X86 is a CISC(complex instruction set computer) architecture, The way it is implemented now, and basically always has bean implemented is through microcoding, at the lowest level is a simple RISC-ish CPU which is actually doing all the work, on top of this is a bunch of microcode marking up something which is effectively an emulator like QEMU which actually runs the X86 instructions. X86 processors are wasting a huge number of the underlying `microcycles’ emulating an outdated messy instruction set, which is obviously extremely power inefficient.

On top of this is the whole IBM PC derived platform, which is seriously showing its age. For example the BIOS, which still runs in 16 bit mode, and is for all intents and purposes completely and utterly useless to a modern 32 or 64 bit OS, which implement there own drivers for low level functionality bypassing the BIOS so that IO can be done without switching the processor into 16 bit mode. The BIOS would be much better discarded and replaced with something like Coreboot.

Backwards compatibility is a good thing, however it can be taken too far, all modern computers are still capable of running DOS and its divided OSs like windows 95/98, which NO ONE uses these days. This takes backwards compatibility far beond the point of actually being any use to anybody.

ARM is a RISC architecture, which is essentially tacking an CISC design and throwing away all of the layers of emulation, this massively improves the power efficiency as it is no longer necessary to waste cycles running microcode, the code is actually executed by real hardware, not a low-level emulator. This also has the side effect of improved performance.

Developing for ARM is not difficult, at a higher level the compiler does most of the work for you and at a lower level(assembly language) things are a lot easier because of the much smaller instruction set without tuns of hacked on extensions. Generally the only problem is that ARM chips often don’t have an FPU(floating point unit) or have a slow preforming one, requiring floating point operations to be converted into fixed point ones.

On a side note, WINE WILL NOT EVER run on the ARM architecture because it is essentially passing through instructions directly to the CPU, WINE is not an emulator. It may be passable to get it working in combination with QEMU but the performance is going to be none existent.

Additionally traditional desktop OSs do not work well on a netbook simply because they waste far to much screen space with useless GUI stuff. When you only have a tiny screen, screen real estate really is a precious resource, not something that can be freely wasted with GUIs that have massive empty gaps in them, or useless things like window bars. Tiling/Tabbing window managers are much better sooted to small screens becouse you basically have to have everything maximised all the time anyway.

Also from my point of view, mice on laptops/netbooks are an anti-pattern, you have those awful twitchy touch pads or these `mini joystick’ things. Which results in having to carry around a extra hardware mouse as well, which should not be needed. Laptop/netbook interface design should be treated as a stand-alone entity much like mobile phone interfaces are.

I’ll try to present my points in the form of an analogies:

When ARM netbooks/smartbooks arrive, are they going to be dvorak keyboards to intel’s qwerty keyboards? Studies may show that they are somewhat more efficient than Intel’s 2nd-3rd generation Atoms, but I feel that unless the ARM machines give slightly better performance for radically less money, they will suffer the fate of the dvorak… better for those that use it most, but not so much better that the mass make the switch.

I guess my other analogies come from records and tapes vs CDs and Beta vs VHS vs DVD vs Blu-Ray. Are ARMs going to be a substantially different than what we already know? Netbooks are already being pushed into the lowend laptop space, are the arm books going to provide a different use experience to make consumers feel that paying the same or more than intel netbooks is resulting in something remarkably better? (ie. VHS tapes vs DVD disks, a clearly better experience, and a different format) That looks unlikely hardware-wise, they’re just more mini-laptops. Like Aq pointed out, ARM wants to dominate a market in 3-5 years. Few things have done this except for the switch from VHS to DVD and the switch to digital cameras from 35mm film. Both cases where the replacement was radically better for the non-experts and their wallets compared to the original technology. Even MP3s, for all its ease of replication and transportation didn’t kill the CD in 5 years. It (arguably) took 7-12 years.

BlueRay is arguably not all that much better than DVD, and some people will resist replacinga disk with just another disk. Why should people get a smartbook that’s a lot like my other netbook?

So, really, all that is to say that ARM has to really provide a substantial improvement to the netbook/laptop experience, AND be cheaper, for it to meet these grand market share projections. Or else it will suffer beta vs VHS: technically better, but undercut by price.

Never underestimate price. Why do you think the technically superior big iron is being undercut by commodity hardware?

To me the main reason Linux on netbooks is not so well received is because it is too much like Windows. This sets an expectation that it will work like Windows. Give them Ubuntu Remix or something else that operates a bit differently and the expectation of the Winodws Experience is gone.

We don’t have people complaining that their mobile phones don’t work like Windows or their PVRs. It’s because no such expectation has been set.

The Always Innovating Touchbook is the first on the market (that I know of) http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm First Looks say it is interesting and works, but I cannot find anything more detailed.

One area of ARM processors you did not mention, one that spans the gap between phones and netbooks, is the Internet Tablet, such as the Nokia N-series or the Archos 5. I have an N810 that is never very far out of reach. It has an ARM processor, is slightly larger than a smartphone and sports a full Linux distribution. Admittedly the Archos sports a crippled version of Android.

However, on the Nokias, the operating system, Maemo, is based on Debian, and an up-and-coming project, called Mer, is based on Ubuntu. I believe the Mer devs goal is to have a large portion of the Ubuntu software catalog available for the Nokia devices. Maemo is sponsored by Nokia, but has a heavy open source component, and Mer is completely based on Ubuntu. I have run the Gimp and OpenOffice on this tablet (albeit slowly), as well as watching movies, reading books, playing games, nearly everything I can do on my desktop. The latest addition to the N-series stable, the N900, also has a mobile phone built in.

On my N810, I have limited Flash support (flash8, as I recall), so I can do youtube and all of the other social networking type stuff as well as making and receiving SIP calls (through gizmo and skype), and I can do secure networking through wireless using traditional VPN tools.

The TouchBook can, run Maemo as well as the smaller tablets. I personally think that this is the direction that ARM-based netbooks need to proceed, throwing their resources into already established projects like Maemo and Mer to improve them as much as possible.

Corrupted file?

Thanks for the information. Thats the sort of thing I wanted to get out of someone. Why is ARM so good (apart from low power usage of course).

Now comes and extremely dumb statement. I expect to be severely laughed at for it.

I remember using the family’s Acorn A5000 and various other Archimedes computers at primary, and early secondary school. (Please note, I only left school 10 years back )

How much have ARM processors developed since those days? Our old A5000 had a clock speed of 33MHz, compare that to the netbooks mentioned early with 200MHz, and the increase in clock speed isn’t that great (not compared with x86 clock speeds anyway)

Are we in effect looking at something a bit too stagnant to enable us to use the processors now, and in the future? Are the ARM developers content with making chips for phone etc?

mattmole

As netbooks are primarily geared towards using the web the OS it runs becomes less and less relevant as long as it provides a good browser and good clients for common web services.

https://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/

One application is to hang the screen on a metal surface using magnets (they have a video of this that is very intriguing).

I don’t know if they will be a success, but they are definitely leveraging ARM and embedded Linux to think outside of the box.

http://www.cnmlifestyle.com/

That will drive huge numbers to make the economies of scale that to enable these sort of prices.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2334753,00.asp

There’s already a version that works. I know there’s an interface for mobile phones based on flash for windows mobile and that certainly runs on ARM. And on the other hand HTML5 is here for the most part so hopefully a few years from now you won’t even need flash.

From my point of view if I can get a netbook that has 12 to 16 hours of battery life (for real not just on paper), can stream audio, video and browse the web, I’d buy it right now. All I need is an over-sized cheap smart phone with a proper keyboard.