5 ms·

I assume people aren't making non-x86 desktop or workstation systems because they cost a lot of money to develop, even just a motherboard. If the system cannot

by chrsw 10y ago

I assume people aren't making non-x86 desktop or workstation systems because they cost a lot of money to develop, even just a motherboard. If the system cannot run Windows, you've just made the whole idea economically infeasible.

jasonkostempski 10y ago
So that's what all that Windows RT stuff was about. I'm a bit ashamed I didn't realize Windows (proper) doesn't run on ARM. I'm assuming MS really wants to be able to run Windows on different types of processors but can't practically make that happen and keep backwards compatibility. It sounds like they've shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately, they were stepping on all our heads at the same time.
- scholia 10y ago
  Windows NT was written to be cross-platform, and it was actually developed on RISC chips -- hence the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). Unlike Linux, it wasn't written on and for an x86 processor.... At one time, commercial Windows NT PCs were sold with DEC Alpha processors. However, the volume of x86 PC sales drives huge economies of scale that make it hard for other platforms. This actually benefited Linux in particular, but it also encouraged Apple switch from its own hardware to PC-based x86 hardware, which resulted in cheaper Macs. Microsoft has never developed an OS specifically for Intel x86 chips (ie Windows NT and CE: the basis for DOS was bought in) to try to avoid being wholly dependent on Intel. Intel has also supported alternative operating systems to avoid being wholly dependent on Microsoft. But neither is immune from market forces.
  - subway 10y ago
    I still have an old NT 4(?) install disc with x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PPC arches.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      NT4 was the last to support MIPS & PPC, but only x86 and Alpha got SP3 and beyond. Digital/Compaq did have a beta build of Win2k for Alpha, but the plug got pulled right before the RTM.
      - i336_ 10y ago
        Did the code ever escape in any form?
- JonathonW 10y ago
  Windows itself ran fine on ARM. Windows RT failed for a couple reasons: there was no backwards compatibility for x86 Windows software, and there were a couple artificial limitations in place that made ARM-native desktop software impossible. Essentially, Windows RT threw out the good part of what makes Windows Windows (decades worth of third-party software) in an attempt to make a "dedicated" tablet OS a la iOS or Android.
  - scholia 10y ago
    True. However, Microsoft thought users would be OK with Microsoft Office (bundled free with Surface RT) and sandboxed tablet apps. Windows RT threw out the good parts of backwards compatibility, but it also threw out the bad parts: viruses and malware, software downloads from dodgy websites, being your own IT manager etc. Some would consider this a reasonable trade-off, but the market didn't buy it. Odd, really, since Windows RT has all the benefits of a Chromebook, but also offers much more.
    - timthorn 10y ago
      If MS had enabled Domain Join & Group Policy, the RT devices could have taken a lot of enterprise sales. At the time, there wasn't a great story on any tablet around user account management; RT could have been that platform.
      - scholia 10y ago
        Agreed. It would also have filled the hole for school testing, which is what generated sales of Chromebooks....
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
chocolatebunny 10y ago
I think the issue is more demand than supply. I'm currently working on an embedded software project where the arm based SoC supports 2 x4 pcie buses, 3 usb ports, sata and ddr. The evaluation board looks like a normal motherboard with 2 pcie slots, a ddr slot and usb and eSata ports. And it was running ubuntu. People know how to build non-x86 desktops. Building non-x86 desktops is not difficult to do or expensive. People just don't want it.
- wolf550e 10y ago
  What's the price of that evaluation board? Can the CPU run faster than in embedded scenario thanks to better cooling?
  - pjc50 10y ago
    A comparable example: https://boundarydevices.com/product/nitrogen6x-board-imx6-arm-cortex-a9-sbc/ https://boundarydevices.com/product/nitrogen6x-board-imx6-ar... This kind of thing is stuck in a volume trap: you need to produce enough units to make it cheaper than a PC, but nobody will buy it until you do. In the meantime, people are buying ARM tablets and 'mini-PC's from various Chinese OEMs, but they're non-modular units. The modularity of the PC is almost an accident of history.

