TI Joins the Windows RT Demo Fray

14 Comments

View All Comments

• mayankleoboy1 - Friday, June 8, 2012 - link

  So which is the best option :
  
  1. x86 + win8
  2.x86 + android (medfield)
  3.ARM+ win8
  4.ARM+android
  
  Alternately, which definitely is not a good option ?

• B3an - Saturday, June 9, 2012 - link

  As far as i know Medfield is just for phones and is only single core. Clover Trail is for Win 8 tablets and is an improved dual-core version of Medfield.
  
  So x86 + Win 8 with Intel Clover Trail should be best. That will have ARM-like power consumption with the performance in the same area as ARM's new dual-core A15. Because as shown on this site a single core Medfield currently competes with dual-core ARM A9 on both power consumption and performance. So a dual-core Clover Trail should compete with A15. I'd expect Clover Trail tablets to be also fanless and thin/light (the same as ARM alternatives) yet run all existing x86 software.
  
  But as always it depends what you want to use it for.

• Penti - Sunday, June 10, 2012 - link

  x86 Atom plus Android would have the biggest software base, at least none-win32 wise. WinRT (Metros native runtime/framework/toolkit) have the risk of being totally irrelevant here, especially on desktops where apps would have to keep building "desktop" Win32 and old style improved (better ribbon support if you like to utilize it) .NET apps mostly on the older tools (VS). Porting even without switching runtime is a lot of work. W8 does seem to have improved, but that only means it works better on a desktop without utilizing any apps in metro mode and mostly using it as a start screen/menu. On ARM or WinRT (the runtime, not necessarily the Windows RT version) we won't see hardly any games or apps running on the new Metro environment, stuff like browsers don't work within the Metro sandbox so I wouldn't expect anyone porting games to it. It isn't the best mix or environment, an Android NDK (sandboxed) is powerful enough for C/C++ games and browsers, if they are not done the wrong way it will feel really quick too, definitively better then Microsoft's native browser in Metro and Windows Phone most of the time. It's hard to compete by merrily being there. Integration into Microsoft enterprise environment and products is usually better with the competition today, on x86 it will however be full feature, but that wouldn't necessary make it good as a touch tablet. It's not like somebody in the right mind would use touch for business applications. Sitting and tapping the screen all day.
  
  Of course on the desktop with Windows 8 it will go better, but nobody would bother with touch in those MFC/Ribbon/WPF/WinForms apps. So in practice it is no different then that you can run those Windows apps on an Android or iOS tablet using Citrix receiver / RDP / Terminal services unless you actually hook up a keyboard and touchpad, Microsoft should worry about their primary input devices too. Better gesture support on the trackpad in Win32 apps is more important then those full screen apps that seems stupid to be managed together with the old window manager / desktop. Silverlight would been an alternative way of tying it together with their mobile platform. It's just too hard to take advantage of the new software and touch features.
  
  That said the new Intel chips will make it great for 600-800 gram tablet devices with similar battery life of tablet ARM SoC's. It's mostly a matter of what we do with those. PowerVR graphics is still terrible in Windows though.

• Malphas - Sunday, June 10, 2012 - link

  1. x86 + win8 = If you want to run regular non-Metro Windows software for some reason then there's the obvious benefit of this, assuming the software you want has low enough requirements to run smoothly on tablet hardware, and is touch friendly enough (so things like the Witcher 2, or Adobe CS are obviously out).
  
  2.x86 + android (medfield) = Utterly pointless.
  
  3.ARM+ win8 = Still a case of wait and see. Android has the headstart so Windows 8 will need to iron out the kinks and build up its Metro software base. On the plus side, chances are it'll end up a lot more polished than Android, much the same as Windows Phone is turning out.
  
  4.ARM+android = More tried and tested, more software. May change in the future but for now it's still the safest bet.

• damianrobertjones - Sunday, June 10, 2012 - link

  "4.ARM+android = More tried and tested, more software. May change in the future but for now it's still the safest bet."
  
  Really? I'm going with option 1 as the hardware will probably be able to run Windows 9, WIndows 7, Windows XP etc while the Android device... ummm, not sure

• damianrobertjones - Sunday, June 10, 2012 - link

  - x86 + Win8 & Bluestacks

• Conficio - Friday, June 8, 2012 - link

  It's so funny all the tables are dirty from use, when photographed.
  
  Have you ever been to an auto show? The car makers know you need to get the object of desire spotless clean before you allow them to be photographed (for press purposes).
  
  By the way that also is a boon for actual use. We either need a coating that repels the fat on our fingers (matte surfaces would actually go a long way on that) or we need different interaction designs, like the lab models where you interact from the back of the device or use areas to the side of the actual screen.
  
  May be voice communication is the solution, but then can you imagine the bus full of people talking to their devices to check SMS or e-mail or play games? Brrrrr!

• Musafir_86 - Friday, June 8, 2012 - link

  "Microsoft instructed its partners not to show off anything but the start screen when allowing photography for Windows RT devices..."
  
  -Here you are (courtesy of Engadget): http://www.engadget.com/photos/windows-rt-on-omap-... . :)
  
  Regards.

• JMC2000 - Saturday, June 9, 2012 - link

  Am I crazy, or does that TI demo unit have a full-sized SD slot? I would purchase that unit from TI on that reason alone, well as long as. It is SDXC compatible.
  
  Never understood the mindset of microSD on a tablet...

• JarredWalton - Friday, June 8, 2012 - link

  So apparently Microsoft hasn't announced this, but does anyone know what the "RT" stands for? I figure with Windows NT, the NT stood for "New Technology" -- at that point in time, going full 32-bit was "new". Given that history, I'm thinking RT stands for "Reduced Technology", since they're basically removing everything from Windows RT that makes Windows what it is today. RT is just Metro apps, and the only similarity to Windows there is that Metro apps will also work on x86 laptops and desktops. Anyway, hooray for naming schemes, Microsoft. Maybe "Windows on ARM" was too descriptive and "RT" obfuscates the matter (and allows the use of the same OS on non-ARM devices like Medfield).