Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Intel Pushes Into Tablet Market, Pushes Away From Microsoft

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the wither-wintel dept.

Handhelds 110

jfruh (300774) writes "The Wintel cartel appears to be well and truly dead, as Intel chases after ARM with grim determination into the rapidly growing world of Android tablets. 'Our mix of OSes reflects pretty much what you see in the marketplace,' the company's CEO said, a nice way of saying they see more potential growth from white-box Chinese tablet makers than from Microsoft Surface. Intel managed to ship 5 million tablet chips in the first quarter of the year, although plunging PC sales meant that company profit overall was still down."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ARM is the new Intel (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 7 months ago | (#46770431)

ARM compatibility is why Intel can't win. ARM is the defecto standard upon all software that is mobile. What an ironic twist? As much as when phone stores decided to dump Windows Phones because there was not enough marketshare and software.

The PC is the mainframe.

I really wished Android apps being similar to java would be compatible with intel android? Without marketshare developers are compiling their apps for ARM only or using c++ code mixed in that is not portable.

I do not like seeing monopolies more than I wished we could see more non intel. AMD last decade was the only time we had choice before they turned too shit again with its nwer products as fast as pentium IVs.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (5, Funny)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 7 months ago | (#46770477)

I thought Windows 8.1 was the defecto standard.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 7 months ago | (#46770811)

I thought Windows 8.1 was the defecto standard.

Never have I seen a more apt typo - funny thing is, I saw a commercial last night for one of those PC repair/registry/whatever apps that practically shouted about how "Microsoft is using fear to make you buy Windows 8" (as opposed to your beloved XP box, natch.)

It all ties back to why Intel is now (should say, now more than ever) casting about, looking for new markets for their chips... PCs ain't selling, server lifecycles are getting longer (VMWare pretty much helped stretch that out), and there's not much outside of those two which would encourage PC sales.

(I wonder if Intel will ever stop navel-gazing at tablets and fire up their now-dead Digital Home Group [anandtech.com] again; they had a fairly decent idea with the chip-in-a-TV thing. Fun group of guys to work with as well...)

Re:ARM is the new Intel (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46770855)

Never have I seen a more apt typo

What makes you think it was a typo?

I assumed it was humor.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#46771723)

I would not dismiss Windows on the tablet. The new Phone OS is going to support universal apps so one app can run on the phone, tablet, and PCs which will help. I personally like Android but Windows big advantages are great development tools and a lot of developers. Now if Microsoft would just allow side loading on tablets and PCs like you do on PCs and PC based tablets.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46772609)

Ah, yes. After 19 years of crawling the Windows tablet is just coming of age.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#46772707)

Took the mouse about as long to take off.
As I said I am a big fan of Android and have an Android phone, Nexus 7 and Nexus 10. I also have a macbook and run Windows and Linux on my desktop.
Microsoft has great development tools and lots of developers. It would be foolish to not recognise those strengths.
I want Microsoft to do well in the tablet market and I want Apple to do well and I want Android to do well. I like the idea of choice.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46773165)

I like the idea of choice.

Also known as the "embrace" phase of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".

This is the phase where the whole opportunity lies before. The beginning of the hunt, when the outcome is uncertain. There is a lot to like about it. It is the most exciting part.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (-1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 7 months ago | (#46776849)

And this is different from what Google is doing with Android....how exactly? In case you missed the memo Google has been taking bog standard X86 laptops and locking them down worse than cellphones and as far as EEE? Google is already moved into the third phase [arstechnica.com] by making more and more apps simply not work without GooglePlay API.

I find it hilarious how many are cheering because "Android has gots teh Linux" when in reality Google is about to make them its bitch. Have fun with that laptop that won't run 90% of the distros on distrowatch thanks to DRM or that latest version of AOSP that won't run half the apps in the playstore because its all tied to Google APIs, but "its teh Linux" so it can't be locked right?....oh wait [wikipedia.org]

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 7 months ago | (#46773313)

Good developer tools, yes, but I wouldn't at all say lots of developers. Windows (x86/x64/WPF) has a lot of developers. Windows RT has almost none. Windows Phone has almost none. Microsoft has been pushing really hard for developers to migrate, but they won't budge. (Examples that come to mind include them sending private emails asking developers of popular Windows apps to port them to the 8 store; most don't act on them at all, but outfits like the Mojang developers famously refused in public.)

I think a lot of developers came to the PC platform to begin with because they don't have to deal with licensing, royalties, skimming, etc. Microsoft demands all of these if you want to publish RT or WP apps, hence it makes sense that nobody wants to go there. They'll probably only accept that if their target platform is too popular to pass up, e.g. iOS, but such popularity doesn't exist in the case of RT/WP, and it probably never will to be honest.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#46773889)

The new universal apps and WP8.1 might change that. I don't even have an WinRT or WinPhone device but I write windows code for a living. The dev tools are probably the best in the industry and to be honest if you want to make a lot of money the WinPhone is a good target since as you point out it is not filled with apps yet but the phones are sell okay. Not at the IOS or Android level but well enough to make good money.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46777277)

Which is a good thing. I am tired of all of these bullshit tablets with fake OSes that can't run shit.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773663)

I would not dismiss Windows on the tablet

I'm pretty sure everyone else will though.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

dublin (31215) | about 7 months ago | (#46776091)

Windows on the tablet is pretty darn attractive - I've tried iPad, Android and Windows RT tablets, and *ALL* of them are missing things you really need. (Decent local filesystems and the ability to *fully* support the Internet, even for ugly-ass things like Flash and PDF, as well as reasonable printing support (RT only supports new printers) aren't optional.

BTW, this is really an argument for a full OS, not specifically for Windows. Good hardware for a full Ubuntu tablet (not Nexus crap, which is designed for a crippled OS like Android) could be a game-changer, too...

I've got a friend who says the Surface Pro 2 is not only the best tablet out there, but also quite simply the best and most useful computing device of *any* kind he's ever owned, especially with the docking station.

