Intel Takes a Stand: No Windows Phone 7 Support

Apparently someone at Microsoft must’ve peed in Intel’s cheerios because Moorestown won’t be found in any Windows Phone 7 devices. According to Intel it’s more than just a spat over breakfast, Intel claims that Windows Phone 7 is still optimized for very low end ARM SoCs. Intel went on to say that despite the advances in the OS, Windows Phone 7 isn’t progressing fast enough from an architecture standpoint and that it is an “old OS with many of the warts we’re trying to get away from”. Apparently Windows Phone 8 falls into the same category and it too will not be supported by Moorestown.


Windows Phone 7, Not Supported by Moorestown

The same goes for Symbian (obviously).

Intel says that these OSes aren’t on a steep enough roadmap to make the Moorestown investment. It’s difficult to say whether or not Intel is right, we’ll have to wait to see how Windows Phone 7 scales with performance once the first devices hit later this year.

Moblin/MeeGo x86 Everywhere: Two Years Later
POST A COMMENT

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • Mike1111 - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    IMHO Anand meant app-centric smartphones, David Pogue calls them app phones. Reply
  • jasperjones - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    i don't see how recent symbian devices are not "app centric." you have the publicly available sdk, the ovi store, etc. Reply
  • BrooksT - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    So your argument is that symbian is a bigger player in the app phone market than Apple because their *latest* phones support apps?

    The "smartphone" / "app phone" semantic difference is annoying, but if we look at, say, number of applications available or downloaded, Symbian and RIM are distant third and fourth places. Likewise with app usage, even just internet browsing.

    If you want to talk about smartphones as they existed in 2006, then yes, both Symbian and RIM are much bigger than Apple or Android.
    Reply
  • jasperjones - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    To clarify: I said "recent" because the first Symbian smartphones came out almost 10 years ago--of course, those weren't app-centric.

    My original comment on Anand's article still stands. I'm talking about IDC's and Canalys' reports on 2010:Q1 smartphone sales which became available just days ago. Of course, most of the smartphones sold by Nokia and RIM in the first quarter allow for installation of apps such as Facebook, Ovi Maps, etc., etc.
    Reply
  • WaltFrench - Sunday, May 9, 2010 - link

    “…Apple and Google dominate the smartphone market. This is utter nonsense.”

    All you have to do is to look at the developer space. How many app developers are creating apps for the unreleased RIM OS 6? … for the Symbian OS^3, due out in “select” markets sometime in Q3?

    If older apps work OK in these new OS incarnations, and if Blackberry and Nokia users are heavy app downloaders (or for some reason will become heavy users), then the current sales-share leaders are relevant, but still not dominant, in the future of app phones.
    Reply
  • nafhan - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    I'm curious about the PCI bus requirement for Windows 7 that would prevent it from running on Moorestown devices. Does it have something to do with storage, maybe? I'm having trouble finding specifics online as well. If someone could enlighten me, it would be appreciated. Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    This is almost certainly a factor of windows being a monolithic kernel and MS not having any way to say "this PC doesn't do PCI". This is something that MS will have to deal with in the medium term future anyway. PCI slots are going away from some high end mobos; it's only a matter of time before they disappear from mainstream boards and stop being used to attach misc controllers like PATA (slowly going away entirely) or FireWire (FW3200 will need PCIe bandwidth). At that point intel will want to take it out of their chipsets as a cost saving feature, and oems will not be happy if they have to install a PCIe to PCI bridge to maintain windows compatibility. Reply
  • Drizzt321 - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    Maybe HP/Palm should get with Intel and optimize WebOS for this. Much of the WebOS stack is just Linux, Webkit, plus other F/OSS stuff like gstreamer and the like so I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't as big an effort as, say, Symbian or anything like that.

    This could be a big break for Intel and HP/Palm, since HP/Palm needs something big to help it move on to the next WebOS device, and the OS could certainly see some benefits to more CPU power. I've heard the overclocking patches raising the CPU to 800MHz can really help things.
    Reply
  • sleepeeg3 - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - link

    Please stop designing faster phones.

    Phone A lasts 24 hours standby
    Phone B lasts 6 hours standby

    After 6 hours, Phone B's battery is dead. How much use do you get out of a phone with a dead battery? 0.

    999GHz x 0 is still... 0!

    This push toward faster phones, without even considering battery life, is nuts. Phones are impractical tools for just about everything, but calling, messaging and photographs. None of these are CPU intensive. Dependability is more important than how fast the dial screen opens.

    Moorestown may include better power architecture, but it throws this away by jacking up the processor speed.

    Lets get back to practicality and make phones functional again. This push toward cutesy 1000mAH/1GHz+ phones that die in a few hours is moronic.

    Is it too much to ask for phones that last a week?
    Reply
  • metafor - Thursday, May 6, 2010 - link

    There are plenty of phones that last a week...

    They even cost significantly less than GHz smartphones and usually don't come with a 2-year contract.

    But they don't have giant 4.2" AMOLED screens (which btw, is ~50% of the power consumption) either.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now