Atoms aren't remotely close to being able to idle like ARM SoCs. ARM is still kicking Intel's *** in the mobile space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Is the difference really in the CPU itself (ie, does a halted Atom still draw significant amounts of power) or in the PC architecture baggage that Atom has to drag along for Windows compatibility?
Microsoft should be really scared if ARM's initiative takes off as this is a segment it cannot compete in (none of the drastic measures they used to fight their way back to netbook space is available with an ARM in the arena
There's CE, or whatever they call it these days (not that it was ever a serious competitor to anything), and they could always add a "mainstream" Windows ARM port (like they used to support AXP, PPC & MIPS and back in the NT days).
Is the difference really in the CPU itself (ie, does a halted Atom still draw significant amounts of power) or in the PC architecture baggage that Atom has to drag along for Windows compatibility?
A combination of both. The Atom will be in a hard position to fight the price and power while the ARM requires less than half the silicon of the Atom.
Originally Posted by
a "mainstream" Windows ARM port (like they used to support AXP, PPC & MIPS and back in the NT days).
Mainstream windows port ? You mean, you go into the shop, but a netbook, take it home, try to install your favorite app from the desktop and suddenly realize... None of your 150 million windows apps work on ARM.
I'm all for an increase in CPU speed in mobile devices. Better graphics processing, better performance and less loading times due to limited CPU speed & cycles dedicated to system processes.
But, then again, I'm the type that wants more speed since I already know the apps I use are good and will see more in the future, I don't really care for anything else outside of that. Call me stupid, call me ignorant, call me whatever you want, but my point is clear. All I, as the consumer, want is what I want and "I'll take the CPU for $1000 Alex!"
Microsoft should be really scared if ARM's initiative takes off as this is a segment it cannot compete in (none of the drastic measures they used to fight their way back to netbook space is available with an ARM in the arena - except for bribery and blackmail ).
NT kernel has ports to MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC and IA64.
Using Microsoft resources it should be a matter of months to have a fully working NT on ARM architecture. Especially with a lot of WinAPI already present on WinCE platform.
Having a core not tied to Intel was the main reason Microsoft bought NT.
).