News & Analysis
Comment
panzerboy
Don't confuse the performance of ARM implemenatations, optimsed for low power ...
Tunrayo
Intel is at risk
Intel: ARM gets Windows four ways
Rick Merritt
5/17/2011 7:53 PM EDT
SAN JOSE – Microsoft's move to put Windows on ARM processors will result in a fragmented set of four environments, none of which will run legacy PC Windows apps, said Intel executives. Separately Intel said it will roll out this fall software from McAfee to enable a new level of security on its processors.
Supporting Windows 8 could cost ARM companies billions, said Intel chief executive Paul Otellini at an annual analyst meeting here. Microsoft announced in January its next version of Windows will support ARM chips.
"Yes, the ARM guys are getting a port to Windows, but it's really four ports [because] every OS has to be written to a chip so Microsoft is really doing four ports of Windows to ARM," he said.
Otellini did not describe the four versions of Windows for ARM. He showed slides suggesting they could be targeted to specific versions of the ARM core or SoC implementations of the cores from ARM licensees.
Renee James, general manager of Intel's software and services group described two major variants of Windows 8—a traditional PC version and for versions for ARM SoCs.
The PC version will support legacy PC apps and have a Windows 7 compatibility mode, she said. The ARM SoC versions deliver a new mobile experience optimized for tablet and clamshell systems and "will not be running legacy apps not now or ever," James said.
The ARM SoC version of Windows 8 will also run on Intel's x86 chips, she said. Intel has no intentions of using its license to build ARM chips, added Otellini.
Separately, Intel will roll out in the third quarter software from McAfee for creating trusted operating system or virtual machine environments. The software resides below the level of the OS or hypervisor and extends to those environments the hardware root of trust built into Intel's chips.
Intel has long supported the hardware root of trust defined by the Trusted Computing Group, an industry standards alliance. But to date major operating systems such as Windows have not enabled extending that level of security beyond the hardware.
"We can harden the system architecture to dramatically minimize the growing malware threat," said David DeWalt, president of Intel's McAfee subsidiary, officially acquired in late February. "There is no way we can watch malware growth with the same security model" in use today, he said.
Enabling the CPU-based security model was on rationale for Intel's $7.68 billion bid to acquire McAfee, a deal announced in August. The group now makes up 34 percent of Intel's 9,000-person software and services unit.
McAfee is also moving quickly to extend its software with Intel's help into new x86 and embedded designs. Intel already announced it is embedding McAfee security agents into the kernel of VxWorks and other products from its Wind River subsidiary.
|
|
|
|
|
resistion
5/17/2011 9:13 PM EDT
It's not clear if they are complaining, since Windows ARM is x86-compatible.
Sign in to Reply
cdhmanning
5/18/2011 7:29 PM EDT
How is Windows ARM going to be x86 compatible?
Sign in to Reply
ReneCardenas
5/25/2011 10:13 AM EDT
One thing is to claim that a RISC cpu can perfrom the same tasks as a CISC, but the penalties incurred may be too much to bare (ssslllooowww ).
Sign in to Reply
panzerboy
5/28/2011 8:01 AM EDT
Don't confuse the performance of ARM implemenatations, optimsed for low power and small die area with the performance of RISC processors in general. Since the Pentium Pro Intel's chips have a RISC core and a decoder of x86 intructions into RISC micro-ops. CISC processors generally refer to older processors that use micro-code to sequence operations generally over several clock cycles. The RISC v CISC war is over and RISC won.
Sign in to Reply
luting
5/17/2011 11:21 PM EDT
I'm not sure what Intel CEO talking about here. First, I don't know why MS requires 4 different OS for ARM. Microsoft never ported different OS for each PC variant. All 4 ARM version should be ARM v7 architecture compliant. The different peripherals among those 4 devices should be able to support by driver. With Microsoft behind each of SoC, I never have to searching for device driver anymore. And integrated SoC should have much higher security than standalone CPU to prevent different level hacking. It seems Intel is just playing catching up.
Sign in to Reply
cdhmanning
5/18/2011 7:31 PM EDT
I think what he means is that different ARM cores need different optimizations.
Of course not all ARM cores would be targeting Windows. People would only be interested in putting Windows on the newer Coretex A9 or greater cores.
Sign in to Reply
jaybus
5/20/2011 8:06 AM EDT
Well, one way is to code to the lowest common denominator. Like x86, each new generation's instruction set is a superset of the previous generation. Another way is to ID the processor and execute different branches of code based on processor ID. Windows already makes use of processor ID for x86. I doubt it's as big of a deal as the Intel CEO lets on. I also don't understand his statement that "ARM guys" would be porting Windows. What does THAT mean? Is Microsoft releasing source code to the "ARM guys"? Are the "ARM guys" paying Microsoft to port Windows?
Sign in to Reply
ash9
5/18/2011 7:33 AM EDT
Just as Office for Apple run on native Apple computers and not natively on a x86 PC, so too will an ARM version of Office (programs) be able to run natively on ARM chips. ARM would have to develop that market. ARMs acceptance of OpenCL is another story, and offers a challenge to Intel, through porting, translations of programs would be easier to do-however Intel has always had the advantage of vendor optimize code (ask AMD). In this hetrogenous era, Intel is out, so it remains to be seen how Intel attacks- for now shrinking die sizes ahead of the competion is their only solution...Larabee wasnt it.
asH
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
5/19/2011 5:18 AM EDT
I second that.
Sign in to Reply
any1
5/18/2011 9:35 AM EDT
It's hard for me to imagine how both Intel and Microsoft let themselves get left so far behind ARM, Apple, and Google in the fastest growing consumer markets on the planet. How does that happen? And now that they finally seem to realize their shortcomings, they are trying to play catch up when they really need to focus on how to leap frog their competition. Are they capable of innovating their way back?
