It shouldn't matter. NT was designed to be platform agnostic; it was written on the Intel i960, a long-forgotten RISC processor from Intel, by guys who had cut their teeth on VAX and Alpha, and was released on x86, Alpha, MIPS and PPC. There was even a SPARC port which never saw general release. I was running SQL Server on NT on Alpha in '96 or thenabouts, and bloody quick it was too! Porting NT 7 (or whatever Windows 8 really is) to ARM or POWER or whatever is not going to be a big deal.
The trouble isn't that "Windows can't be ported to ARM, etc." but more that Intel and Microsoft have, together, been making consistently bad decisions for a long time.
For instance, I'd say the tablet experience is more defined by having an SSD than having a touch screen. The hybrid hard drive that has been pushed in the WinTel ecosystem (including ReadyBoost) is a joke.
Customers don't feel minimum latency, mean latency, or median latency. They feel maximum latency. An SSD reduces maximum latency, but half-baked caching schemes don't. Yes, they improve measurable things like boot time, but a quick boot is little solace when your web browser regularly locks up for 20 seconds. (Even if the machine could reboot faster than the time the browser is locked up)
If there was one fundamental tenant of the anti-customer corporate ideology it is "throughput computing", or, the idea that nine woman can produce a baby in one month.
Customers don't perceive throughput, they perceive latency. When you're stuck on the 405 going 5 mph you aren't going to be philosophical and multiply that 5 mph by the density of vehicles, you're going to feel like it's slow for me...
Had the Windows 8 requirements included "no HDD", people would be saying "Wow, Windows 8 is fast!", instead a touch screen adds $100 to the cost, as does the Windows license, so users get shortchanged on the fundamental performance of the machine when they are trying to hit a given price point.
> Had the Windows 8 requirements included "no HDD", people would be saying "Wow, Windows 8 is fast!"
That's really clever. I was very underwhelmed by Windows 8 but I was moving from an SSD-only Windows 7 system, which are still relatively rare. If W8 black-desktoped on a system with less than 1000 IOPS on the system drive the way it does if you have an unsigned driver, there'd be a whole ecosystem of modern hardware and software that can assume fast storage IO opened up, with no backwards compatibility loss at all.
I had a netbook that I was planning to do wearable computing experiments with and the first thing I noticed was that the HDD would shut down if I had it in a backpack and moved faster than a slow walk.
The combination of moving from Win 7 starter to Win 8 (meaning remote desktop and all the goodies get unlocked) and going to an SSD has made it a really awesome machine. Win 8 really does get a lot out of an SSD, but if you hamstring your machine with an HDD or a "Hybrid" Hard Drive it doesn't matter how fast your CPU is if I/O makes the machine go out to lunch.
I have a netbook that has outlasted two macbooks. 1GB RAM, 1.6 GHz Atom processor, but it has an SSD... and I think the latter has proved to be the most important feature.
> Porting NT 7 (or whatever Windows 8 really is) to ARM or POWER or whatever is not going to be a big deal.
I'm uncertain they kept cross-platform systems running around (whereas I'm reasonably certain Apple has a full OSX running on ARM internally, as they had OSX/x86 long before they left POWER behind). Although NT was built to support a number of architectures, it's been almost 15 years since NT last ran on non-x86 systems (AlphaNT, the Alpha port of Windows 2000; MIPS and PPC had already been dropped by this time), that's a very long time, and more than enough for x86 dependencies to creep in.
On the other hand, WinRT is supposedly a full NT kernel on ARM, so...
I think WinRT is evidence enough that Microsoft can build NT for other architectures if need be. I'm sure it wasn't as simple as typing "make" to get an ARM version of Windows, but it certainly didn't take them very long to do it either.
I'm uncertain they kept cross-platform systems running around
WinRT is a full NT kernel on ARM so your statement is incorrect. Also, Windows runs on IA64 (Itanium).
With Visual Studio you can currently compile code for IA32, AMD64, IA64 and ARM.
NT is very well done in regard to cross-platform compatibility: all platform specific code is centralized in one location and if you need platform specific instruction, you must you the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL).
NT originally targeted the Intel i860 (just an emulator, at the time). Intel's codename for the i860 was "N10". Microsoft's "NT" name was an abbreviation of "N Ten".
That I can believe. Somehow the i860 fits well with Windows in my mind. Though nominally RISCy, it made the mistake later repeated by Itanium: high theoretical performance impossible to achieve in real programs (not to mention interrupt latency long enough for a vacation on Alpha Centauri).
The i960, on the other hand, had IMHO a great instruction set (even after losing the capabilities¹), with clean orthogonal 3-address instructions combined with programmer-friendly addressing modes.
Better than that: The original NT design is from Dave Cutler, who designed a series of good-to-great OSes for DEC, including RSX-11M, VMS, and Mica, which never saw the light of day but was meant to be VMS-meets-Unix for the brand-new RISC chip DEC was making before it transmuted into Alpha (the chip, not the OS).
He's on the Xbox team now. He helped design the OS for Xbone, which, at this point, can't possibly tarnish his reputation that badly.
