4 ms·

I can't believe they think a Windows version is pre-requisite to success in penetrating the server market Taking websites as an example : The clear leader amon

I can't believe they think a Windows version is pre-requisite to success in penetrating the server market Taking websites as an example : The clear leader amongst web servers used by the million busiest websites is Apache with a 66% share. It has a 47% lead over its closest competitor, Microsoft-IIS, much greater than on the web as a whole. netcraft confirms it - http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/03/15/march_2009_web_server_survey.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/03/15/march_2009_web_...

duskwuff 18y ago
Not to mention, an ARM edition of Windows wouldn't be much good without either (1) a binary translator or (2) everyone rewriting their software to run on ARM. The OS does not exist in a vacuum.
- charltones 18y ago
  or (3) everyone making source available? Could a more heterogeneous processor market drive people towards open source purely from the practical aspect of being able to built the right version to run on their kit?
  - sketerpot 18y ago
    It's more likely to drive people to use a JITting virtual machine.
rbanffy 18y ago
Not as an internet server, but many companies can't get rid of x86 Windows servers because they have (better: think they have) to run Windows applications like Exchange or SQL Server.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Just put those on different servers.
wmf 18y ago
Yeah, ARM/Linux servers could only capture half the server market. I guess it's not worth trying. A bigger obstacle for ARM servers would be the lack of 64-bit and the 4-core limit.
- easp 18y ago
  Is the 4 core limit really an issue? Really big deployments, where they are most sensitive to performance per watt, are finding it more cost effective to go with fewer cores per server because it gives a more optimal balance between processing power and memory bandwidth. Look at those google compute containers, each node has pretty modest specs. Lack of 64bit support is likely a bigger issue.

duskwuff 18y ago

Not to mention, an ARM edition of Windows wouldn't be much good without either (1) a binary translator or (2) everyone rewriting their software to run on ARM. The OS does not exist in a vacuum.

charltones 18y ago
or (3) everyone making source available? Could a more heterogeneous processor market drive people towards open source purely from the practical aspect of being able to built the right version to run on their kit?
- sketerpot 18y ago
  It's more likely to drive people to use a JITting virtual machine.

rbanffy 18y ago

Not as an internet server, but many companies can't get rid of x86 Windows servers because they have (better: think they have) to run Windows applications like Exchange or SQL Server.

stcredzero 18y ago
Just put those on different servers.

wmf 18y ago

Yeah, ARM/Linux servers could only capture half the server market. I guess it's not worth trying. A bigger obstacle for ARM servers would be the lack of 64-bit and the 4-core limit.

easp 18y ago
Is the 4 core limit really an issue? Really big deployments, where they are most sensitive to performance per watt, are finding it more cost effective to go with fewer cores per server because it gives a more optimal balance between processing power and memory bandwidth. Look at those google compute containers, each node has pretty modest specs. Lack of 64bit support is likely a bigger issue.