would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

if a new x86 tablet was released with equal performance and battery life to an arm based tablet which would you buy?

also what is your opinion on x86 pocket devices?

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Given exactly equal CPUs, the only reason to care about architecture is either because you want Windows or because you're an architecture fanboy.

But since the architecture isn't the only factor in the situation, and the two CPUs are not and will not ever be equal in all areas, it's really not a very meaningful question.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Well, as long as the new tablet isn't much bigger, heavier, and power hungry than the current OMAP-based tablet, and has decent performance and ergonomics, I will buy it no matter what CPU it uses. Please note that the current crop of x86-based tablets is nowhere near this point.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

I just bought my daughter a dual core AMD 2Ghz/4GB RAM tablet PC running Vista for $800. Its got a 12.1inch screen and is fairly small for a laptop. I spent several hours setting it up and dual booting fedora. It has a 250GB HD so plenty of room. I am very impressed with the hardware. The touchscreen has a pen but also works with your finger. Far from pocketable, but very fun to play with..

It was HP tx2500z, You can build at HP dot com or Circuit City has a loaded model for about $950 I think. Might watch Circuit city sales and get that cheaper.

Anyway its just my two cents.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Well, it is a full size cheapo laptop. Weights 2+ kilos and lives for 1.5..3 hours off a single battery charge. What is "tablet" about it? That swivel display?

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

I would prefer a x86 tablet due to the much easier learning curve when getting in to software development. For beginners/intermediate development, the compact framework in Visual Studio just rocks (assuming that x86 hardware means some sort of Windows as OS).

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

One word: Python.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

twaelti,

I have come from a windows background, I have a lot of experience with microsofts' IDEs and toolchains and I agree, for a "complete package" in microsoft land its all there and works. Its also expensive and slow and has just as steep a learning curve as any other development environment.

Learning to do the same in Linux and getting to grips with the toolchain here has been equally hard, but ultimately more rewarding. I am able to tailor the system to my favourite way of working and use my own personal best editor.

Ontop of this, in microsoft land if you encounter a problem with a core library there is no way to find out why or work round it, everything you do is at arms length.
In linux I can go as far as I need and am able to offer suggestions and patches to make it better for everyone.

If you want a nice rounded quick easier to digest devenv, fms is 100% right, python fills the gap between native and scripted languages nicely.

I personally want a large format tablet myself and I don't care what cpu or battery life it has, it will be running Linux and will be used to create the big daddy for liqbase and to test all this clutter stuff without the horrid non-interaction of a mouse :)

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

or you simply want to avoid the pitfalls of cross sdks, or you'd like to install a distro that's not available for arm, or your favourite rad doesn't still work right with eabi, or....

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Well, if the performance and battery life were equal, it would probably come down to price; if price is also equal, then I'd likely go for x86, as there is more binary-distributed software I might wish to run for x86 than for ARM, and I don't intend to do any assembly programming on either.

OTOH, I might go ARM, just to support proper design, and because I like it; if you've even looked at ARM and x86 instruction sets, I can't imagine liking x86 better.

That they don't (and won't ever) have equivalent performance and battery life to the best RISC CPUs, and so aren't really worth discussing unless you need legacy x86 binary compatibility.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

funny thing is that most modern x86 cpus are RISC internally but have some kind of tranlator between the software and the core...

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

I think this question might be more compelling if you extend the scope a tiny bit. I'm interested to see the impact of devices that this article alludes to. The CISC vs. RISC discussion seems to always end with the marketplace. Well, it seems to be getting some new legs.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

No way...

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Its a small inexpensive laptop, that is a tablet. To me the main selling point of this, and the thing that makes it a tablet, is yes the swivel screen and the fact that it is a touch screen. I wanted to give my daughter the ability to draw pictures on the screen as she is an artist. Battery life is not important to me, the main feature is the touchscreen, and Corel Draw 4, Corel Painter 4 and gimp.

Perhaps you can explain to me, why it is not a tablet? I am unclear why you think Battery life has anything to do with "tablet"? It clearly depends on what you plan to do with your tablet. If you plan on using it instead of paper, you may want a long battery life. But this has nothing to do with whether its a tablet or not.


I did some searching for tablet pc definition. Its clear you seem to be confused about the definition of a tablet??

