What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
63 Comments
- ThantiK, on 01/07/2009, -1/+42Honestly the benefit to these kind of processors is a lot better than people think. The ARM Cortex processors give a LOT better battery life compared to x86 architecture and provide not only adequate power under the hood, they don't get hot and at this moment in time *cannot run windows*.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying the fact that they cannot run windows is a good/bad thing, microsoft is evil, etc etc - that's up to the consumer to decide. What I AM saying is that if new architectures are adopted not only will Linux be the primary operating system for that architecture, Microsoft may just be willing to start developing systems based on a modular approach and offer windows for different architectures.
Competition means we all win. - mazza558, on 01/07/2009, -0/+18Of course, the Pandora (which has very similar specs) - http://www.openpandora.org/ - will beat this one to market. Should be an interesting year for gadgeteers :)
- webgrafix12, on 01/07/2009, -1/+15Cheaper computers are coming!!! :)
- hobogeneral, on 01/08/2009, -1/+14big people look funny using tiny netbooks.
- indymike, on 01/08/2009, -1/+13I think they don't get the difference: Linux is easily ported. Linux is easily optimized. Linux is far more modular. Windows lost that when the WinNT for Alpha version was scrapped and a bunch of userspace features moved into the NT kernel for better performance in Win2k and more in XP. Oh, and linux is MUCH BETTER at memory management leading to much less moving of data from RAM to storage and back.
5 watts is 80% lower power consumption compared to atom. It makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE. - Giga, on 01/08/2009, -0/+8Sure, blame the hardware for a software problem...
- frogman54, on 01/08/2009, -0/+8I like to pretend I'm some sort of nerdy giant. Fe Fi Fo Fum bitches
- jamesdew, on 01/08/2009, -2/+9me
- Izacus, on 01/08/2009, -2/+9Microsoft is already developing Windows for different architectures (after all, NT ran on MIPS, PowerPC and some other architectures). However since on desktop market only pretty much x86 is used, they dropped support for all architectures except x86, x86-64 and IA64.
I'd really like to see an ARM or PowerPC port of Windows though... it's about time to get rid of x86 architecture for something with better design and less legacy bloat. - daveisfera, on 01/08/2009, -0/+7The processor can't run Windows because it's not x86, not because it's too underpowered.
- DickBreath, on 01/08/2009, -0/+6Microsoft may port Windows to ARM, but the real obstacle is the vast installed software base. How much of it can be ported? Of that, how much will be?
Another issue is that as the price of netbooks continually drops, Microsoft's business model for Windows will become unsustainable. You can't charge, say $20 for an OS when the retail price of a device hits, say, $99. Linux netbooks come with OpenOffice.org. Adding MS Office to preloaded Windows would raise Microsoft's OEM price to possibly be higher than the wholesale cost of the device, or almost certainly higher than the manufacturing cost of the hardware. - shrewduser, on 01/08/2009, -1/+6i wonder what graphics unit will come on this freescale system-on-chip.... powerVR based i imagine... i hope i can have compiz going smoothly on it. :)
- bnolsen, on 01/08/2009, -0/+5pandora is more expensive than a basic netbook and uses only a thumb keyboard. Its not built to play in this market.
- Elranzer, on 01/08/2009, -0/+5Pandora doesn't have a big manufacturing company ready to pump out hundreds of thousands of these devices to Bet Buy all over the country.
- illDecree, on 01/08/2009, -0/+5This processor can't run Windows period.
Windows is not written for ARM processors - Elranzer, on 01/08/2009, -0/+5Damn, when I saw "Freescale processors," I thought that PowerPC was coming back (Freescale bought the PowerPC G4 patents from Motorola).
We really could use new PowerPC-based laptops and desktops, even if they're not Macs. They work great under Linux. - mazza558, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5i9cWOK1spw&feat ...
There you. Running Ubuntu. - TrancePhreak, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4some PocketPCs have ARM CPUs.
- dumbrit, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4Extreme Poweruser alert
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -1/+5microsoft is evil, etc etc - that's up to the consumer to decide.
I did, they are.. - Myztry, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4Software should be compiled to intermediate language and packaged. Final JIT compilation should happen on the platform (and be cached) at install time.
x86 has done well through brute force but it's about time for move to a clean architecture. Even a pure x64 could benefit by allowing the lower opcodes to be re-used for shorter opcode lengths.
Shorter opcodes would mean less fetch cycles which means length memory hits, faster execution, etc.
You wouldn't even need 32bit/64bit/RISC/CISC versions of software. The intermediate to executable compiler would just take care of that. - hyderalamgir, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3Freescale...Ain't these the guys who failed to realize there were 366 days in a leap year?