If Microsoft sees fit to build a Surface Pro 3 with the same awesome digitizer (required for quality sketching and/or artwork), more/cheaper storage, at least 8 GB of RAM and a 13-14" Pixel-like screen, at roughly the same weight as the Pro 2, I'll be standing in line to throw more money at them than I've spent on a computer in years...

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46777023)

One problem: Android!

More realistically, the whole Linux ecosystem evolves a lot faster than Microsoft can cope with, and the people who started using Linux for phones are moving up the food chain towards the desktop. Note that Linux almost totally dominates the sever market, and that over 90% of super computers run Linux with most of the rest running a version of Unix.

Linux is on far more devices than all other O/S's combined. Microsoft is getting squeezed by Linux from both the top and bottom.

As long as they're not using Java. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46771999)

'Nuff said.

Intel looks to Android for growth in tablets

Oh God no!!

Dalvik or recompile (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46770483)

ARM is the defecto standard upon all software that is mobile.

How so? Android apps are written in Java that compiles to Dalvik VM. Free apps that use NDK, such as those on F-Droid, can be recompiled by anyone. Proprietary apps that use NDK can be recompiled by their publisher if the publisher wants sales on the other platform. How big is the remaining set of apps that 1. use NDK, 2. are proprietary, 3. whose publisher is unwilling to take the money from Android/x86 users?

Re:Dalvik or recompile (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 7 months ago | (#46770941)

ah, you forgot

3. whose publisher doesn't understand what 'cross-compile' means.

Re:Dalvik or recompile (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 7 months ago | (#46775459)

Google Play is a competitive marketplace.

Any vendor that doesn't cross compile risks losing market share to one that does.

Re:Dalvik or recompile (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#46771643)

I believe it is very easy to put "fat" binaries in the Play store so the correct NDK code is downloaded to the device.

Re:Dalvik or recompile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46771645)

3) is why alternate platforms for Windows like Alpha, MIPS, PPC and Itanium never took off.
It's like Deja' Vu all over again and people that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46770707)

defecto

De facto. Don't try to speak fancy if you don't know the proper words.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | about 7 months ago | (#46770869)

We all knew what he meant. Frankly, I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. If you're so observant wouldn't disecting nuances of the article be a btter use of your time than spelling/grammar monitoring?

Re:ARM is the new Intel (3)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 7 months ago | (#46771051)

defecto

De facto. Don't try to write fancy if you don't know how to spell the proper words.

FTFY.

Don't try to think fancy if ...

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

losfromla (1294594) | about 7 months ago | (#46774469)

Here's a
"woosh"
for you. Sorry, that stick up your butt must really hurt being that it has blinded you to basic nerd humor.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (3, Interesting)

stevel (64802) | about 7 months ago | (#46770827)

Intel-powered Android tablets can run almost all Android-ARM apps. Those that are native ARM apps are handled through binary translation. It works very well. I've used a Dell Venue 8 (Intel CloverTrail+ Android) and did not find any apps that wouldn't run just fine.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (2)

causality (777677) | about 7 months ago | (#46772195)

Intel-powered Android tablets can run almost all Android-ARM apps. Those that are native ARM apps are handled through binary translation. It works very well. I've used a Dell Venue 8 (Intel CloverTrail+ Android) and did not find any apps that wouldn't run just fine.

Is that done in hardware? Is there a performance penalty?

A related question about the programs you tried: were these computationally intensive games, or things like office apps and file managers?

Re:ARM is the new Intel (5, Interesting)

stevel (64802) | about 7 months ago | (#46772585)

It's done in software with hardware assist - Intel calls this technology "Houdini". Most Android apps are Dalvik which Intel has an X86-optimized implementation of. The translated apps run quite well for most purposes, but yes, there is a performance penalty. I did run some games but probably not the really compute-intensive ones. I found the performance overall quite good - at least as good as my iPad 3 - and to most users the choice of processor would be transparent. For apps which are ARM binary, a growing number are also providing X86 binaries.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (2)

dtfinch (661405) | about 7 months ago | (#46770845)

What's weird is that Intel was in the ARM business for a while, before selling XScale to Marvell in 2006, just as it was taking off. Maybe the prices were getting too competitive.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (4, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46771953)

No, at the time Intel was trying to trim down as they had overextended themselves and too many unprofitable departments. I worked in that department shortly before it was sold off; right before that, the department head "resigned" on the heels of very poor performance. Around that time, they also got rid of their consumer products division which made wireless keyboards and mice and a crappy digital camera. Not long after, they went through a big downsizing called "SET" where they just got rid of people all over the company. They went from around 100k employes down to around 80k in just a couple of years.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 7 months ago | (#46772119)

I think Intel wanted to try to scale the x86 down. That's where the Atom came from. Unfortunately, they could never get it to work on a power scale that competes with ARM before ARM hit 1 GHz. That seems to be the speed at which processors become good enough to do most anything useful. With the Cortex-A8, the Atom was in serious trouble. The Atom is now positioned as too much for a tablet or phone (and doesn't support most Android apps) and not enough for desktop or laptop (it can't handle more resource intensive x86 apps, like the Windows GUI or video). That's a pretty awkward spot.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

stevel (64802) | about 7 months ago | (#46773337)

Intel inherited XScale from DEC, which called it StrongARM, as part of the patent lawsuit settlement that also netted Intel DEC's Hudson, Massachusetts chip fab. Xscale actually did quite well for Intel, but as you say, they sold it off to Marvell.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46770927)

Intel can do fine. They make some amazing tablet platforms. They just need to stop deliberately making them incompatible with the sort of software people want to use, defeaturing the platform to prevent competition with their other products, and providing price incentives that encourage a gimped final product. It is not that difficult.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46771099)

ARM certainly is successful but it's not invincible. The majority of ARM chips are actually not particularly well engineered or optimized. Most ARM chips are actually pretty damn slow as far as modern processors are concerned. There' easy to develop and manufacture, yes, but we're going to see a shakedown in the near future. There are simply too many chip makers right now. Someone is going to pull ahead and put most of their competitors out of business.

