POST A COMMENT

19 Comments

Back to Article

  • arnavvdesai - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Intel might not support Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 but Windows could scale down normal windows or start from scratch on the core like its doing with Menlo(NT core but low power req with Silverlight UI) which could demand that high performance. Microsoft could bring out another type of device - something like the now canceled Courier which would be ideal for the next gen of Atoms(2011). However, the major type of question Intel should be asking is what type of portable and mobile applications will demand high performance? The only thing I can see happening is games & or video(but video is already adequately handled by majority of todays chipsets). Intel can demand an OS which in turn demands high performance but do the consumers want it? People are just discovering really good mobile needs.
    Another player though could be HP which could demand the processor for its next generation of slates which will run on WebOS which also has a Linux OS running in the background. I believe that would suit Intels and HPs plan to really distinguish their products. A Moorestown based WebOS platform would be something truly unique in the marketplace. HP has already said that they dont see using Win7 in their tablets because its too power hungry, WebOS is another thing altogether.
    Main question IMO is is Meego part of the (package) if you want to get off the ground running or will porting other OS be equally easy?
    Reply
  • arnavvdesai - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Also, Anand would love to hear your thoughts on the acquisition of Palm by HP. Reply
  • numberoneoppa - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Agreed. Palm and HP. Anand? :) Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I've been meaning to, let me see if I can get time this week before I leave :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • PreciseInteli - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    What do they mean? That Windows Mobile 7 isn't bloated enough to require such a fast processor. That the software is optimized enough to provide adequate performance with "slower" processors. I'm glad that operating systems do not "need" faster processors. Lets keep the requirements down, dont let the devs get lazy. Reply
  • arnavvdesai - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Its not about being lazy, its keep stuff really simple and easy to access. For instance you can push more functionality into menus which is not that hard. However, to add slide out menus or a larger screen for simpler icons requires more power since you need a larger resolution which in turn requires more graphics power. Its a huge balancing act always and software has progressed to an extent that its really hard to write bad code in large corporations. Its not about laziness Its about requirements. Reply
  • doubledeej - Thursday, May 06, 2010 - link

    I've been developing software for about 30 years and all I've seen is programmers becoming more and more lazy and less interested in writing efficient code. We've got oodles more processing capability on hardware, but our apps for the most part run slower now than they did 30 years ago. If we keep throwing hardware at the problem it is just going to continue getting worse, not better. Reply
  • seamusmc - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link

    You live in a different universe than the rest of us. 30 years ago i was still walking cards over to the machine. That's a damn slow bus. :D

    Without the high level languages and frameworks we have today we would still be in the 'dark ages' relatively speaking.

    20 Years ago I still did a good bit of assembly coding, that amount of effort would require years to develop applications we can do in days today. Heck much of what we can do today was impossible then.

    To assert that programs created 30 years ago were any better or efficient then they are today is naive. Applications 30 and even 20 years ago were extremely trivial to what we can do today. Additionally there were plenty of crap programmers back then. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio was similar. (Keep in mind the number of folks actually programming back then was extremely low.)
    Reply
  • Roy2001 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Why they have a chance, iPhone is good, and Android is getting popular, why phone maker want to pay for the OS? Reply
  • nilepez - Saturday, May 08, 2010 - link

    I think it depends on prices. iPhone is a very expensive handset, if you include the price of the plan. Android is a better value, but it's quite possible that 7 Mobile will be as good or better. What's more, the Hero, and perhaps Android phones in general, have terrible battery life. At this point, I get up to 2 days on my ancient HTC Touch. Everyone at work with an android gets less than a day.

    If a 7 mobile device can get a day or more with normal use, I'll take that in a heartbeat over the any device that gets less.

    For now, I'll with hold judgement until I see a device. Maybe Mobile 7 is the Windows 7 of MS's mobile OS. If so, then maybe we'll end up with 3 or 4 great platforms: Android, iPhone, Web OS, 7 mobile and RIM (though I'm personally not a black berry fan).
    Reply
  • CSMR - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    What does this mean? Reply
  • SmCaudata - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    With the current generation phones and operating systems I don't see anyone complaining that 1GHz is sluggish. In fact, for most of the stuff an 800MHz processor appears to be as fast as a 1GHz processor. Any OS can scale in the future. In designing Windows Phone 7 MS did something that they have never done, they picked minimum hardware specs that guaranteed would run the OS. As it is nearing the end of development now, they picked the 1GHz Snapdragon as the bottom end. For the end user this means less fragmentation, and peace of mind that all phone software will run on all phone hardware.

    I was reading another article and I am pretty sure that MS has said they are developing for the Qualcom processor at launch and may expand to other processors later. It seems to me that Intel is upset they weren't included in this development and they simply are attempting to help the sale of whatever OS they do get used in by effectively bashing MS.

    MS isn't a perfect company, but I find it funny that when they make decisions that are actually good for the end user it seems to come back and bite them.
    Reply
  • glugglug - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I mean clearly no phone application requires nearly as much power as Flash. Reply
  • damianrobertjones - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Looks like all of the big boys are no longer playing nice. Reply
  • cracklint - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    then intel can charge what ever they want for their processors. That would clearly benefit everyone. Reply
  • SimKill - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    If AMD goes out of Business then say farewell to competition and low price processors.
    You remember right when the Core i7 was introduced, it held its outrageous prices for a very
    long time (and some models even today) simply because there is no competition at that point.
    Reply
  • GatoRat - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    The current crop of cell phones are using amazingly obsolete technology. The technology exists NOW to put the OS-X or Windows 7 kernel on a phone, but Apple/Microsoft won't do it because they are stuck in their crap, backward worlds. Reply
  • toyotabedzrock - Saturday, May 08, 2010 - link

    They are hoping that Microsoft will read what they said and that combined with pressure from users and big bloggers that have reminisced over wanting an atom/ WinMobile will convince them to program an x86 version of Windows Phone 7 with the needed hooks to properly use the power gating. Reply
  • hertzsae - Saturday, May 08, 2010 - link

    Sounds to me like Intel is trying to shame the OS vendors into making the wrong decision in regards to processors. I currently have an iPhone 3GS. My next phone will likely be some version of droid. I do not need any more power out of my phone. I need longer battery life. Charging every night is no fun. I would expect Moorestown to require charging a twice a day if anyone uses it to it's full potential, unless there is some quantum leap in battery technology that comes about soon, or the phones are huge. Moorestown will be great for all the iPad competitors that come out, but I doubt it'll be a good phone fit. Granted, it would be nice if I'm wrong and this thing uses lower power than I expect. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now