Via bought IDT, although to say that IDT was a major player in the x86 space is definitely a stretch.
IBM did have partnerships with Cyrix and built Cyrix designed chips and sold them under their own brand name. You could also call IBM a major player back then but that is only slightly less of an overstatement than to say the same about IDT.
There were really only three competitive x86 vendors:
1. Intel 2. AMD 3. Cyrix
Cyrix was the least competitive and didn't last. They offered incredible value though in the late 90's, but never came close to competing in the high end, or even the midrange really. They were strictly low end.
Back in the days of the Pentium II, AMD K6-2, and Cyrix M2, the x86 world was a much more interesting place than now. Nothing interesting ever happens anymore, the industry just kind of rolls along at a predictable pace.
The real problem has never been about the OS, but about compatible applications. Unless you have some sort of compatibility layer(virtual machine), you generally need new applications that have been compiled for the given CPU architecture.
Intel has run into this more than once, where new processors did not take off due to performance of old x86 applications not being very good on the new chips. The Pentium Pro was a 32 bit chip that basically broke compatibility with existing applications....it died, though most of the design ended up being used in the Pentium 2 and Pentium 3, and even the Core line was the same basic design. The Itanium was an almost complete failure for multiple reasons.
There is the potential for virtual machines to handle compatibility issues for apps, but I see a huge potential here for a major support headache. Now, we will have people who buy apps for their Windows 8 based machine, and they won't have ANY clue about how to figure out which version they will need.
I think this is a lot different from the Pentium Pro situation. People write software to run on current operating systems using current CPU's. When Windows 8 hits the streets this will be a "current" operating system and developers will write software to run on these "current" CPU's. I mean lets face it who in this world who owns a PC wont want Windows 8? XP users are waiting for it, I have Windows 7 ultimate and i'm still waiting for it. So developers obviously want to sell there software to the mass, which will be after a year after release Windows 8.
I think MS will also start banging the drum on the whole 'app compat' thing in a different way than Intel and others implied/are implying. Only NATIVE Windows apps will need to be re-compiled/made for Intel vs. ARM most likely. I also don't think we are about to see ARM powered desktops anytime soon. This just finally lets Windows scale to something else other than Intel and to form factors that frankly Intel has had poor penitration into. They've consistently fumbled their mobile CPU platform since the start, so either MS got tired of waiting, or they finally woke up and realized ChipZilla ain't ever gonna get there in time for them to not get their clock cleaned entirely.
The new touch stuff and start screen you noticed were all about 'HTML 5 and Javascript'. Such apps will 'just run' regardless of the underlying CPU architecture as your web rendering engine is now that 'app compatability layer' or VM if you will. No mention in that discussion about 'natively compiled' apps, or Silverlight apps, or .Net apps.... zip, zilch, nada.
For Microsoft, who has a MASSIVE infrastructure and cash business in tools and compilers, that's a HUGE shift... It's more like the move to Windows 95 than just the UI, that's for sure.
the real problem is not simply applications, it's drivers for the hardware that interfaces to the operating system. Video cards, printers, scanners, USB device drivers, sound drivers, any number of vertical hardware pieces. anything that is at the hardware level has to have code written to transition to the operating system. Microsoft has done a good job to hide driver issues with Windows 7, but they are there.
And windows has always had a hardware abstraction layer. Folks may not remember but NT ran on Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC. Windows CE supports multiple processor families (ARM, MIPS...etc).
As all these chip sets shake out, it may be a good time to be a low level device driver programmer.
The real issue is the OS. As hardware continues to advance all 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. core processors. The OS needs to keep up. If the OS can't keep up and be created to utilize and facilitate the integration of new tech properly...
I'm glad it's something Microsoft has had in their sights over the past few years and have hopefully incorporated into 8.
how will these devices work in terms of booting? will they have pc like efi / bios with configurable partitions or will they have these locked down rom based bootloaders? i really want to know about the arm based side mostly. this could be game changing.
any word on the html5 / css / javascript based sdk?