To be honest, Intel has not given more than a token interest to the mobile market until recently. Before bay trail, all of their mobile parts have been rehashes of older products with bolt on power saving tech. Baytrail is their first real effort, and baytrail frankly smashes the shit out of any ARM SoC in terms of power/performance.

If Intel puts any real effort in to the mobile market, they'll take it. Their processor fab tech is literally 2 generations ahead of anyone else.

There's also that persistent myth about ISA. ARM's better because it's RISC? Horse shit. The last 15 years of computing history have proven that. The promise of RISC turned out to be irrelevant because the majority of software is shit. There's no magical compiler that will turn crap code in to the tightly optimized instructions to run on your theoretically better processor. (This is the same thing that killed Itanium, FYI)

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | about 7 months ago | (#46772299)

I used up my mod points tonight, and well you did post AC so it's kinda a waste. That said I agree with you. Why is it that my W8.1 tablet (ok its i5) boot up in a few seconds whereas my W8.1 phone takes over a minute? Same kernel.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46772727)

Try a Nexus 7 2013. It has all the performance and power you need with all day battery life and a glorious high-def display for only $229, or less on sale. This was the target last fall, and Intel doesn't have a chip in this class. Soon maybe, but then they will probably try to tie it to Windows again and fail utterly. This Christmas you need this and QHD to make a splash.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773481)

I have a Nexus 7 2013 awesome device despite it's awful battery life.

I also have an Asus TransformerBook T100. The T100 is a tablets based off a Baytrail SoC. It's a tablet in every sense of the word. Thin, light, makes virtually no heat, charges off USB. An honest to goodness tablet power envelope.. But it runs full-fat windows 8.1. Quickly. No lag. Full windows GUI. Everything. It absolutely mops the floor with the Nexus 7 in terms of computational and GPU performance.

The T100 is about 350 due to coming with a detachable keyboard/trackpad that makes it laptop like. You can get keyboardless baytrail windows 8.1 devices for the same price as the Nexus 7.

Of course, I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. Windows 8.1 is not that useful as a tablet-only OS. Android has lots of great touch enable features and lots of touch enabled apps. When I want a tablet, I use the Nexus. When I want something that's an honestly usable desktop with some tablet-like usage I use the T100

Re:ARM is the new Intel (1)

hetz (516550) | about 7 months ago | (#46774667)

I'm sorry sir, but I disagree with you.

I'm typing this reply on Asus Transformer TF701T, and I've checked Bay Trail. If this is Intel's answer, then they better get back to the drawing board, yesterday!
This tablet has 2560x1600 resolution and from my experience the battery holds for 14 hours (it got 2 of them). On many occasions I use it without keyboard and I get around 5.5 hours of battery, try that with Bay Trail (without dimming the screen to an unreadable condition!).

Performance: look at this link (http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/08/intel-bay-trail-benchmarks/) - nVidia's Tegra 4 beats it on almost any test. Try 3D Mark for tablets/smartphones and you'll see that both Tegra 4 and Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 beats it by a very wide margin.

Tegra 4 is more of an "evolution" of Tegra 4 and nVidia is changing it in the upcoming chip, the Tegra K1, and according to early benchmarks (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/174592-tegra-k1-benchmarks-show-better-cpu-and-gpu-performance-than-snapdragon-800-and-apple-a7) it beats every mobile processor available today including Apple's A7, and what Intel is doing? still working on the garbage Atom processor and improving it. Someone should tell intel that they need to bring the big guns and also do something about the battery. The upcoming tablets will be using QHD & up resolution (wait till next year when you'll see LG shows 4K resolution tablets, they already have prototypes) - Atom has issues with those resolutions.

The competition this time is different. Yes, Intel got the fab technology 2 generations ahead of the competition, but it doesn't matter much! with the current technology the competition is beating Intel and the gap will only wide. Intel cannot stick some i5 because it will kill the battery. They'll have to come up with something different.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (5, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 7 months ago | (#46771975)

The PC is the mainframe.

No, the PC is the refrigerator. Tablets are the beds. A home needs exactly one refrigerator (more are a luxury), but it needs about one bed per person. Now consider that people have been sleeping in refrigerators for the past 20 years. Thus, the market for refrigerators is highly over-saturated, and the market for beds is seeing explosive growth as millions of people have never had one before. In the end, though, everybody still needs a refrigerator. There may come a day when they don't, but everybody knows that a refrigerator isn't a bed.

Yes, the metaphor is a bit strained.

Point being that consumers are realizing that tablets do about 90% of what they want in a PC, so they just buy tablets. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally need something for that remaining 10%. We may see tablet docks that turn a tablet PC into a full desktop setup, but we're not there yet. I can browse the web, watch a movie, play a song, look up information, and type an email or text on a tablet or phone. I can probably do my online banking -- although it's a bit cumbersome. I wouldn't want to write a paper, or seriously manage my finances, or do photo editing, or do my taxes on a tablet (unless I was single, had no kids, had one job which withheld taxes, and did not own a home).

Besides, all Intel has to do is make a better ARM than ARM. They did that before when AMD introduced AMD64, and now that Intel fabs ARM, they can learn the ins and outs of that, since obviously there's something there that they missed. Intel still has the most advanced fabrication plants in the world. It would be foolish to write them off so quickly.

Re:ARM is the new Intel (3, Insightful)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | about 7 months ago | (#46774247)

The PC is the mainframe.

No, the PC is the refrigerator. Tablets are the beds. A home needs exactly one refrigerator (more are a luxury), but it needs about one bed per person. Now consider that people have been sleeping in refrigerators for the past 20 years. Thus, the market for refrigerators is highly over-saturated, and the market for beds is seeing explosive growth as millions of people have never had one before. In the end, though, everybody still needs a refrigerator. There may come a day when they don't, but everybody knows that a refrigerator isn't a bed.

Yes, the metaphor is a bit strained.

