Q: Will there be a Process Lasso for Windows ARM?
A: We'll be working on it here. It depends on many factors, but we plan to offer as much as Microsoft allows.
QuoteHowever, we must purchase ARM hardware to actually test with, obviously.
And adding another cost.
But PL maybe famous when they found that, their Windows RT is laggy, and they search through the market.
And they found your PL ;)
----
So we need to waiting that, the Windows RT is not pricing too high for the buyer/seller.
And most of them is buying a low-end tablet and found that it is laggy for them. ;D
It is entirely possible that Windows RT will be a bit underpowered. After all, it [Windows] was originally developed for more powerful x86 processors, and the kernel is still the same (even if compiled for ARM instead of x86). We'll have to wait to see. Yes, it is a expense I *hate* to add, and I *hope* users continue to support Process Lasso, realizing how much money it takes to truly make a good program, how much Microsoft charges US, and our various other expenses.
And the only problem is.
How many software will support the Windows RT.
Just like WP, because less people using it, so less software for it, and more people not using it because of less software.
Repeat and repeat. ;D
----
And most of user of tablet is browsing internet, but Windows RT is not letting other browser to support it.
So most of user will buying Windows 8 instead of Windows RT.
Because you can running the same software which you can running with a desktop/laptop.(if the software is not high requirements)
Yes, that is the chicken and the egg problem. There are also questions as to how much Microsoft will allow on ARM systems. If they do not allow background processes, and instead only allow Metro applications (as I believe they will), then it will not be possible - at least in the initial version. This will limit Process Lasso's capabilities. However, it will still be able to do many things, but will have to be re-developed for Metro.
So the Windows RT having the Big problem like this
How much Microsoft will allow on ARM systems will put a limit of the software to support it.
If the developers found that cost less to support it, and it only limit some that not affect the function of the software.
Why not support it?
So the Big problem is how many cost to support it with some limit without affect the core function of the software?
If the cost is too big for small businesses, the quantity of the software reduced.
Or
If the cost is fine for small businesses, but because of the limit, they cannot support it.
So, if Microsoft allow a lot, and the cost less for small businesses, the quantity of the software increase.(as many developers is not doing a big businesses)
And the user will think that, that fine, and buying it.
The Big businesses will support it when the user increase.
-----
As short, it depend on the cost needed to support it, and the limit of a software can "do". ;)
Cost less and less limit, quantity increase.
And we can guess Windows RT with WP8.
Yes, and probably also depends on my personal interest as a last thing ;p. Sadly, we are often at the mercy of my own creative impetus. Sometimes I get fired up to do this or that... other times, I don't.
Yup, interest can push you forward. ;)
"The fastest ARM chips remain a long way off the performance of any quad-core x86 CPU."
I didn't know anything about ARM, until I just went looking, now...but it seems more applicable to portable computing, rather than desktop.
I have no use for portable computing, and my next system will probably be another custom desktop. In the meantime my Quad core system with XP Pro, still serves, nicely. ;)
Quote from: Tarnak on September 01, 2012, 10:56:07 PM
"The fastest ARM chips remain a long way off the performance of any quad-core x86 CPU."
Yup, and they are many competitors.
QuoteI didn't know anything about ARM, until I just went looking, now...but it seems more applicable to portable computing, rather than desktop.
As I know, the Intel smartphone with android is bested by the ARM.
The performance on a portable is increasing, but the problem is on the Heat and Battery.
Who like to having the performance, but with just 2 hours of operating time...
----
QuoteI have no use for portable computing, and my next system will probably be another custom desktop. In the meantime my Quad core system with XP Pro, still serves, nicely. ;)
The meaning of "enough performance"is different for person, if you just browsing a internet, a i3 is enough, but if you using it to convert video while playing game, you need a processor that can handle it.
So I think a computer can serves how long is depend on what you need ;)
The irony is that the two CPU types are converging. x86 CPUs are getting smaller and more power efficient, e.g. the Intel ATOM series. Meanwhile, ARM processors are getting more powerful, and adding more cores.
I intend to retain XP support indefinitely. I hated to drop 2K support, but Microsoft pretty much forced me to. Besides, there are older versions that are perfect for W2K. Honestly, v3.84.8 was a great build for 2K and XP both, as it is before any NT6 specific features were added.
Even to retain XP support I have to use the VC10 (VS2010) platform tools in VS2012, pending an update Microsoft is supposed to issue 'some time this Fall' to restore support for XP as a target for VS2012 (VC11). Yes, they initially decided to drop all XP/2003 support, but then reversed that decision - but have yet to issue the update. When they finally do, I can *finally* make use of the latest compiler. To support W2K, I have to go back to VS2008 (VC9) build tools, which lack a lot of optimizations and security features present in newer editions of Microsoft's compiler and linker.
QuoteThe irony is that the two CPU types are converging. x86 CPUs are getting smaller and more power efficient, e.g. the Intel ATOM series. Meanwhile, ARM processors are getting more powerful, and adding more cores.
With the increasing of the power required.
I wonder what software can using multi-threads on the ARM...
----
That the part why we don't like Microsoft, adding the difficult to support the older Windows/software.
But the problem is the "XP user" don't want to use windows 7.
Many people buy a new laptop, and they install windows xp and asking why having so many problem....
When I/we ask it why install Windows XP, he/she answer
"Because the Windows 7 is Not Stable"
.... :o
And this is just because the seller say that XP is stable than 7, 7 is having more trouble than XP...
You hit the nail on the head with XP. It is the most targeted system as far as malware attacks go, and most vulnerable at the same time. Most XP systems I have seen have pretty bad malware problems, or just have been severely corrupted by any number of 'optimization' utilities that have trashed their system settings. Now that Microsoft is dropping it, that means no more security patches too.... Note sure on the date on this, as they keep pushing it back, but it was supposed to have already passed EOL.
Ya, the problem is they don't want to try accept it.
http://xpwasmyidea.blogspot.com/
The problem is to protect the user, Microsoft need to drop something to make the security more stronger.
And if the software can't be run, run it in a Virtual Machine with XP installed. ;)
Now would be a good time to mention XP Mode (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx) as well... Which is of course XP in a virtual machine, made very easy for end users.
But the user is not using it as most of them are playing game, and they think that playing game in a virtual machine is bad.
But the problem is, how many performance is needed for a old game? :)
That is true, older games don't require all the power of modern processors and GPUs. Also true is that virtual machine hardware GPU acceleration has improved by leaps and bounds, as has hardware (CPU) assisted virtual machine operation - though it is only marginally faster than software based solutions because they became so optimal. In fact, the first generation of CPU assisted virtual machine technology was actually marginally slower than its software-based counterpart, lol.
While I don't play games, I do a lot of CPU intensive things in virtual machines, and can say that VMWare (at least) offers excellent performance by all measures. I am sure VirtualPC likewise offers comparable performance.
It would be interesting to see some gamers run some benchmarks in virtual machines, to see what FPS they can achieve in comparison to the host machine. I would suspect that if they give the client OS enough resources, they might be surprised by its performance.
QuoteIt would be interesting to see some gamers run some benchmarks in virtual machines, to see what FPS they can achieve in comparison to the host machine. I would suspect that if they give the client OS enough resources, they might be surprised by its performance.
Ya, I think I need to Google it.
----
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/336186-33-full-gaming-virtual-machine
Only this found.
----
On the future, the virtual machine will be very popular if the "cloud" has been become famous.
At that time, the virtual machine performance problem will be fix ;)