Intel doesn’t think that Arm CPUs will make a dent in the laptop market

ijeff@lemdro.id to Technology@beehaw.org – 123 points –
Intel doesn’t think that Arm CPUs will make a dent in the laptop market
arstechnica.com
107

You are viewing a single comment

Apple already did though. Even specifically replacing Intel chips because Intel's offering was dogshit that was destroying their ability to offer the design they wanted with their stupid power draw.

The rest of ARM is behind, and Windows has done a shit job of ARM support, but that doesn't mean that's forever.

Windows also seems more concerned with going all in on cloud computing, the whole “you will own nothing and like it” paradigm. So making a faster and more efficient mobile platform isn’t probably a high priority for them.

Them trying to force control away from users is bad.

But arm's efficiency make it a damn good option for a thin client.

Yah, I’m really not enthused with the idea of having to pay monthly rent for my computers ability to function.

I wonder if intel just values their existing experience with 86 more than any potential efficiency gains since the efficiency matters a lot less when the whole system is just a glorified screen and antenna.

I think it matters more.

Apple's battery life is so good in large part because ARM is way better at low end power draw.

I'd say their recent trend towards packing in E(fficiency)-cores along with their previously standard P(erformance)-core design shows that they're sensitive to and reacting to both the higher core counts of AMD and the greater efficiency of ARM

I'm really not sure even Microsoft could get away with that

The moment a subscription service comes into play for something they take for granted as free people will start looking at alternatives. Chromebooks and macbooks exist and from what I hear Chromebooks are starting to become serious competition for Windows

Plus Linux desktop obviously getting more user friendly and preinstalled on laptops

Them taking control away from me makes me not use them. Not a problem at all.

I was never too deep because I always hated everything about Windows UX, but I was stuck with them for gaming for a bit. Luckily Steam fixed that for pretty much everything I wanted to play but Madden (and after hours of it also not working on a separate Windows install I tried just for that purpose, I threw in the towel on that, too).

The funny thing is I actually kind of like the idea of a thin client as a general rule. Not for gaming or anything else latency sensitive, but offloading heavy lifting is perfectly fine with me. Just not in a way I don't have control of.

I'm stuck with it because of work. Luckily, "Industry 4.0" is completely fucking fed up with M$ and they're abandoning Windows in droves. I'm just waiting for my vendor to finish polishing their MacOS and Linux alternatives.

Especially when it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Windows isn’t the future. Windows has maintained dominance because it is great at backwards compatibility. ARM erodes that advantage because of architectural differences, coupled with the difficulty and drawbacks of emulating x86 on ARM. Mobile is eating more and more market share, and devs aren’t making enterprise software for Windows like they use to.

No one working on a greenfield project says “let’s develop our systems on Windows server” unless they already were doing that. Windows as a service is the more likely future, funneled by Azure.

Even some shops working with Windows Server are asking "wait, why are we paying for these licenses?"

Then it comes down to whether it's cheaper to rewrite legacy applications or continue to pay for licenses.

My former employer made this decision recently. They moved off .NET and onto a web app with a RHEL server. Time will tell if they pull it off.

Also, Chromebooks. And the more powerful CPUs the more they'll be purchased too.

And low-end Windows laptops.

Maybe not a giant piece of the pie of the current market, but definitely a dent as these more powerful CPUs come online.