Point being that consumers are realizing that tablets do about 90% of what they want in a PC, so they just buy tablets. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally need something for that remaining 10%. We may see tablet docks that turn a tablet PC into a full desktop setup, but we're not there yet. I can browse the web, watch a movie, play a song, look up information, and type an email or text on a tablet or phone. I can probably do my online banking -- although it's a bit cumbersome. I wouldn't want to write a paper, or seriously manage my finances, or do photo editing, or do my taxes on a tablet (unless I was single, had no kids, had one job which withheld taxes, and did not own a home).

Steve jobs has some sort of quote about PCs (Windows & Mac) being like trucks, always a need for them but not what everyone needs. It's true though. Three years ago when I went on a trip I'd pack my Netbook to use at the hotel, or at my folks place. Now I'll use a tablet. Much quicker to pick up and use than to pull out and set up and boot a PC (netbook). Mobile has excelled at other things. Though I still like my real digital camera, if I want to take a picture of something and quickly email it off it's a lot easier to use my smartphone. Checking my email is a lot easier on my phone than on a computer (especially at work waiting for the Corporate-bogged down IT image of XP to load on my i7), though composing an email (or this post) I rather use a PC.

Like yourself I like PCs for the heavy lifting: manage photos, do finances / taxes, download media, edit videos / photos. Though I do worry that our options and availability for relatively open PC like platforms may diminish, which wouldn't be a good thing.

Is it dead? (1, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about 7 months ago | (#46770463)

Looking at their stock, it never required from dotcom, and has been on a slow decline since (but up from 1 year ago).

I can't imagine mobile CPUs will ever have the margin or profit of desktop CPUs. Or even close.

Sure, there are a bunch of cheap PCs. But apple or samsung comes out with a phone, that's just the same cheapish cpu several millions of times over with no variation.

Is this just another case of a company chasing elusive profits once it's market has been commoditized? In a way, Intel isn't important once Microsoft isn't important anymore.

No need to run x86. So why push x86 into the portable space?

Dual touch/mouse apps (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46770507)

No need to run x86. So why push x86 into the portable space?

So that you can have x86 apps that work in touch-based mode while away from the desk and switch to mouse-based mode when the user pairs a keyboard and connects an HDMI monitor.

Re:Dual touch/mouse apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46770597)

Oh, you mean like I can do on my Allwinner-based, white-box Chinese knockoff Android tablet?

Re:Is it dead? (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46770623)

No need to run x86. So why push x86 into the portable space?

Kinda what I was thinking. x86 is now ancient, and unless things have changed a lot in the last few years, tend to be pretty power hungry.

So, I guess if I want to run Windows on it, or legacy software, or have no real battery life this could be a good thing. And, really, who expects to run legacy software on a tablet?

Or, Intel could actually try to make a lightweight/low power chip meant specifically for tablets and not try to further saddle us with an architecture which is already long in the tooth. But, apparently they've grown beyond the 'innovating' phase of a company, and are well and truly into the 'flogging a dead horse' phase.

If you're going after Chinese white-box tablets, you're not aiming very high.

Me, if I saw a tablet which said "Intel Inside", the tablet would still be inside the store when I left. Because, right or wrong, my perception is it's going to suck power, and it's probably going to be geared to people who want to install Windows applications.

No thanks.

Re:Is it dead? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46770743)

They may be power-hungry (although not that much anymore), but from my experience in doing ports, the best ARM SoCs barely have the performance of 12-year-old x86 processors.

Re:Is it dead? (0, Troll)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46770813)

They may be power-hungry (although not that much anymore), but from my experience in doing ports, the best ARM SoCs barely have the performance of 12-year-old x86 processors.

Meh, one of the things I like about tablets is that it finally forced people to scale back the bloat and make leaner software.

A full featured piece of software in 25MB? Count me in. Your 4GB bloated install, not so much.

And, really, my now 1.5 year old Android tablet is a dual core CPU with enough juice for what I need it to do.

The last thing I want is Intel ushering in the new era of going back to bloated software which demands absurd resources. Microsoft is already doing that.

Seriously, design something new and interesting. Don't just keep shoe-horning the x86 architecture into everything because you don't have anything else.

Re:Is it dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46771221)

The port I was talking about is a game that runs fine on sub-1GHz Pentium 3 computers and has problem on ARM devices, mainly due to bad floating point performance. By the way, did you know that most Samsung (don't know about other manufactures) system ROMS are about 4GB+ in size and use 1GB+ of RAM? A clean Android Open Source Project ROM build weights less than 200MB and I find it slow already (VM). Bloat is here and this time with less capable devices, no bad developer will suddenly learn how to code properly just because we are now using low-power devices. :-(

Re:Is it dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46770977)

x86 is now ancient

While ARM is only about 30 years old.

unless things have changed a lot in the last few years, tend to be pretty power hungry.

Unless things have changed a lot in the last few months, the latest-and-greatest ARM SoCs still can't even beat mobile Core2 for ops/Joule...

Re:Is it dead? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 7 months ago | (#46771329)

Kinda what I was thinking. x86 is now ancient, and unless things have changed a lot in the last few years, tend to be pretty power hungry.

They're power-hungry in comparison to lower-end ARM - a Cortex-A9 is far more efficient. However, they also perform circles around them. But the latest Atom tablet chips are neck-and-neck with similar Cortex-A15 chips (both in performance and in battery life), and the Core ones get a usable battery life while being more powerful than many laptops. In terms of performance-per-watt they're effectively the same.

Oddly, Intel's biggest tablet success was the Surface Pro - while it tanked as a general tablet, it found a niche among artists, who liked its full Wacom hardware and compatibility with Photoshop. I can see Intel having a future in high-end tablets because right now, they're the only ones who can do it - even Apple isn't able to match that much power, yet, and none of the Android chips are even close.