Sign in to Reply
abraxalito
5/18/2011 10:49 PM EDT
How it happens - one word - 'groupthink'. At Intel they lost the plot because they kept focussing on process technology to the detriment of all else. Then they reacted by buying McAfee - obviously not a strategic decision just tactical. Its reactionary, not the role of a market leader at all.
Sign in to Reply
ash9
5/18/2011 10:19 AM EDT
Intel had its head in the cloud, as IBM did with PC's. Remember Intel blocked all of AMD's efforts; their promise on Larrabee was an eye opener for me- I didnt believe it was a realistic approach, and felt it was more about fear and control. Intel then had nothing to offer hetrogeneous computing once unleashed, except smaller dies. At this time they have the fastest CPU's but how long can they hold off the march of hetrogeneous chips to servers. AMD is sitting in a nice position- realize , AMD knew Intel didnt or felt they could control the market. that sucks
Sign in to Reply
panzerboy
5/18/2011 12:07 PM EDT
A transparent piece of FUD from Intel, we'll it worked before with the 386.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLzBYfNhRF8)
ARM doesn't need Windows, they're already shipping on the hottest products today. Microsoft needs ARM.
Sign in to Reply
ash9
5/18/2011 4:30 PM EDT
Arm wants x86 servers; Intel's domain
Sign in to Reply
resistion
5/18/2011 5:06 PM EDT
Remember ARM is trying to get into servers, we'll see how far that goes.
Sign in to Reply
Egan
5/18/2011 5:27 PM EDT
poor spell checking and editing on this article. Lowers the value of a piece worth reading.
Sign in to Reply
biaunm
5/18/2011 5:29 PM EDT
Intel on its way to becoming a major supplier of FUD.
Sign in to Reply
gronk
5/18/2011 8:24 PM EDT
McAfee is the computing equivalent of epilepsy. It's the reason I boot my computer, go get a coffee, surf my smartphone, then log in.
Of course, locking up my machine is a great way to prevent it from getting infected.
Extending it to embedded systems borders on misanthropy.
Sign in to Reply
abraxalito
5/18/2011 10:54 PM EDT
When the medicine's worse than the disease you know you're overdue for a wake-up call....
Sign in to Reply
Neo1
5/18/2011 10:00 PM EDT
Tut, tut, tut, Intel said something because they had to say something. There might not be multiple ports of Windows for ARM but I wont be suprised if there is more than one because ARM doesn't mandate a particular configuration for SOC. The OEM's differentiate with their preferred variation of ARM core with the platform to suit a particular market requirement. So the ARM soc from TI would definitely differ from ARM soc from Nvidia. But still MS has all to gain by going ahead with the porting.
Sign in to Reply
ArekZ
5/19/2011 12:37 AM EDT
I agree with a comment above that Microsoft needs ARM. I think Microsoft noticed that nowadays people do not need Windows for living and soon an OS will become just an "add-on" to a hardware, which will typically run internet applications. And this is why they want to remove some limitations (like being stuck to x86 for most Windows).
Intel processors are used with plenty of OSes and MS decision will not change much here.
Soon the difference between Intel and ARM may be comparable to today's Intel - AMD.
And this is definitely good for us.
Sign in to Reply
Cristi.C
5/19/2011 4:27 AM EDT
ARM does not have the power to support software development for Windows. Even its compiler is mediocre. Unless Microsoft starts porting its entire ecosystem (SDKs, DDK, and soooo many others) on ARM, the fight is lost from the start. The ARM users will just run Windows and Office. And that is all.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
5/19/2011 5:15 AM EDT
Do I smell a whiff of panic?
Sign in to Reply
LarryM99
5/19/2011 2:11 PM EDT
I think more than a whiff, and I think that it is probably justified. It used to be that people considered Intel x86 to be the only "real" CPU architecture for computers. New devices are being accepted as something resembling computers without "Intel Inside" or, for that matter, Windows. From that point of view Microsoft is more abandoning a sinking ship than redefining a platform.
Larry M.
Sign in to Reply
Tunrayo
5/26/2011 9:21 AM EDT
Intel is at risk
Sign in to Reply
A. P. Richelieu
5/20/2011 4:45 PM EDT
If the intention is to move into the server market,
then the number of applications are much more limited.
Sign in to Reply
Charles.Desassure
5/21/2011 9:24 AM EDT
Yes, this is a very interesting article. I support the comments that one contributor made earlier. I have no idea “what” or “why” this will require 4 different OS for ARM. This sounds like a great deal for ARM.
Sign in to Reply
elctrnx_lyf
5/21/2011 3:07 PM EDT
Windows on ARM is definitely a strong competition for the Intel in the future. Particularly in the areas like Industrial electronics where the customers has to stick to x86 platform to support the windows will re consider their decisions to go to ARM who can provide really low power and multiple manufacturer support ARM solutions.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
5/22/2011 12:52 PM EDT
Customers are sticking with Windows in industrial electronics!?
Sign in to Reply
Simon7382
5/21/2011 4:41 PM EDT
I for one do not want anything close to Windows on my smart phone or on my tablet. I believe Microsoft is making a mistake and Windows 8 will be a flop, as every Windows version between XP and 7 were.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
5/22/2011 12:51 PM EDT
It can't be a good thing for competition with Windows dominance in the desktop computer market. That said I do not think the same will happen in the handheld market. Android will have the last word, I reckon.
Sign in to Reply
giuann
5/23/2011 6:15 PM EDT
I would know 3 good reasons to switch from x86 to Arm. Performance, Power and Cost are the same for both .
Giuann
Sign in to Reply
t.alex
5/24/2011 10:45 AM EDT
PC Windows apps are not compatible? What a surprise.
Sign in to Reply