DEFINITION - 1) In general, a tablet PC is a wireless personal computer (PC) that allows a user to take notes using natural handwriting with a stylus or digital pen on a touch screen. A tablet PC is similar in size and thickness to a yellow paper notepad and is intended to function as the user's primary personal computer as well as a note-taking device. Tablet PCs generally have two formats, a convertible model with an integrated keyboard and display that rotates 180 degrees and can be folded down over the keyboard -- or a slate style, with a removable keyboard. The user's handwritten notes, which can be edited and revised, can also be indexed and searched or shared via e-mail or cell phone.

or

A complete computer contained in a touch screen. Tablet computers can be specialized for only Internet use or be full-blown, general-purpose PCs with all the bells and whistles of a desktop unit. The distinguishing characteristic is the use of the screen as an input device using a stylus or finger. In 2000, Microsoft began to promote a version of Windows XP for tablet computers, branding them "Tablet PCs." See Tablet PC, Ultra-Mobile PC, Webpad and touch screen.

or

(n.) (1) Spelled tablet PC
, a type of notebook computer that has an LCD screen on which the user can write using a special-purpose pen, or stylus. The handwriting is digitized and can be converted to standard text through handwriting recognition, or it can remain as handwritten text. The stylus also can be used to type on a pen-based key layout where the lettered keys are arranged differently than a QWERTY keyboard. Tablet PCs also typically have a keyboard and/or a mouse for input.

The tablet PC relies on digital ink technology, where a digitizer is laid under or over an LCD screen to create an electromagnetic field that can capture the movement of the special-purpose pen and record the movement on the LCD screen. The effect is like writing on paper with liquid ink.

or

Main Entry: tablet PC
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a wireless personal computer in the form of a notebook and that allows a user to hand-write notes with a stylus or digital pen on a touch screen
Example: A tablet PC that includes a keyboard is a convertible or hybrid; one with only a monitor and pen is called a slate.
Etymology: 2002

or

DEFINITION: 1) In general, a tablet PC is a wireless personal computer (PC) that allows a user to take notes using natural handwriting with a stylus or digital pen on a touch screen. A tablet PC is similar in size and thickness to a yellow paper notepad and is intended to function as the user's primary personal computer as well as a note-taking …
.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Hmm, no, proprietary software compiled for Linux/x86 is also a reason why one could prefer x86 architecture. AMD64 provides a [i]fast[/b] compatibility layer for x86-32 which is a major point where Intel Itanium failed miserably.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

If you buy a new computer now you buy a computer which can run in its own mode, and x86-32 compatible mode. Both fast, approx equal. So if the user runs a AMD64/x86-64 compatible OS or a x86-32 compatible OS has little to do with performance.

And often, compatiblity is important. Especially on the desktop. A good example of increased compatibility is Apple transition from PPC to Intel.

On the tablet it is less important, and ARM is a big player in the embedded sector.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

This is completely hypothetical currently, but under those assumptions, x86 has an edge in some areas:

• better supported upstream (kernel, gcc, valgrind etc)
• ease of development (no faffing about with incomplete emulators and/or compiling for two architectures and such).
• ARM can be not quite as open sometimes.

so yeah, If someone made a reasonably priced, open, linux-based x86 pocketable device that can run for a week on a single charge I'd buy it.

No two CPU models (even of the same architecture and manufacturer) are ever exactly equal in all areas. ARM and x86 do differ widely in many areas (power/heat, code efficiency, floating point performance and memory bandwidth to name a few) but they seem to be converging towards similar power/performance level lately. It's not inconceivable that VIA, Intel and/or AMD will manage to produce chips that eat around a quarter of a Watt peak in the next year or three.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

You seem to be confusing two issues: first, even (recent) 32-bit x86 machines are all more RISC than CISC under the hood than, with translation to run the x86 instruction set; the RISClike internals are completely inaccessible, because all instructions are translated. Second, AMD64 (and Intel's clone, EM64T I think) have a 64-bit and 32-bit mode; the 64-bit mode is almost precisely a superset of the 32-bit mode, so there's no separate translation stage (and performance penalty) added for 32-bit mode. (And while the OS has little to do with performance, AFAIK 32-bit OSes can't permit 64-bit userspace code, so you have to run a 64 kernel so you can have 64 code in places where it does count (heavy math libraries). That and memory addressing are the principal reasons for 64-bit OSes, not across-the-board performance gains.)