Re:Is it dead? (5, Informative)

MrLeap (1014911) | about 7 months ago | (#46771857)

Yep, I have a surface pro 2. I love it for zbrush. It's a one of a kind device for that kind of work. Literally nothing else exists. For the price of a cintiq you get the computer too. I wish they advertised it heavily to artists, instead of ipad users. An ipad user is going to be like "this thing weighs like 5 pounds and is a half an inch thick, I want my dollar/mass ratio to be close to infinity!". An artist will be like "You mean I can do my zbrush sculpting at a coffee shop with the same workflow that I use on a cintiq, AND it can handle 15m tris like a champion? Yes please."

Re:Is it dead? (2)

dublin (31215) | about 7 months ago | (#46776173)

Microsoft is really onto something with the whole Surface Pro idea, and It boggles my mind that not a single one of the "regular" OEMs have managed to build anything even in the same league. This product alone is justification for Microsoft being in the non-peripheral hardware business, despite the OEM friction it undoubtedly causes.

The Surface Pro is further proof that Steve Jobs was flat wrong when he said of iPad competitors, "If you see a stylus, they blew it!"

First of all, a quality digitizer pen is not a stylus. Second, and far more importantly, there are *really* good reasons why we gave up drawing and writing with rocks and fingers, and started using sticks, brushes, and pens instead...

Beta Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46772021)

"x86 is now ancient, and unless things have changed a lot in the last few years, tend to be pretty power hungry."

Yes, they've changed. My five year old i5 laptop used to have the fan running all the time. My new i5 laptop doesn't even seem to use the fan in normal use; while web-browsing, I only hear it run when I go to Youtube or a similar video site.

Also seems to get at least 2x the life from a similar sized battery.

Still don't understand why you'd want an x86 in a tablet, though.

Re:Is it dead? (4, Insightful)

nojayuk (567177) | about 7 months ago | (#46770837)

Intel are reducing power consumption and maintaining performance faster than ARM can improve processing power while keeping power consumption down. The current version of the iPad has a lot more processing power than the first one did but it has a battery three times bigger to give it the same endurance between charges, in large part because the newer ARM chips suck more power than their predecessors did.

Intel-based tablets like the Iconia W series (i3/i5) or Toshiba Encore (Atom quad-core) have the same endurance as ARM-based tablets with similar battery capacities while running a full-fat desktop OS rather than a phone OS with delusions of competency.

Re:Is it dead? (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46770943)

same endurance as ARM-based tablets with similar battery capacities while running a full-fat desktop OS rather than a phone OS with delusions of competency.

I don't know about you, but the last thing I want on a tablet is a "full-fat desktop OS".

It's not a freaking desktop. I don't use it like a desktop. I don't need the bloat and overhead of a desktop or a desktop OS.

If you want a full-fat desktop OS, get a Windows tablet or a laptop. Because until I can get a tablet with 1TB of storage, I'm not wasting several hundred megs of it on a piece of software which has been steadily growing bigger for the last decade.

The average app I download on Android is well under 30M. And, for me, that's a selling point.

And, really Android is essentially Linux. Are you suggesting Linux is lacking competency? Because Linux has been running efficiently on smaller systems for 20 years now.

Re:Is it dead? (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about 7 months ago | (#46771123)

If you had read his comment in context you'd realize that he's saying this: If Intel Baytrail parts can run full-blown Windows 8 with good performance and battery life that's at least on-par with ARM Android tablets.... what do you think will happen when products come out where those same chips get to run Android instead?

Re:Is it dead? (2)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 7 months ago | (#46771943)

Thank you. So few people seem to see what is going on and how that is going to continue.

Android x86 is going to take down Android ARM within a few years and Windows 9 is going to go down with it. In fact, if Android x86 had been a bit more mature a week ago, 80% of the people that have switched to Windows 8.1 would have switched to Android x86 instead.

It is clear that Intel has been asleep in this market, but it is even clearer that they are on the war path and intent on destroying Qualcomm and ARM in general.
Producing low-power chips and pushing Android x86 are the obvious ways to do that.

If you take into account the interoperability between Android ARM and Android x86 (made possible by Java and an intelligent package creation and delivery system for the bits of NDK code), most consumers won't even know the difference between their desktop / tablet Intel x86 SoC running Android or their 'old' phone Samsung ARM SoC running Android. Everybody will just gradually transition to x86-based mobile devices as Intel uses all their tactics, money and power to push their ARM competitors to the same corner where AMD is allowed to exist currently.

Re:Is it dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773899)

The real problem for Intel is that I can buy a decent Chinese tablet for $150. By decent, I mean it has a good, relatively high resolution screen and a quad core ARM processor that will run everything (Android) I'd ever want to plenty fast.

Unless Intel is suddenly going to start selling processors for $20, I don't really see how they can compete.

Sure, they could probably make a core i3 or whatever that is faster than my Chinese chip, but I don't really care unless it costs the same.

Re:Is it dead? (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 7 months ago | (#46771403)

A mobile 'desktop' has its uses. I LOVE having an 8" tablet that can act as a server or AP if i need it to. No website ever tells me 'not available on mobiIe'. I bought it to make up for any bullshit deficiencies my ARM based mobiles devices might have, like transferring files to each other.

Re:Is it dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773941)

I've never seen "not available on mobile" on my tablet either. I suppose that could happen on some sort of windows-centric website or something, but at least Chrome and Firefox on Android seem to just display whatever site I open on them, and you can set them to display the desktop version anyway if you don't like the mobile (useful on a tablet with a reasonable resolution).

Re:Is it dead? (1)

dublin (31215) | about 7 months ago | (#46776329)

Yep, and you need a 30-100 MB app for pretty much every little task you do. A good OS, built the right way, provides a strong set of basic tools that can be used together to do almost anything the user wants. Personally, I *do* want a real OS on a tablet - because there are just way too many real-world tasks that tablets either can't do at all or can only do with ridiculous levels of complexity and frustration. Real filesystems are just the beginning. FWIW, I'd rank the usability of tablet OSes for real-world use as first, Full Windows, then WinRT closely followed by IOS, with Android bringing up the rear. If there were a Chrome tablet (and WHY ISN"T THERE?), it would likely fall between the two Windows versions, and Ubuntu could well grab the lead if they can find any good hardware to optimize for...