- jamesdew, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3ahhhhh I see because there is an ARM port of ubuntu but XP only runs on x86 architecture. Well that makes much more sense and also means that the reason Window's wont work on this machine is not that the processor is too slow but that it has a completely different architecture.
- Myztry, on 01/08/2009, -1/+4Different instruction set fool. Windows doesn't support many processors unlike Linux.
- ThantiK, on 01/08/2009, -1/+4I forgot to add that the ARM processors also have 3d acceleration built into them while still maintaining battery life. That's why the pandora (openpandora.org) is going to do so well.
- sirhomer, on 01/09/2009, -1/+4When I am talking about Windows, I am talking about WindowsNT (specifically the supported versions: Windows XP and above). WindowsCE, while having the same brand name "Windows", is a different kernel and operating system, and can not run the same software as WindowsNT can unmodified.
- Elranzer, on 01/08/2009, -1/+4It can run Windows CE...
- ThantiK, on 01/09/2009, -1/+4http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ ...
iPhone runs REAL...Mac OS X - Get your facts straight.
If your phone had the processing power/memory, etc, it could *in fact* run photoshop. - CCmachined, on 01/11/2009, -0/+2The second batch will be as big as the demand at that time, whatever is needed. The guys need to break even (they have had much stored funds to start the project)
the Pandora is _not_ more expensive than a basic netbook.
20GB SSD, 1GB eeePC, Celeron with Linux: £250 at PC World
Pandora: £200 with one hell of a lot more portability.
netbooks with Windows are £250+. (GBP) - ThantiK, on 01/08/2009, -2/+4I'm not talking a *different* platform that goes on your ARM device vs the PC you run XP on...
I'm talking running the SAME OS on your phone, as you do on your personal computer. Even apple is doing this now - iPhone practically runs OSX under the hood. - CCmachined, on 01/11/2009, -0/+2"All we know at this point is that these computers will almost definitely be running Linux - these chips just can't provide enough CPU power to run any Windows operating system, including netbook standard XP. "
WRONG. They can provide loads of power - the fact that they aren't x86 and Windows only runs on x86 is the problem. Buried. ARM != x86. ARM is a better arch though, much better power management. Way more efficient. - armo, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3People who want something lightweight and ultra-portable. Like me..
- JQP123, on 01/08/2009, -2/+4"Microsoft may just be willing to start developing systems based on a modular approach and offer windows for different architectures."
They're way ahead of you there.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/pro ... - bnolsen, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3The cortex A8 is a milliwatt SOC...that includes everything but ram, wireless, SSD and LCD.
Atom itself is 5w, add another 11W for the north bridge....that puts atom system at 10W or so more than cortex A8 under load.
To be honest with you sony might be also in a good position to start putting an up clocked version of its PSP processor into a netbook. But they would never do that.... - ThantiK, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2You hit the nail on the head there bnolsen - The Atom sure may only use 5w but there are no "low-power" northbridges out there yet. They generally take up double what the atom uses (I've seen northbridges pull upwards of 15w easily) in addition to the atom processors.
Not only does this make the cortex A8 a SUPERIOR platform for netbooks, as far as I know it doesn't need a northbridge. Unfortunately most people have such tunnel-vision when it comes to calculating these things that the facts don't ever come out straight. - Stonekeeper, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2My comment was totally tongue in cheek. It get's lost on digg.
- thallenthur, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2I'm really intrested in those devices and I really hope this is going to open the desktop market on the ARM based CPU's in the future. The 720p support looks promising and as far as I can tell the black prototype has a DisplayPort on the left side. In addition to that ARM is about the show us a new Cortex A9 cpu which will support higher clock speeds and have up to 4 cores so it will probably outperform Atom.
- ThantiK, on 01/09/2009, -1/+3Your the typical windows user. Because not only can applications be cross-compiled in any POSIX compliant system, they don't depend on architecture. (For you programmers out there, yes I know all about endianness and how that can affect cross-compiling between processors which follow the little endian/big endian approach but the ARM processor supports both types of endianness.) Your obviously just mad because WINDOWS dropped everything except the x86 instruction set and whatever piece of software you used was designed for winblows.
X86 has stayed in power for so long because lets face it, the computer industry is reluctant to change. We've had PCI-slots on our motherboards for HOW LONG NOW?
ARM is gaining momentum. Primarily because x86 is an aging architecture and over the years have just had additional instruction sets tacked onto a design that's literally over 20 years old. You know what we call things that are over 20 years old in the computer world? - Obsolete.
