After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Three reasons Microsoft shouldn't port Windows to the ARM processor
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Without a version of Windows tailored for ARM netbooks, Linux-based platforms
>| such as Google Inc.'s Android mobile operating system could thrive and turn
>| the search and Web services company into "more of a competitor in the desktop
>| operating system business than we ever have before," admitted Microsoft CEO
>| Steve Ballmer to Wall Street last month.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9129632&source=rss_topic122
1. It will hurt its close partner, Intel Corp.
2. Technical difficulties.
3. Microsoft already has an OS -- several, in fact -- that run on ARM.
. . . Castellano agreed. ARM netbooks won't become popular for at least
several years, giving Microsoft time to retool Windows Mobile and make it
work well on netbooks.
> Recent:
>
> OLPC Set to Dump X86 for Arm Chips in XO-2
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| [T]he Arm chip could lead to problems for XO-2 in trying to load a full
>| version of Windows, Negroponte said. As with the XO-1, OLPC wants to offer a
>| dual-boot option on XO-2 where users can choose to load either Linux or a
>| full Windows OS. While Arm processors can run Windows Mobile operating
>| systems, they can't run a full Windows OS.
> `----
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/161112/olpc_set_to_dump_x86_for_arm_chips_in_xo2.html?tk=rss_news
Notice how they never mention the Windows applications that would have to be
ported to ARM? Would a user be satisfied with the current Windows Mobile
applications?
--
You haven#t exposed any troll lies. All you have done is appear to be a
complete dickhead time and time again.
-- Hadron, Message-ID <gi1ptd$931$4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