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

So, you were looking for a cheap laptop and bought one with the swivel touchscreen for which you have clear set of uses? Well, that makes sense. I am pretty sure though that you are not using it for the same purposes as the NIT.

Well, the original poster clearly meant Nokia Internet Tablets by "tablets". While your laptop has the word "tablet" in its marketing name ("Tablet PC" ©Microsoft), it has nothing to do with NITs. It is way too large and heavy to hold in your hand for long periods of time and runs out of battery after 2 hours of use.

Let me clarify: "Tablet PC" is Microsoft's name for touch screen PCs running specially modified version of Windows. "Nokia Internet Tablet" is Nokia's name for small, mobile internet devices with touch screens, more similar to Microsoft's "Pocket PC" designator. They are not the same thing.

I have yet to see a paper notepad that weights 2+kg. :) As to the primary personal computer, having a touch screen there may or may not be of help, depending on what you use it for.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

I don't think I'd ever buy an X86 portable other than a laptop. Even then I'd rather buy an ARM PC than an X86 one, there just aren't any mainstream ARM boards. Hopefully a new market will open up and the ARM Ubuntu port will mature. Then it won't be much of a choice to me. :D

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

However, I do assert backwards compatibility and performance are important (on desktop especially). This is what Itanium neglected, and where AMD64 succeeded.

And usually on AMD64 and Intel's AMD64 implementation everything runs in 64 bit mode on a 64 bit OS except some parts which are not native on AMD64 (these parts are getting smaller and smaller every year). Then the x86-32 compatibility mode is used.

Memory addressing can be extended on x86-32 with some hacks. But even then, most desktops don't require more than 4 GB yet, and neither do embedded systems such as a tablet or phone.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

If you mean equal to the current OMAP2 tablets, it'd be too slow to run a full-on desktop operating system, IMO. I could barely stand a 800MHz Transmeta based ultraportable, and it looks like OMAP2 would actually be a bit slower in the same tasks. Though, x86 would give some flexibility in running non-ported applications, like say Flash 10, but it'd definitely need thin distro to work effectively.

Now the tablets coming out based on the OMAP3, an equivalent to that might might actually be fast enough to run a full-desktop environment (with some tweaks for the small screen). With 3D acceleration, you could have portable Unreal Tournament, or other older binary or Windows-only (thanks to WINE) games. It'd be something I'd consider buying if it were under $500.

MIDs are a bit too high priced for my tastes, and that's pretty much to only x86 pocketable devices.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

From the way he phrased it, I don't know about that. But for devices like the NIT, there are much more important aspects of the device besides CPU architecture. For me, I think if a device had poor battery life because of the CPU, then I would not buy it for that reason alone. But, if it didn't have poor battery life, then I would buy a x86 tablet or MID that had a better design.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

The nice thing about open source and ARM is that GPLed engines like Quake 2 will work on OMAP3. :) You still need a Quake 2 license to play the original Quake 2 levels or play online (very cheap now anyway) but besides that you're as free as a bird. And, Quake 1 and Quake 2 are _very_ portable. They are originally developed on IRIX (and compile without source modification on IRIX), so the chance they're ported to an architecture as ARM is high. I don't know about Quake 3. Then there are tons of games which used this game engine, some also open sourced.

If you look at current low-end x86 compatible computers, even for embedded, they suck too much juice. The uptime is simply too low on batteries. They're perfect for a lot of goals (STB, firewall, NAS -- you name it) but a portable target is one of the worst usages because there the kWh is even more important than anywhere else. This won't change for some years either...

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

As somebody already noted, this does not hold for linux devices. That's why the barrier of putting linux desktop apps onto NIT style devices (if you can live with the performance) is so much easier than getting your favourite Windows desktop app on a WinMobile device. Itanium had the same problem. It wasn't ever intended as a desktop processor, it's just that when it came around, it never had enough software support in it's target segment. If Itanium's target users back then would have been Linux oriented, it would mean minimal migration costs.

