4 ms·

Are you trolling or what? All your posts seem to be based on the assumptions that a) The ARM architecture is intrinsically slower than x86 b) .NET is intrinsi

by ot 16y ago

Are you trolling or what? All your posts seem to be based on the assumptions that a) The ARM architecture is intrinsically slower than x86 b) .NET is intrinsically slow c) Microsoft wants the same applications that run on the desktop to run on the mobile Any evidence that backs these assumptions?

rbanffy 16y ago
> a) The ARM architecture is intrinsically slower than x86 Current ARM processors are not designed for speed. I doubt they will be able to outrun x86s in single-thread performance anytime soon. Without faster threads, the machine doesn't feel fast. OTOH, more cores make a machine feel smoother under load, which is very nice. > b) .NET is intrinsically slow This is the Java vs. native discussion. JIT and optimization and native libraries go a long way, but I don't see Office being rewritten in C# to run on the CLR. The last massive rewrite to the CLR was during the development of Longhorn and that part was cancelled, resulting in Vista and, IIRC, a two-year launch delay and the retirement of the project lead. .NET and Java (and Python, which is what I use most of the time) are good enough, but I just don't see a major OS rewrite in that direction until writing portable C/C++ and recompiling for each target becomes impractical. > c) Microsoft wants the same applications that run on the desktop to run on the mobile This is no mobile platform. If it runs "full" Windows, people will want it to run IE with plugin support. At the very least. People will want Office, games and Photoshop. If it doesn't offer an easy migration (data, programs, skills) they may as well go with iPad or Android that were designed to be that way since the beginning. If it doesn't run Windows software, why build the Windows legacy in? Also, on your initial post you made the assumption WP7 is runs on .NET, which is mostly incorrect. Microsoft software shipped in WP7 is moslty (if not all) native. What runs under the CLR is 3rd-party software.
- ot 16y ago
  > Also, on your initial post you made the assumption WP7 is runs on .NET, which is mostly incorrect. I never implied this. I just meant that the SDK is based on .NET, so .NET runs on ARM. It was a reply to the comment asking about .NET on ARM. Nothing more. And when I said "are you trolling?", I was referring to > Have you tried running Office 2010 on your phone? so I hope I wasn't downvoted for this. About the 3 points, "I doubt ...", "I don't see" and "people will want" is no evidence, just personal considerations, and mostly on the short term. So I don't want to continue the discussion any further.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > just personal considerations, You can bookmark this comment and see, in one or two years, if I was right.
    - ot 16y ago
      Point a) didn't take that long: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2072545 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2072545
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        The press-release has a couple interesting parts. http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D622CE9F579F09&version=live&prid=705184&releasejsp=release_157&xhtml=true http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D... "NVIDIA has obtained rights to develop its own high performance CPU cores based on ARM's future processor architecture" No shipping date, no product details, nothing. Wake me up when they have shipping silicon. In the meantime, don't let Intel release anything. Don't get me wrong. I would love to finally get rid of the x86 ISA, but I know the first ARM PCs (actually they would not be the first ones) won't be high performance. And there is no magic - when we start seeing high performance ARM parts, they will demand more power and will have most of the problems x86s face today. Both camps have very smart people working on the processors we will be using a couple years from now. Presuming one of them has a secret weapon that will annihilate the competition is ludicrous.
        wladimir 16y ago
        They are not trying to beat Intel on their own turf. The phone/pad/netbook craze demonstrates that a lot can be done with relatively weak CPUs. The heavy lifting (if neccesary at all) can be done by the GPU. As NVIDIA their main focus is GPUs I guess that's their strategy.

by ot 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

> a) The ARM architecture is intrinsically slower than x86 Current ARM processors are not designed for speed. I doubt they will be able to outrun x86s in single-thread performance anytime soon. Without faster threads, the machine doesn't feel fast. OTOH, more cores make a machine feel smoother under load, which is very nice. > b) .NET is intrinsically slow This is the Java vs. native discussion. JIT and optimization and native libraries go a long way, but I don't see Office being rewritten in C# to run on the CLR. The last massive rewrite to the CLR was during the development of Longhorn and that part was cancelled, resulting in Vista and, IIRC, a two-year launch delay and the retirement of the project lead. .NET and Java (and Python, which is what I use most of the time) are good enough, but I just don't see a major OS rewrite in that direction until writing portable C/C++ and recompiling for each target becomes impractical. > c) Microsoft wants the same applications that run on the desktop to run on the mobile This is no mobile platform. If it runs "full" Windows, people will want it to run IE with plugin support. At the very least. People will want Office, games and Photoshop. If it doesn't offer an easy migration (data, programs, skills) they may as well go with iPad or Android that were designed to be that way since the beginning. If it doesn't run Windows software, why build the Windows legacy in? Also, on your initial post you made the assumption WP7 is runs on .NET, which is mostly incorrect. Microsoft software shipped in WP7 is moslty (if not all) native. What runs under the CLR is 3rd-party software.

ot 16y ago
> Also, on your initial post you made the assumption WP7 is runs on .NET, which is mostly incorrect. I never implied this. I just meant that the SDK is based on .NET, so .NET runs on ARM. It was a reply to the comment asking about .NET on ARM. Nothing more. And when I said "are you trolling?", I was referring to > Have you tried running Office 2010 on your phone? so I hope I wasn't downvoted for this. About the 3 points, "I doubt ...", "I don't see" and "people will want" is no evidence, just personal considerations, and mostly on the short term. So I don't want to continue the discussion any further.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > just personal considerations, You can bookmark this comment and see, in one or two years, if I was right.
  - ot 16y ago
    Point a) didn't take that long: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2072545 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2072545
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      The press-release has a couple interesting parts. http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D622CE9F579F09&version=live&prid=705184&releasejsp=release_157&xhtml=true http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D... "NVIDIA has obtained rights to develop its own high performance CPU cores based on ARM's future processor architecture" No shipping date, no product details, nothing. Wake me up when they have shipping silicon. In the meantime, don't let Intel release anything. Don't get me wrong. I would love to finally get rid of the x86 ISA, but I know the first ARM PCs (actually they would not be the first ones) won't be high performance. And there is no magic - when we start seeing high performance ARM parts, they will demand more power and will have most of the problems x86s face today. Both camps have very smart people working on the processors we will be using a couple years from now. Presuming one of them has a secret weapon that will annihilate the competition is ludicrous.
      - wladimir 16y ago
        They are not trying to beat Intel on their own turf. The phone/pad/netbook craze demonstrates that a lot can be done with relatively weak CPUs. The heavy lifting (if neccesary at all) can be done by the GPU. As NVIDIA their main focus is GPUs I guess that's their strategy.