My biggest worry is that tablets should NEVER see the classic desktop UI as it's not touch friendly and introduces way too much cruft. On an ARM chip with no legacy apps, there should be ZERO reason for it to ever pop up.
except when you dock your tablet ? I definitely intend to do that a lot when I make the jump, and looking at the couple of tablet users around me, they should, too. Anything beyond pure content consumption really benefits form a keyboard and mouse, event typing short mails or forum posts.
This is great news! I'm sick with all those Apple's copycat products! Apple needs a serious contender, the one that will change the game, so, Windows 8 is a great example! Can't wait to see Microsoft finally launch Windows 8!
If ARM powered devices are successful on W8 couldn't there be more manufactures not less? Cheap ARM reference SoC manufactures (like Rockchip etc) could come to dominate the low end.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
Back to Article
andrewlanewildman - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
I guess I'm too young to remember when there were 4 players in the x86 CPU race. Who were the other two?Gamingphreek - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
You had:1. Intel
2. AMD
3. Cyrix
4. IDT/IBM
hvakrg - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
Isn't Via supposed to be there instead of IDT/IBM? Or did they come later?Gamingphreek - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
I thought Via bought Cyrix later but I could have gotten them all mixed up.hvakrg - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
Ah that might be I really don't know :)velis - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
Yes, they didbji - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
Huh? National Semiconductor bought Cyrix.Via bought IDT, although to say that IDT was a major player in the x86 space is definitely a stretch.
IBM did have partnerships with Cyrix and built Cyrix designed chips and sold them under their own brand name. You could also call IBM a major player back then but that is only slightly less of an overstatement than to say the same about IDT.
There were really only three competitive x86 vendors:
1. Intel
2. AMD
3. Cyrix
Cyrix was the least competitive and didn't last. They offered incredible value though in the late 90's, but never came close to competing in the high end, or even the midrange really. They were strictly low end.
Back in the days of the Pentium II, AMD K6-2, and Cyrix M2, the x86 world was a much more interesting place than now. Nothing interesting ever happens anymore, the industry just kind of rolls along at a predictable pace.
pcreso - Saturday, June 11, 2011 - link
What about even earlier... NEC had better than Intel 8086 cpus in the early PC days...ganeshts - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_IA-32_...shabby - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
Cyrix and Via.Targon - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
You had Transmeta and Cyrix, Nexgen was the company AMD bought so they could release the AMD K6.extide - Monday, June 6, 2011 - link
CyrexNexgen
Intel
AMD
ahmedz_1991 - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
windows 8 on 5 platforms ??!!didn't c that coming! I wonder if we could c affordable yet capable machines out of this !
Targon - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
The real problem has never been about the OS, but about compatible applications. Unless you have some sort of compatibility layer(virtual machine), you generally need new applications that have been compiled for the given CPU architecture.Intel has run into this more than once, where new processors did not take off due to performance of old x86 applications not being very good on the new chips. The Pentium Pro was a 32 bit chip that basically broke compatibility with existing applications....it died, though most of the design ended up being used in the Pentium 2 and Pentium 3, and even the Core line was the same basic design. The Itanium was an almost complete failure for multiple reasons.
There is the potential for virtual machines to handle compatibility issues for apps, but I see a huge potential here for a major support headache. Now, we will have people who buy apps for their Windows 8 based machine, and they won't have ANY clue about how to figure out which version they will need.
parkerm35 - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
I think this is a lot different from the Pentium Pro situation. People write software to run on current operating systems using current CPU's. When Windows 8 hits the streets this will be a "current" operating system and developers will write software to run on these "current" CPU's. I mean lets face it who in this world who owns a PC wont want Windows 8? XP users are waiting for it, I have Windows 7 ultimate and i'm still waiting for it. So developers obviously want to sell there software to the mass, which will be after a year after release Windows 8.fireboy92k - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
I think MS will also start banging the drum on the whole 'app compat' thing in a different way than Intel and others implied/are implying. Only NATIVE Windows apps will need to be re-compiled/made for Intel vs. ARM most likely. I also don't think we are about to see ARM powered desktops anytime soon. This just finally lets Windows scale to something else other than Intel and to form factors that frankly Intel has had poor penitration into. They've consistently fumbled their mobile CPU platform since the start, so either MS got tired of waiting, or they finally woke up and realized ChipZilla ain't ever gonna get there in time for them to not get their clock cleaned entirely.The new touch stuff and start screen you noticed were all about 'HTML 5 and Javascript'. Such apps will 'just run' regardless of the underlying CPU architecture as your web rendering engine is now that 'app compatability layer' or VM if you will. No mention in that discussion about 'natively compiled' apps, or Silverlight apps, or .Net apps.... zip, zilch, nada.