Somebody mentioned proprietary things, like Skype, flash, etc. Well, if Nokia managed to push enough to get Skype and Flash (crappy as they are) on our beloved NIT's I don't see any reason to re-consider x86.

x86 will never be (power/performance wise) a serious competitor to architectures that could be designed from ground up. It just has too much baggage. It can be good, but the question will never be if it's better, just how much slower/inefficient it is. The only exception of course is if embedded manufacturers go bust or do zero development in the coming years - unlikely, embedded is very dynamic even in these days.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Well, this remains to be seen. I would not be so sure ;)

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Right.

Yes, except when new trendy things (Fring) aren't ported (well enough) to Linux/ARM while for example they do run on Symbian/ARM. I use a proprietary application called Devicescape. It allows me to log in to thousands of hotspots (for free due to my DSL subscription) without logging on HTTPS manually (this is slow...). Too bad I cannot import it as POI...

We're already seeing Intel Atom (Celeron), AMD Geode GX (LX), and VIA Nano (C3, C7) boards applied on embedded fields where ARM, MIPS and POWER were normally applied. The AMD Geode GX and VIA C3/C7/Nano also support hardware cryptography, and VIA/S3 are getting more friendly towards open source thanks to open source liaison Harald Welte. They're still not the most efficient, but they're definately improving. So we're seeing them on netbooks, MIDs (tablets), STBs, phones, and firewalls & routers too. Note VIA Nano is a x86-64 compatible processor with x86-32 backwards compatibility.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

Prefer ARM proc for better consumption, as i don't want to carry a device of 3kg just to have more than 3 hours of power (x86 based device).

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

I don't consider x86 as a viable tablet solution, simply because of the reality of power management and performance. Don't get me wrong, I think x86 embedded systems are a viable solution for some scenarios (I use an AMD geode board as a dual radio AP/media box/thingy in my Jeep and another one as an AP at the house), mostly due to the fact that they're much more efficient both in size and power consumption than a full PC, but they're certainly not on the scale and power levels of the ARM boards. Quite frankly I think the software discussion is a mute point, as any handheld device is going to require at least some level of software customization in order to best suit the needs of the user, and any well written code should be portable enough to translate between x86 and ARM without a lot of difficulty... the argument for x86 here is really more of "an easy way out" than a real solution to the scenario in question, and at the end of the day the quality and performance will suffer as a result.
It's interesting times definately for this stuff, especially with the latest omap3 chips... In terms of tablets, I strongly believe Omap is king, hands down. In terms of general embedded devices, it's still more of a gray area, more dependant on the costs and features of given boards and systems along with requirements than with chipsets.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

3 hours? I only get 2 hours max[*] from my tablet (but then, additional batteries are cheap and light)

[*]browsing, email, rss. With youtube and/or video and/or internet radio less than 1 hour.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

In a pocketable tablet I want Linux, good application set, reasonable performance and long battery life. N810 best meets those needs. At this stage the ARM which was designed for small battery devices has an edge over x86 for an N810 like device. In truth as long as my user goals are met the CPU is of little concern to me.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

For all people who are unsure: Yes, I know about Atom, Geode and friends. They're extremely energy efficient *when compared to desktop processors*. But we aren't talking about those :) The applications you mention, where these processors are invading ARM and MIPS territory is not as much NIT style devices, but rather devices that either have mains power OR are not supposed to be turned on all the time. Either that, or the company developing it is hoping to shorten the development cycle by using x86 if they have a serious investment in non-portable x86 code.

Example. Take your Atom based eeepc, start a mail reader that checks for mail periodically and an instant messenger. Keep it running (screen turned off). Do the same on your N810. Guess which will last longer. A *lot* longer :)

An average Atom has a max power consumption around 2W max, with a declared average around ~250mW. A Cortex (and most ARMs) on the other hand does 750mW max and 25-50mW typical. And then comes the kicker. The ARM does this for the whole SoC (processor, memory, peripherals, etc), while the Atom needs *extra* power for the chipset/memory/controller/southbridge, so in the end even with the best power saving you get almost an order of magnitude worse battery performance, especially when you're idling.

Re: would you buy an x86 tablet?
 

to expand a little on that a whole n800 uses about 2-3 watts running all-out. that of course includes screen and wifi. intel still has another generation or two before we can start to talk about arm and x86 really competing in the phone/pda/tablet space.

also i do have a certain fondness for arm and the integration and lack of cruft that arm-bassed systems feature.

-john