marvell in 2006. Since then, Intel has been without a good low-power processor. None of their x86 designs has come close to what a fully static ARM core can achieve in terms of battery life.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: Intel didn't sell all of their ARM business, just the product lines relevant to PDAs, netbooks, etc. (And Intel is still doing the manufaturing on behalf of Marvell, so they will make some money.)
Really. (Score:4, Funny)
I see them doing this on the 7th of never.
N810 is AWESOME (Score:4, Interesting)
My Nokia n810 is everything I wanted my Newton 2100 to be several years ago:
- smaller
- color
- built-in board
- integrated wireless lan
However, it lacks much of what made the Newton lovable. Perhaps a full Ubuntu port will let me push the limits. Multi-touch X and an alternative window manager would do a lot.
We can run Android, but it's less than optimized for the n810.
We can also run Einstein (http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/07/if_iphone_is_too_closed_try_ne.html) for the full Newton experience.
What we need is the same level of hardware attention being paid to Atom, as in more specialized vendors producing high-performance ARM hardware. Someone please build an ARM device with HIGH Performance video, better clock speeds, more RAM and storage, and more expansion options (USB, Mini-PCI, etc..).
If I have to link it with a pocket-sized projector or external LCD panel, so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone please build an ARM device with HIGH Performance video, better clock speeds, more RAM and storage, and more expansion options (USB, Mini-PCI, etc..).
Then you'll have to wait for next year to order one of the second batch of the Pandora PDA [wikipedia.org]: 600 MHz ARM CPU, PowerVR GPU, 256 MB RAM, two USB 2.0 ports, two SDHC/SDIO slots, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth.
Mobile devices (Score:5, Interesting)
I never bought into the hype for all these years that we'd give up desktops and do most of our computing on mobile devices. The screens were too small, they all had unique software, didn't operate with another, and couldn't perform the tasks I need.
However I can take a Nokia i810 tablet, install KDE 4 and have a modern, fully function OS on it that can do anything my desktop can do, and interoperate with my desktop.
Seriously, now we're talking. Give me a slightly better tablet with 1 gig of memory and then I'm not sure I'd look at a laptop again.
not for nokia n810 (Score:2)
the nokia n800 and n810 tablets have ARMv6 processors, not ARMv7. sadly, this won't help us in the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#ARM_cores [wikipedia.org]
OP should be shot; N800 idle time (Score:4, Informative)
I own an N810 and this is such an exaggeration as to be patently false. Not even Nokia claims you can get that kind of battery life out of these.
An N810 can only go about 48 hours between each charge. And that's if the bluetooth and wifi radios are turned off and all programs are exited. If the battery is new, you might get up to three days.
If you have the wifi radio on and are idling on IM, I'd expect that you could maybe get 12 hours of infrequent use and even that might be pushing it.
When actively using the device (browsing the web, listening to a stream, etc), the CPU kicks in and you'll get between 4 and 6 hours of use depending on what you're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not so. I routinely get over a week of standby out of my 810 (far better than from my 800). In fact, I left town for almost two weeks and left the 810 in my glove box powered on. Came back, opened the glove box, good to go. My own first hand experience.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've left mine in a drawer for several days connected to WiFi with occasional RSS feed synchronization during that time. I have no idea what WiFi chip is in the N800/N810, but it is possible for many of these parts to power down completely while still associated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
WiFi gives me only a few hours
Nonsense. Wifi in the n800 can stay connected for days. It does some very clever power management. When i ssh to it, it can take a few seconds (and packet retransmissions) to get through.
Bluetooth is good too. If I keep an internet connection via my Nokia phone, the phone battery dies in less than a day, but the N800 is still strong.
No point in Windows on ARM7 (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no point in doing this. The reason people install Windows on their x86-based netbooks is so they can make use of the existing selection of Windows software titles. In the non-x86 world, there is no such thing, so the advantage goes to Linux.
YES!!, now were talk'n (Score:3, Insightful)
ARM kicks ass.
They really have made an excellent platform for making pda's/laptops and desktops, but few have really taken advantage of it so far. Just Set top boxes, and embedded platforms, which is where I have been using them.
I just don't understand why OLPC didn't use ARM...
Clarification of what ARMv7 means (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of people are getting mixed up, and/or saying "big deal Debian already supports it". ARM has a slightly confusing numbering scheme: ARM7, ARM9, ARM11, Cortex-A8 are processor models, whereas ARMv4, ARMv5, ARMv6, ARMv7 are their respective architecture versions.
Pretty much all current ARM devices are ARM9 or ARM11 based (smartphones, Nokia's internet tablets, etc). This means they are too old to run this :)
The Pandora, and other upcoming devices, are based on the Cortex-A8, an ARMv7 architecture processor and the most recent ARM currently generally available: this is what Ubuntu are targeting here.
Debian's ARM port is for any ARMv4t or higher currently, which includes ARM11, ARM9 and even ARM7TDMI. This is rather suboptimal for chips like the Cortex-A8 which have many, many more instructions available, so Ubuntu are indeed doing something different here.