For Microsoft, who has a MASSIVE infrastructure and cash business in tools and compilers, that's a HUGE shift... It's more like the move to Windows 95 than just the UI, that's for sure.
snarfbot - Friday, June 3, 2011 - link
why wouldnt we see any arm desktops? most certainly there well be net-tops based on arm once windows 8 is out.whats the difference between a desktop and a net-top, performance and flexibility, form factor?
for most users form factor isnt a goal when purchasing a pc, performance is, and for most uses arm is going to be acceptable for the average consumer.
as long as it runs windows, they might just eat it up as long as its priced competitively.
mike8675309 - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
the real problem is not simply applications, it's drivers for the hardware that interfaces to the operating system. Video cards, printers, scanners, USB device drivers, sound drivers, any number of vertical hardware pieces. anything that is at the hardware level has to have code written to transition to the operating system. Microsoft has done a good job to hide driver issues with Windows 7, but they are there.And windows has always had a hardware abstraction layer. Folks may not remember but NT ran on Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC. Windows CE supports multiple processor families (ARM, MIPS...etc).
As all these chip sets shake out, it may be a good time to be a low level device driver programmer.
Geeks Rule - Tuesday, July 12, 2011 - link
The real issue is the OS. As hardware continues to advance all 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. core processors. The OS needs to keep up. If the OS can't keep up and be created to utilize and facilitate the integration of new tech properly...I'm glad it's something Microsoft has had in their sights over the past few years and have hopefully incorporated into 8.
mfed3 - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
how will these devices work in terms of booting? will they have pc like efi / bios with configurable partitions or will they have these locked down rom based bootloaders? i really want to know about the arm based side mostly. this could be game changing.any word on the html5 / css / javascript based sdk?
StormyParis - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
I don't really understand your question. Android is ROM-based, yet rootable and multiboot capable. What's the issue ?dagamer34 - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link
My biggest worry is that tablets should NEVER see the classic desktop UI as it's not touch friendly and introduces way too much cruft. On an ARM chip with no legacy apps, there should be ZERO reason for it to ever pop up.StormyParis - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
except when you dock your tablet ? I definitely intend to do that a lot when I make the jump, and looking at the couple of tablet users around me, they should, too. Anything beyond pure content consumption really benefits form a keyboard and mouse, event typing short mails or forum posts.Chloiber - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
As long as you really never see the classic UI in normal "tablet usage", that would be great.marioyohanes - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
This is great news! I'm sick with all those Apple's copycat products! Apple needs a serious contender, the one that will change the game, so, Windows 8 is a great example!Can't wait to see Microsoft finally launch Windows 8!
sarge78 - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link
If ARM powered devices are successful on W8 couldn't there be more manufactures not less?Cheap ARM reference SoC manufactures (like Rockchip etc) could come to dominate the low end.
chinmayvs - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link
oh my ! when wil win 8 come outcrispbp04 - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 - link
If you guys remember thein the late 90's there were these:
1) Intel Pentium/Celeron
2) AMD K6/Athlon (K7)
3) Cyrix 6x86 (licenced by IBM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix_6x86
4) IDT WinChip (AKA Centaur.. later consumed by VIA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinChip
qqgoodhao - Sunday, July 17, 2011 - link
http://www.ifancyshop.comWomen's fashion, men's personality + shoes
Travel bagthat eye-catching jacket + super pack free shipping
zgoodbbb - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link
http://www.ifancyshop.comWomen's fashion, men's personality + shoes
Travel bagthat eye-catching jacket + super pack free shipping