Mark Shuttleworth and the rest of the Ubuntu guys get this, and that's why they're plowing ahead no matter the naysayers. Also, "full-fat" doesn't necessarily mean actually fat - IIRC, the first Unix System 7 CAD workstation I used had 4 MB of RAM, a huge 40 MB hard disk, and a stunning 1 MIP 68K processor with an incredible 1280x1024 display. Today's mobile processors have compute power only found in supercomputers not many years ago. Look at Puppy to see how slim you can make a "full-fat" Linux OS, even with a modern kernel and apps...

BTW, no OS exists in today's tablet/GUI world to let you easily snap together your own tools from a rich set of components - that requires GUI integration of the stream/operator paradigm as implemented in UNIX (but with different syntax and semantics making the gozintas and gozouttas intuitive), transparently merged with the browser and able to leverage not only local, but also remote web assets and applications. Add touch and non-touch dynamic gestural interfaces, and you've really got something...

Re:Is it dead? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46772031)

it's not the CPU. the display is the battery hog, particularly the backlight which needs to be more powerful due to the retina display [iirc]. next is the graphics chips, which needs extra power to do the graphics for that display.

the cpu is generally the thing that doesn't use a lot of power [for general usage] because it gets powered down after it gets its work done, even while the display and graphics chip are going strong.

Re:Is it dead? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46772783)

ARM processor power has achieved "good enough", so Intel's technology leverage here means nothing.

Re:Is it dead? (3, Funny)

nojayuk (567177) | about 7 months ago | (#46773383)

You mean like "640kB of RAM should be enough for anyone?"

Re:Is it dead? (1)

gtall (79522) | about 7 months ago | (#46774241)

More importantly, companies beyond a certain size can specialize the ARM architecture to suit their needs. Intel won't let you do that. Game over.

Re:Is it dead? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 7 months ago | (#46771169)

Because I have an 8" x86 tablet that can run more software than any ARM tablet ever made.

Intel tablets more open than ARM (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46771177)

All Intel tablets currently have:
  • Completely unlocked bootloader out of the box (or unlockable with a BIOS setup switch)
  • Open source drivers for most if not all of the hardware (including GPU)
  • Hardware natively supported in upstream Linux kernel
  • Instruction set that is extremely well documented
  • Excellent battery life without resorting to frequent suspend-to-RAM

Does any ARM tablet have any of that?
Seriously, if you value openness and hackability, I do not see why would you ever consider an ARM tablet....

Re:Intel tablets more open than ARM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773561)

I don't think you could fully qualify ALL intel tablets as being completely unlocked or being fully supported with open source drivers.

Does any ARM tablet have any of that?

Samsung Galaxy Tab, Archos 70, Archos 10.1, and the Nook Color to name a few. You could at least look at the Ubuntu wiki before making that assertion.

Nah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46770503)

Still in bed, the two of them. Just like two old lovers, they push away but then relent and then the old in-out continues.

Re:Nah! (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46771289)

Still in bed, the two of them. Just like two old lovers, they push away but then relent and then the old in-out continues.

But who's the top and who's the bottom?

Intel Inside
Microsoft.

Oh.

Re:Nah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46772143)

Best part is it works even if Microsoft is in on top.

Microsoft;
Intel Inside

Try the salad bar, I'm hear all week.

Android on X86 is mixed bag (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46770851)

My limited experience with Android Arm and Android X86 indicates that Android X86 seems to be a 2nd tier platform with limited support. It seems to be less-reliable.

ARM:
Android: multiple phones, Galaxy Tab II tablet
- reliable, work well, tons of apps most that just work

Other: Raspberry Pi, BeagleBone Black, multiple embedded systems
- strong, reliable, generally works well (except for Rpi network issues)

X86:
Android: Google TV (Logitech), Galaxy Tab III tablet
- flaky apps and limited selection on Google TV
- charging and power consumption issues on Galaxy Tab III
- feels like a 2nd tier platform in beta or version 1.0

Other: laptops, desktops, and servers
- Linux ROCKS for standard x86 netbooks, laptops, workstations, servers

Re:Android on X86 is mixed bag (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 7 months ago | (#46771423)

Try a Bay Trail device before you poo-poo x86 mobile.

Re:Android on X86 is mixed bag (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46772059)

why would a newer version of the cpu affect any of the issues he specifically mentions for x86?

Re:Android on X86 is mixed bag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773981)

Because... BAY TRAIL!

Seriously I feel like I'm repeating myself. The problem for Intel is that their processors cost as much by themselves as an entire ARM tablet. I suppose they can try to sell things at a loss until they conquer the market and then raise prices accordingly though.

Dead? (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 7 months ago | (#46770909)

"The Wintel cartel appears to be well and truly dead

We're in the process of revamping my company's IT infrastructure: About 30 Wintel PC's, 3 Wintel Servers, and 0 *pads.

Unfortunately for my company's employees, we don't make money from watching Netflix or playing whatever this week's hot game is on tablets. We have to do work to earn money, and we can't do work on tablets or phones.

Re:Dead? (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 7 months ago | (#46771185)

...we can't do work on tablets or phones.

Ah, so no management.

Re:Dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46771323)

We've only had to buy a few new PCs for office use where I work. Machines simple too old to even run Windows 7. On the other hand, we've got several groups buying tablets to do real work. They use them for field research data entry, among other tasks.

Re:Dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46773421)

no, they're using them for flappy bird.

Re:Dead? (2)

unimacs (597299) | about 7 months ago | (#46771575)

We've actually deployed quite a few tablets in the field to replace laptops that never worked very well for the task. Can't really use them while walking around.