ARM idle power beats x86? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure about that? Intel have been working on Atom and say it's better than ARM now [itexaminer.com],
Even back in April, atom had an idle power range of 80-100mW. [intel.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT [wikipedia.org] has had versions on "IA-32, AMD64, MIPS R4000, Alpha, PowerPC, and Itanium", but mostly the earlier versions, like 3.1 and 3.51, with XP on Itanium.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the stone age, NT 3.x and 4 ran on a couple of architectures, MIPS and Alpha.
I never saw anyone use it, anyone remember how well it worked?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NT 4.0 on a 128MB, 533MHz DEC Alpha workstation was actually solid and effortless.
I just hated that NT 4 removed video DMA, it broke a few of my other software programs but that got fixed with the release of 2000, by which time DEC was alreday going down and thus wasn't supported in the new NT iteration.
Re: (Score:2)
Has any desktop version of windows been ported to any other architecture? Methinks not, it would seem porting something as complex as windows to a completely different architecture would be an insurmountable task.
Actually Windows NT was developed on other platforms, then ported to x86. It was originally released with support for x86, MIPS and Dec Alpha. NT 3.5 added support for PowerPC.
IIRC the MIPS and PowerPC ports were dropped fast, the Alpha port was supported thru all the service packs for NT4. It's only since Win2K that they've dropped the other platforms.
Though according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] the Win2k Alpha port was almost finished.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Windows NT was originally developed with portability in mind [wikipedia.org]. It has been ported to (at least) MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, x86, x86-64, and Itanium. However, only x86, x86-64, and Itanium versions have been released since Windows 2000. The Alpha port was planned/developed for Windows 2000 but never released, and I've read rumors of Xbox 360 demos/development running on PowerPC chips running some port of Windows NT.
Microsoft already has compilers for (at least) x86, x86_64, Itanium, MIPS, ARM, PPC, SH3, a
Re: (Score:2)
Windows (server editions) currently run on X86/64, and Itanium, which is a completely different architecture. I'm not sure if they have a Vista or XP for Itanium, but I know the servers run.
Re:Netbooks (Score:5, Funny)
That was 2008, now it's the Year After The Year For Linux, which is incidentally The Year That Microsoft Still Doesn't Care, which is also the year before The Year Microsoft Got Knocked Out Because They Weren't Paying Attention To Open Source. This is all part of the Decade Of Users Realizing Software Can't Always Be Spoon Fed To Them If They Want To Like What They Taste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who the heck wants to run Windows?
People who have clients or suppliers that use (the advanced features of) Microsoft Office. People who play indie video games or game mods (because consoles don't have mods). People who live in areas where the only banks use ActiveX for individual accounts (I've heard this is the case in parts of the Republic of Korea).
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason indie videogames can't move to linux.
Hell, pcsx2, the ps2 emulator, does both.
Re: (Score:2)
WRT office: are there advanced features of Office that only work in windows and not on their Mac version or through Codeweavers?
Dialog boxes in em, not px (Score:2)
can you see yourself being comfortable clicking a 10pixel OK button on a 225dpi screen?
Windows dialog box elements aren't specified in screen pixels. Instead, they're specified in "dialog units", which are effectively a fraction of an em. If I set the monitor to 192 dpi, which is twice the common DPI on Windows, the OK button will be bigger.
Re:Don't get so excited (Score:4, Informative)
Nokia's N810, which is an ARM device, comes with Flash 9. Not some stripped down mobile version either, but the full thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash is great for vector animation, but it doesn't offer any advantages when it comes to web video.
It has the advantage of a huge install base.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would appear to me that Flash is crippling web browsing, as it stands. Its slow, very bloated, and doesn't handle well on older hardware. The lack of Flash ability hardly cripples the web, either - not unless your "web use" is centered around Flash games, email, and IM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhhhhhhh, Gnash has been in the last three Ubuntu distros, and http://mojo.handhelds.org/ [handhelds.org] has compilations of Gnash, so you can indeed run Flash on ARM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ARM7 != ARMv7.
ARM7 is a family of cores. ARMv7 on the other hand is the latest ARM architecture version. The Cortex A8 and A9 are ARMv7 cores.
For example the Nokia N810 has a core from the ARM11 family, specifically ARM1136J. It is based on the ARMv6 architecture. The next Nokia device has been announced to be based on Texas Instrument's OMAP3 platform, which includes the new Cortex A8 (same as Pandora and Beagleboard).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does anyone have any idea what reference platform they are using to develop this and if there is a way for me to obtain it relatively cheaply?
My bets are on the beagle board [beagleboard.org] as it is super cheap (and they have a posting on their front page about Canonical porting to arm7).
The beagle board is an awesome bang for the buck. I'm thinking of asking my work to grab one for me with the next digikey shipment (free shipping, woohoo).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3) if you want to stay connected with the net (IM presence, mail moniroring), battery life is 6-7 hours max. Just looking at it eats battery.
One of your apps is badly behaved then. I get days with email and VoIP (SIP) running on the N800. And the N810 is supposed to be better. Do you use the bundled mail and IM clients?