by chrsw 10y ago

jasonkostempski 10y ago

So that's what all that Windows RT stuff was about. I'm a bit ashamed I didn't realize Windows (proper) doesn't run on ARM. I'm assuming MS really wants to be able to run Windows on different types of processors but can't practically make that happen and keep backwards compatibility. It sounds like they've shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately, they were stepping on all our heads at the same time.

scholia 10y ago
Windows NT was written to be cross-platform, and it was actually developed on RISC chips -- hence the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). Unlike Linux, it wasn't written on and for an x86 processor.... At one time, commercial Windows NT PCs were sold with DEC Alpha processors. However, the volume of x86 PC sales drives huge economies of scale that make it hard for other platforms. This actually benefited Linux in particular, but it also encouraged Apple switch from its own hardware to PC-based x86 hardware, which resulted in cheaper Macs. Microsoft has never developed an OS specifically for Intel x86 chips (ie Windows NT and CE: the basis for DOS was bought in) to try to avoid being wholly dependent on Intel. Intel has also supported alternative operating systems to avoid being wholly dependent on Microsoft. But neither is immune from market forces.
- subway 10y ago
  I still have an old NT 4(?) install disc with x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PPC arches.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    NT4 was the last to support MIPS & PPC, but only x86 and Alpha got SP3 and beyond. Digital/Compaq did have a beta build of Win2k for Alpha, but the plug got pulled right before the RTM.
    - i336_ 10y ago
      Did the code ever escape in any form?
JonathonW 10y ago
Windows itself ran fine on ARM. Windows RT failed for a couple reasons: there was no backwards compatibility for x86 Windows software, and there were a couple artificial limitations in place that made ARM-native desktop software impossible. Essentially, Windows RT threw out the good part of what makes Windows Windows (decades worth of third-party software) in an attempt to make a "dedicated" tablet OS a la iOS or Android.
- scholia 10y ago
  True. However, Microsoft thought users would be OK with Microsoft Office (bundled free with Surface RT) and sandboxed tablet apps. Windows RT threw out the good parts of backwards compatibility, but it also threw out the bad parts: viruses and malware, software downloads from dodgy websites, being your own IT manager etc. Some would consider this a reasonable trade-off, but the market didn't buy it. Odd, really, since Windows RT has all the benefits of a Chromebook, but also offers much more.
  - timthorn 10y ago
    If MS had enabled Domain Join & Group Policy, the RT devices could have taken a lot of enterprise sales. At the time, there wasn't a great story on any tablet around user account management; RT could have been that platform.
    - scholia 10y ago
      Agreed. It would also have filled the hole for school testing, which is what generated sales of Chromebooks....
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

chocolatebunny 10y ago

I think the issue is more demand than supply. I'm currently working on an embedded software project where the arm based SoC supports 2 x4 pcie buses, 3 usb ports, sata and ddr. The evaluation board looks like a normal motherboard with 2 pcie slots, a ddr slot and usb and eSata ports. And it was running ubuntu. People know how to build non-x86 desktops. Building non-x86 desktops is not difficult to do or expensive. People just don't want it.

wolf550e 10y ago
What's the price of that evaluation board? Can the CPU run faster than in embedded scenario thanks to better cooling?
- pjc50 10y ago
  A comparable example: https://boundarydevices.com/product/nitrogen6x-board-imx6-arm-cortex-a9-sbc/ https://boundarydevices.com/product/nitrogen6x-board-imx6-ar... This kind of thing is stuck in a volume trap: you need to produce enough units to make it cheaper than a PC, but nobody will buy it until you do. In the meantime, people are buying ARM tablets and 'mini-PC's from various Chinese OEMs, but they're non-modular units. The modularity of the PC is almost an accident of history.