Three reasons Microsoft shouldn't port Windows to the ARM processor

Quoting:1. It will hurt its close partner, Intel Corp.

Awwww, poor Intel.

Quoting:Intel is fighting back against ARM's attempts to move upmarket from smartphones into netbooks, which would further cannibalize Intel's PC chip sales.

Cannibalize? I thought it refers to a competition between products of the same company.

Quoting:If Microsoft ports Windows XP or 7 to ARM, Castellano envisions retaliatory moves from Intel, such as actively optimizing its x86 CPUs to run Linux better than Windows.

Analysts are funny!

Quoting:Not well known to the general public is the fact that Microsoft already has a successful platform that works with ARM called Windows Embedded Compact, formerly known as Windows Embedded CE, formerly and better known as Windows CE.

Well, yeah, but I can't imagine anyone using it on anything larger than a phone. And even then...

There's actually just one reason, somewhat similar to point 2 in the article: it's practically impossible. And that's why we should encourage Microsoft to try it and bleed out ;)

The other thing that I thought was ********* in that article was this:

Quoting: Castellano agreed. ARM netbooks won't become popular for at least several years, giving Microsoft time to retool Windows Mobile and make it work well on netbooks.

If this Freescale iMX515 and other Cortex based devices do enable people to make Netbooks with eight hour battery life, ARM netbooks will take a few weeks to become popular.

And we can prime the pump with this overly-simple question:

Which can go longer between charges, an Intel-based netbook or an ARM-based cell phone?

@gus: That's easy. More interesting is a comparison between an ARM-based netbook and an intel-based phone. I think ARM would still win that one.

Well, it's easy for us, but that line of thinking ("Why would I want a computer that isn't Intel or AMD?") isn't something your typical computer purchasers will consider without some prompting. So, take something that's already in their experience, and build on that.

Quoting:More interesting is a comparison between an ARM-based netbook and an intel-based phone. I think ARM would still win that one.

Sander, if LXer asked for samples to do this test, do you think they'd provide us with the tools? Sounds like a really fun 'benchmark' I sure would like to be part of. However, at this moment I'm not aware of Intel-based phones.

Which by the way is rather stupid, because annually about half a billion phones are sold IIRC.

And of course we'd like to pitch the ARM against some VIA alternative, just for the sake of involving alternatives.

Quoting:Well, it's easy for us, but that line of thinking ("Why would I want a computer that isn't Intel or AMD?") isn't something your typical computer purchasers will consider without some prompting. So, take something that's already in their experience, and build on that.

I had always wondered why Intel wasted money on expensive adverts like the Blue Men series as the average end user doesn't even know what processor is in their PC. (If I ask the vast majority of people whose PCs have problems that need fixing, they just don't know.) .

However, maybe they knew what they were doing if the ARM architecture does start to push its nose into the market. Maybe, just maybe, that Intel inside logo and the annoying jingle will have paid off.

Quoting:August 26, 2010

In a presentation at Stanford's Hot Chips conference on Tuesday, ARM added a few more drops to the trickle of information that's coming out which suggests that the UK-based mobile and embedded processor designer is very seriously pursuing the server market.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/08/arm-virtualizat...

Quoting: September 20, 2009

Unfortunately for ARM's netbook ambitions, Linux is the only netbook OS that matters that runs on ARM, and the jury's still out on whether it can really take on Windows 7. As for Windows on ARM, it just ain't gonna happen, ever.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/09/arm-attacks-ato...