You'll see cell gain some ground, but ARM has some serious potential to gain REAL market share because of netbooks. - ThantiK, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2sirhomer gets here what other people don't. IPhones kernel which is the heart of the system, is the same as Mac OS X...you can't run parallels because parallels is only a translation driver. Mac systems right now use the x86 architecture - they're practically a PC underneith.
iPhone uses an arm processor - your not going to be able to run software that is designed for an x86 on a different type of processor. (talking strictly about parallels & other emulation platforms here.)
*however* if an application is designed for the apple PLATFORM, i.e. using mac OS X's kernel calls, etc...the iPhone WILL run it. I guarantee you can run any iPhone app on a mac provided it's cross-compiled. And all that would take is a few option flags in the compiler and voila...
Windows XP has a totally different and incompatible kernel than Windows CE. Not only do you have to recompile, you have to completely change the APIs your using for the new kernel as well as using different forms of memory management within C.
Mac OS X is built similar to Linux (its roots are in BSD, but that's a history lesson), the fact is that OSX is MODULAR - XP/Vista and derivatives are not. OSX can be taken down to a simple core kernel with command line, and voila...it's still OSX. Add Cocoa, Services, Media layers and it's still OSX.
Same with linux. You add what you want on top of it because it's modular. You can have linux...with no audio, no graphics, no kernel modules and just a command line. OR you can add on X, Alsa, etc and it's STILL linux.
When was the last time you booted Windows XP/Vista into a command line only interface and could still surf the web? Or how about CLI interface and still run a web server or other services? - mabl, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2That's true. You can have a look at it here http://pastie.org/349916
- Ratteler, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2"Your obviously just mad because WINDOWS dropped everything except the x86 instruction set and whatever piece of software you used was designed for winblows."
Actually I use everything, (except Vista). WindowsXP, Mac OS X, and I give every one I meet an Ubuntu.
The reason x86 will probably not be supplanted for centuries is ECONOMY OF SCALE. Because so many will be sold, they can be massed produced to a level where the cost per MFLOP simply crushes anything incompatible.
Neanderthal were stronger, and had a larger brain capacity than Homosapiens. Yet we're hear and they are not. Who knows why?
The same thing has happened with processor evolution. I never said X86 was the BEST architecture, but it is the dominant one, and will stay that way because IT has reshaped the environment to support it exclusively.
I hate M$ and Windows. Look at my comment history. But until FOSS topples the dominance of proprietary software so all libraries can be recompiled for any architecture with issue, we're stuck on the x86 branch of the evolutionary tree. - sirhomer, on 01/09/2009, -1/+3One thing that fails for closed source software is software portability. In FOSS, it's all automatic really. That's how Debian can support dozens of arches with minimal human effort. Just one of the advantages of open source software.
Windows will never be able to easily move off the x86 platform because so much of the platform is closed source and not directly controlled by Microsoft. The Microsoft ecosystem is not as centralized as Debian or Ubuntu. They'd have to beg thousands of ISVs to recompile ARM ports, many might not even exist anymore. So you might have a ARM port of Windows but no software or drivers to go with it. - josejimenez, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2Isn't Freescale the same group of nitwits who wrote the rotten leap year code that caused the 40gb Zune's to crash?
- macewan, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2This would be a great starter computer to bring to libraries, doctors office or family reunions.
- Ratteler, on 01/11/2009, -0/+2I've had some dealing with ARM and Xscale devices. Even with a Linux OS what keeps things from working is the need to make dozens upon dozens of needed dependent libraries native. A problem that goes away with x86 support.
So why WOULDN'T I want X86 support in the palm of my hand? - RexxxMaster, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2Why have you seen little people using tiny netbooks?
- Myztry, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2@JQP123 - I also just described anything produced by GCC prior to final compilation.
.NET requires a binary executable for installation so it fails at the packaging stage (and is framework specific).
Microsoft needs to learn what a package manager is, and Linux needs to shift the final compilation to the package manager.
As someone who started writing 32bit multitasking GUI apps strictly in assembly twenty years ago (AMIGA), I never thought I would have thought this a good idea. But it has become so. - ThantiK, on 01/10/2009, -1/+2Then why argue that we "NEED is X86 processor that low power and small enough to use in a PDA".
What is the point? - just because it's the dominant architecture on DESKTOP machines doesn't mean it has any place in the mobile market.
My prediction is that ARM processors will not only dominate the netbook market soon, as well as the mobile device market, but that they will be coming into the desktop market with a superior (did I mention freely licensed) architecture. - REAtoday, on 01/08/2009, -2/+3not to mention it is ugly as sin
- JQP123, on 01/08/2009, -2/+3@Myztry
".NET requires a binary executable for installation so it fails at the packaging stage"
Not true. A .NET executable may *appear* the same as a binary executable but inside it's very different --- all metadata and hardware independent IL code. -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is