For servers, desktops, thin clients, and laptops we have a number of different combinations of processors and operations systems including Windows 7 and 8, Ubuntu, OS X, debian, and VMWare ESX/ESXi. We also have a PBX, access points, routers, switches, modems, printers, gateways, Raspberry Pis, Arduinos utilizing various processors and OSes (though lots are linux variants). Then there are the company supplied and supported smartphones.

We have about 80 employees. We're not exactly a tech firm but close.

My point is the computing world is much bigger than Wintel even for companies that still rely on that combination. The non Wintel part of the technology world is growing. Intel would be stupid to pin its continued success on the future of Windows.

Re:Dead? (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#46771661)

Sorry to hear that you are install Wintel servers.
Lintel is the way to go.

Re:Dead? (2)

Solandri (704621) | about 7 months ago | (#46772541)

This is just the flip side of Windows RT. Microsoft developed RT to hedge their bets. If the market stayed with x86, they could sell regular Windows. If the market switched to ARM, they could sell Windows RT. RT didn't need to be successful, it just needed to be there.

Now Intel is doing the same - they're hedging their bets. If the market stays with Windows, they can can sell CPUs for Windows machines. If the market switches to Android or whatever OS over Windows, then can sell CPUs for those machines.

That's really what the phrase "Wintel is dead" means. It doesn't mean there are no more Wintel boxes being made. It means the Microsoft-Intel partnership is no longer an exclusive partnership as if they were one company. They're starting to treat each other as just another disposable business partner.

'Disposable' seems a bit strong... (2)

Junta (36770) | about 7 months ago | (#46773619)

Though both are hedging as you say, I think both desperately want the other to overwhelmingly succeed. MS on ARM is not competitive due to a complete lack of support for legacy x86 applications and an otherwise uninspired design, so MS wants the world to run on x86 where they have home court advantage. Similarly, while Intel still has mostly better offerings, they cannot extract the desired margins out of such a highly competitive market like ARM where people will go without the very latest semiconductor process and gobs of performance. They want a software ecosystem that demands x86, which only Microsoft really has.

So yes, each has some 'worst case' contingency intended to keep them in the market. Those contingencies are both such long shots and will forever reduce margins even if they are 'successful'. That's why Intel has double downed on engineering with MS about platform sleep states and such without giving Android nearly as much attention (basically just token attention).

Re:'Disposable' seems a bit strong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46774291)

>Similarly, while Intel still has mostly better offerings, they cannot extract the desired margins out of such a highly competitive market like ARM where people will go without the very latest semiconductor process and gobs of performance.

This seems to be a meme (low margin on low power chips), which seems plausible but it is flat out wrong.

Intel makes good margin on chips because it makes chips much more cheaply than the competition. It doesn't matter how the dopants are arranged. The silicon costs less to make. So there is a price at which Intel can sell chips, making money, at which other chip sellers make effectively 0% margin. See AMD for an example.

The margin Intel makes isn't a function of the designs on the chips. It's a function of how much more efficient their manufacturing and process leads makes them.

If you are designing an ARM based chip, a chunk of the margin is going to ARM and TSMC, and there's less margin to share anyway. So you will make less money than Intel can, selling the same product.

 

Re:Dead? (1)

FlynnMP3 (33498) | about 7 months ago | (#46772985)

That's my thoughts as well.

Surely the engineers (software and other kinds) and the content creators will still need powerful general purpose computers to enable them to do their work effectively. These really can't ever go away, at least for the foreseeable future (~50 yrs). Oh it might change somewhat, but for the most part there isn't any reason to change from a general purpose computer. So there will always be some market for those types of computers. Not to mention the scientific community needs (and other big data computing). These type of computers may turn into a somewhat limited market, but the need will always be there.

Speaking from experience, since I make my living from computers, having a general purpose computer at home allows me to do interesting hobbies (not just gaming) as well as the occasional work-from-home support type issue. Speaking from an education point of view, general purpose computers are their own best teacher as you get instant feedback to what works or not. If all that is in the house is tablets or smart consumer oriented devices, those are not meant for learning the nuts and bolts of how things computer things work. I fear for future generations of kids if that is the case.

A consumer use device is another story entirely, and what I think the big players are positioning themselves for now. Will tablets and smartphones become so ubiquitous that nearly all households will have 1 or more of these types of devices? That is more likely in the near short term (~10 yrs). Who knows what the next big thing will be in terms of a new paradigm of consumer usage? It might be this VR thing people are all excited about these days. Taken to the logical next step, there will be more and more specialized computer like devices that offer accepted forms of usage. Those types of devices will be likely be low power, ripe for market exploitation as the article eludes to.

Drivers, its all about the drivers (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 7 months ago | (#46771029)

For years MS had a near monopoly on drivers. Basically every device manufacturer made a driver for MS and maybe, kind of, sort of, possibly got around to a Mac driver, and then occasionally made a Linux driver. Thus anyone wanting to take on Windows would have had to reverse engineer and make a whole slate of device drivers. As an example, by Mac OS X making the switch to Intel it allowed hardware companies to more easily port their drivers so a few more did.

But over time Linux did managed to do just that, but being open source those drivers are then much more portable to entire other architectures such as ARM. This is then combined with the fact that few people hook devices up to their tablets makes for a near perfect environment to completely overtake the Wintel monopoly on drivers.

So for the first time in decades a consumer does not worry or even know about any driver issues and can choose their device and OS based upon features that are genuinely meaningful to themselves; such as price, app availability, and quality of the hardware.

So with the playing field is now much more level it is not surprising that the former Wintel monopoly is losing market share.

But there is a second and very critical issue and that is of CPU power. Quite simply a Raspberry Pi is around the minimum power that a typical Browser surfing, youtube watching user needs to have. Thus most people don't need the latest and greatest CPU to power their needs. So a halfway good arm inside a device is well enough for the vast majority. Also most people don't need to do much on their computers. A few simple games, some surfing, some video, some messaging. Thus a mobile device is becoming most people's primary portal to the world. Again this does not need to be a powerhouse; it just needs to be reasonably price, work well, and have a good battery life.

