3 ms·

>>>The decision to ban traditional desktop applications was not a technical one, but a bad marketing decision. But wouldn't Desktop apps need to be recompiled

>>>The decision to ban traditional desktop applications was not a technical one, but a bad marketing decision. But wouldn't Desktop apps need to be recompiled to run on the ARM CPU?

timthorn 14y ago
Yes, but Visual Studio can do that. This isn't about enabling any application to run in the desktop; it's enabling me to run my own code on the desktop - and to access the driver model to eg write to Bluetooth SPP.
- noveltyaccount 14y ago
  Exactly - this is a bit set in the kernel to restrict code from running. Totally arbitrary marketing decision, not a technical limitation. Let's hope Microsoft come around and let us run programs unrestricted.
sjmulder 14y ago
It would, but Apple did the same thing when they switched to Intel and worked out pretty well. They even shipped all the PowerPC binaries for a while, together with an emulation layer, so you could run old apps on Intel (albeit slowly). It's more of a backwards compatibility/marketing issue, I suppose. Apple could afford to have programs work 'more or less', Microsoft with its track record for backwards compatibility probably cannot.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Apple (and NeXT before them) was able to compile "fat" (multi-architecture) app binaries since the 1990s. The original NeXT machines had Motorola 68030 and later 68040 processors; OpenSTEP also ran on Sparc and Intel and I think PA-RISC also, of course then PPC, and then Intel again --- they've had architecture independence in their frameworks for a LONG time.
- wmf 14y ago
  Emulation is fine when you're switching to a faster processor (68K -> PPC, PPC -> Intel). In this case, MS is introducing a slower processor so emulation would probably be painful.
  - meaty 14y ago
    Well they shot themselves there. The CLR was supposed to be the portability layer i.e. IL code would be dynamically compiled. Unfortunately due to Microsoft's schizophrenia, it never became a first class part of the OS over say non-portable PE x86 specific binaries. Technically they could use dynamic translation, but building a working translator for x86->arm would be an absolute bastard as x86 is such a non-orthagonal mess of an architecture.
mikecane 14y ago
Don't know where this reply will wind up in the thread, but the more I read here, the more it does seem like a bad marketing decision that was likely driven by not alienating partner Intel. Apple could afford to diss Intel because it was a much smaller, albeit prestigious, customer. Windows is practically the foundation of Intel's business and to see it move to ARM would lead to them having nightmares. But if Microsoft is serious about tablets, they're going to have to do it.

>>>The decision to ban traditional desktop applications was not a technical one, but a bad marketing decision. But wouldn't Desktop apps need to be recompiled to run on the ARM CPU?

timthorn 14y ago

Yes, but Visual Studio can do that. This isn't about enabling any application to run in the desktop; it's enabling me to run my own code on the desktop - and to access the driver model to eg write to Bluetooth SPP.

noveltyaccount 14y ago
Exactly - this is a bit set in the kernel to restrict code from running. Totally arbitrary marketing decision, not a technical limitation. Let's hope Microsoft come around and let us run programs unrestricted.

sjmulder 14y ago

It would, but Apple did the same thing when they switched to Intel and worked out pretty well. They even shipped all the PowerPC binaries for a while, together with an emulation layer, so you could run old apps on Intel (albeit slowly). It's more of a backwards compatibility/marketing issue, I suppose. Apple could afford to have programs work 'more or less', Microsoft with its track record for backwards compatibility probably cannot.

ams6110 14y ago
Apple (and NeXT before them) was able to compile "fat" (multi-architecture) app binaries since the 1990s. The original NeXT machines had Motorola 68030 and later 68040 processors; OpenSTEP also ran on Sparc and Intel and I think PA-RISC also, of course then PPC, and then Intel again --- they've had architecture independence in their frameworks for a LONG time.
wmf 14y ago
Emulation is fine when you're switching to a faster processor (68K -> PPC, PPC -> Intel). In this case, MS is introducing a slower processor so emulation would probably be painful.
- meaty 14y ago
  Well they shot themselves there. The CLR was supposed to be the portability layer i.e. IL code would be dynamically compiled. Unfortunately due to Microsoft's schizophrenia, it never became a first class part of the OS over say non-portable PE x86 specific binaries. Technically they could use dynamic translation, but building a working translator for x86->arm would be an absolute bastard as x86 is such a non-orthagonal mess of an architecture.

mikecane 14y ago

Don't know where this reply will wind up in the thread, but the more I read here, the more it does seem like a bad marketing decision that was likely driven by not alienating partner Intel. Apple could afford to diss Intel because it was a much smaller, albeit prestigious, customer. Windows is practically the foundation of Intel's business and to see it move to ARM would lead to them having nightmares. But if Microsoft is serious about tablets, they're going to have to do it.