But lastly there is the way that ARM is structured. From what I can tell, if you want to buy 10 million arm processors then you buy 10 million arm processors. But if you want to buy 10 million Intel processors then Intel wants to make it complicated and have you enter into a "relationship". The same with the android OS vs the Microsoft OS. Personally I would be very wary dealing with either Intel or MS in that if suddenly my product was somehow incompatible with some corporate vision they had then they would cut me off or otherwise strangle my company. But ARM and Android just want you to buy/use their products.

I suspect that neither of these companies are going to adjust well to actually having competition who aren't even playing the same game meaning that neither Intel or MS will be able to squirrel the rules. Does anyone remember the phase Dell went through where they were Intel only? Can you imagine the angry conversations when Dell, HP, or anyone like that started to ship Linux machines? Do you think that anyone shipping ARM devices even wonders what ARM thinks?

Re:Drivers, its all about the drivers (1)

js3 (319268) | about 7 months ago | (#46771059)

Intels predicament has nothing to do with drivers. Times change and they didn't change fast enough.

Re:Drivers, its all about the drivers (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46772887)

No, Intel were using Imagination Technologies' (IT) GPUs for their low power chips, and IT was not giving up the hardware specs for open-source drivers that could be used with the Linux kernel that lies under Android. GP is exactly correct. I hear IT is beginning to come to their senses, but this issue is a big part of how we got to where we are today. You are also right that they didn't change fast enough.

Re:Drivers, its all about the drivers (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 7 months ago | (#46776741)

Basically what I was saying was that they were leaning on being the primary CPU within the Windows environment which effectively depended upon its massive driver library. So where Intel screwed up was not realizing that drivers were becoming more available and less necessary; which meant that they were leaning on a soon to be looser.

I think this belief in Microsoft also clouded their judgement as to where smartphones were going. Microsoft never really took Smartphones seriously so I don't think Intel did either.

Re:Drivers, its all about the drivers (2)

joelsherrill (132624) | about 7 months ago | (#46771505)

We have used a Raspberry Pi to compile RTEMS (rtems.org) to target the space hardened SPARC V7 ERC32 as well as gdb including a simulator. The Raspberry Pi does this and runs the tests on a simulator at approximately the same performance level as a mid-90s Sun workstation. It is a respectable CPU and great for many "ordinary" computer tasks.

Re:Drivers, its all about the drivers (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 7 months ago | (#46771923)

That's because the sparcs had atrocious floating point math just like the ARM procs

Re:Drivers, its all about the drivers (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 7 months ago | (#46775983)

I don't think that more than a few percent of computer users need much more power than is in a Pi. For me it is great for robotics although I wouldn't mind more power for OpenCV.

Maybe growth, but not profit (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 7 months ago | (#46771249)

Intel are determined to sell 40 million of their tablet chips, but they certainly aren't going to make any profit, because of "contra revenue".
"Intel is charging customers about the same as Allwinner and Rockchip for tablet CPUs â" $5 a pop, reports Digitimes"
http://www.electronicsweekly.c... [electronicsweekly.com]

No surprise that their mobile group lost nearly $1 billion last quarter.

Microsoft can't run on x86? (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 7 months ago | (#46772091)

I'm not seeing what Intel marking bay trail etc to Chinese tab makers has to do with their use by Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter).

Re:Microsoft can't run on x86? (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46772933)

It runs fine. It just doesn't sell. With 200 million tablets moving each year, Intel would like to own more of that space than Windows tablets can give them. It doesn't matter how well they make Windows run on a tablet if people won't buy tablets with Windows on in any significant number.

Re:Microsoft can't run on x86? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46775933)

During last month I've seen no-name chinese baytrail tablets with win 8.1 popping up in hk shops like mushrooms. They are surface pro clones for half the price.

Questionable call... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 7 months ago | (#46773537)

Microsoft and Intel should be best friends. They are each others main hope for relevance. Intel competing against the horde of ARM vendors on even ground is not going to end well for Intel's margins no matter how much share they hypothetically get. In much the same way that MS is nothing without the momentum of decades of x86-only applications, Intel isn't much without MS applications. Well, Intel's products are a bit respectable in their own right, but the primary driver of their large margin is the x86 ecosystem where MS is ubiquitous.

Intel may be hedging their bets to try to assure they aren't completely left behind in an Android-centric world, but I wager they are strongly hoping for MS to provide a software platform experience on x86 that is too compelling to overlook. I will say that even the 'best' Android apps I deal with are pretty crappy ( having to mysteriously be killed because it hangs, sometimes needing their persistent storage wiped because it has no idea how to work back to working state from whatever state it stored persistently). Even chrome randomly decides 'I'm just going to stop being able to render certain pages altogether'. It's bizarre, since on Windows and Linux desktops I don't see nearly as much wonkiness from many of the exact same application vendors doing about as equivalent a product as can be imagined. For a given price, I'd honestly prefer an x86 tablet so long as secureboot can be disabled to run platforms I have a great deal of familiarity with.

price? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46775127)

Ok, so Intel is finally turning out chips that match ARM on performance/watt. But how much do they cost? Intel runs off a model where they have the best process tech because they spend so much money on it, and they can do that because their prices and profits are so high, and so much higher than ARM.

I am guessing in the next year or two we are going to see a market split between, say, 20% expensive Intel tablets and the rest cheaper and running ARM.

ARM laptop, please? (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about 7 months ago | (#46775527)

I'm still waiting for an ARM laptop, preferably with a WACOM-grade touch screen.

-- hendrik

Re:ARM laptop, please? (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about 7 months ago | (#46775539)

And, no, not a locked-down one.

Re:ARM laptop, please? (1)

dublin (31215) | about 7 months ago | (#46776363)

Why on earth should I really care what kind of CPU is in my laptop, *especially* if the OS runs on either x86 or ARM?

I think the whole point of the discussion here is that both hardware architectures and OS choices are becoming increasingly fungible, and that trend may only accelerate...

I'm with you on the quality digitizer/touchscreen, though...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?