So here is where the circus meets the professional. I’m tired of crappy phones with their dinky apps and their cloudy touchy-feely internet-is-all-encompassing malarkey. What I want is real mobile computing. I want to run the same software that I do on my computer at work and at home. I want full-blown Microsoft Office. (Or OpenOffice. Or LibreOffice.) I want full-blown Adobe Photoshop. (Or GIMP.) I want the real internet. I want a real version of Windows. I want real software. I want the real deal.

No more freaking apps!

I’m tired of PDA-like behavior from my smartphone. Seriously people, my Palm Pilot wasn’t good enough then, and cellphones killed off its advancement years ago. Only, they haven’t advanced significantly in its place. Smartphones now still can only just barely do what PDAs did way back when.

Since freaking Y2K we’ve been able to put an x86 PC into a pocket. It’s over a decade later, and we somehow can’t put a full PC into a smartphone?!?!?!

Yes, it’s going to be slower than a good laptop, which is already slower than a desktop PC. I get that. I can be patient. I can wait for my application to load. Especially if it’s a real application and not just an app. Really. It’s okay!

Yes, battery life may be a bit tricky. Though, honestly, I really don’t think it should be as bad as some make it out to be. Put in a slightly larger batter for starters. And continue improving the technology to use less power. There’s nothing new here. But if you don’t start somewhere, you’ll never be sufficiently motivated to iteratively improve the design.

And honestly, with good drivers, even Windows has been stable enough to run 24×7 lately. And that’s without some fancy new not-entirely-asleep sleep mode that updates things periodically while asleep. And there’s always Linux. Heck, my cellphone has needed a reboot more often than my PC has!

So it’s about flirking time that someone brings a full x86-capable (with PCI bus) solution to the smartphone. Really. It was about time half a decade ago! It’s way beyond about time now.

I don’t care if it’s Intel. They’re certainly poised well to do it. They have the technology, just not the cojones, apparently.

I don’t care if it’s AMD. After their acquisition of ATi there’s no reason that they couldn’t do it with their own SoC. And while Intel is fiddle-farting around with x86 smartphones without a PCI bus, there’s a big freaking opportunity here to take the market right out from under them. They’d even deserve it too!

Heck, even nVidia ought to be able to make a chipset for an Intel Atom that includes the PCI bus. nVidia used to make good chipsets. (And, of course, they’re great at other stuff too, like graphics.) And they’ve come to some kind of agreement with Intel again, right?

As much as it pains me to say it, at this point, I’d even consider something from freaking VIA! And I’ve never used a VIA product that I didn’t hate. They bring unstable to a whole new level! But even they are positioned to make an x86 smartphone that can run Windows.

Someone, already, geeze!

It’s bad enough that tablets are barely even getting there, but by now we really should have an x86-based full-Windows-running phone.

I’d say thank goodness that Fujitsu finally gave us one with the F-07C, except that oh, wait, it’s only available in Japan. 

Though it was absolutely no surprise to find out, it was somewhat unexpected to hear all the same.  Intel and nVidia have worked out their differences and will be sharing patents … so long as Intel coughs up $1.5 billion to nVidia’s coffers.

To say that these two companies, Intel and nVidia, have not exactly seen eye-to-eye in the past is nothing short of an understatement.

And yet, ever since AMD bought out ATi, never have Intel and nVidia needed each other more.

So, again, not a surprise, but somewhat unexpected regardless.

The future should become rather interesting.  Intel can no longer afford to keep putting out such lackluster integrated graphics, and they know it.  They’ve announced their “Eye Candy”.  What will their future hold?

And nVidia meanwhile has expressed plans to offer ARM-based CPUs in 2013?  That should be interesting.  I wonder what technology from Intel they’ll be able to incorporate into that.

But I also have to wonder at the subtleties.  nVidia, for example, was particularly good with memory controllers … up until CPUs started impeding that with their own integrated ones.  Will Intel for example be able to tweak their future CPUs with some of nVidia’s wily memory-handling ways?  And what will be see in the future from nVidia chipsets for Intel motherboards?  Will nVidia’s integrated firewalls come back?  Will SLI be better supported on Intel boards?  With integrated graphics as well?

What the future holds exactly will, of course, be up to Intel and nVidia to work out.  Potentially they have the technologies needed to compete quite well with AMD+ATi instead of struggling on their own while bickering.

Ideally, granted, I’m a little concerned that we’re going to really be losing market competition here though.  With these tightly bound CPU and graphics tie-ins, even if theoretically you could pair Intel with ATi or AMD with nVidia there has got to reach a point where the performance for doing so will suffer.  And with all other parties virtually nonentities in the competition these days, it looks to make for an awfully choiceless future, even if that future will be filled with interesting things.

Here’s a bit of interesting news from Microsoft: The Windows XP Mode for compatibility to Windows XP on Windows 7 Professional boxes will no longer require virtualization hardware to be built into the CPU of the box.  A long-standing question of just why this was required in the first place finally has an intelligent answer:  It no longer is a requirement.

Right then.

I mean sure, we can all understand that it may be advantageous to use a processor that has Intel’s Virtualization Technology (VT) or AMD’s Virtualization (V) in it if we’re going to be running some kind of virtual PC.  That’s what the technology is there for, after all.  So it should provide some boon.  But should it be necessary?  Well, it never has before for running a virtual PC from the likes of VMware and such.

And that’s exactly all that Windows 7′s Windows XP Mode is.  It’s just a virtual PC running Windows XP from a Windows 7 Professional machine.  (Or Windows 7 Enterprise or Windows 7 Ultimate.)  It sucks up 1GB of RAM, 15GB of hard drive space.  It’s nothing all together special in concept, just a nicely packaged solution.  But VMware, for example, could be used to do this very task if one didn’t trust Microsoft’s virtualization software for some reason.

So why then did Microsoft require hardware virtualization to run their solution before?  One can only wonder.  But at least now it is no longer requisite, and people everywhere can then use the Windows XP Mode under Windows 7 with pretty much any old PC, just like it should be.

Which should make a lot of IT departments happy, as now they actually have a cheap and usable solution to supporting all of those aging Windows XP applications in their emerging Windows 7 world.  Not to mention the folks at home who have been afraid to upgrade.

Isn’t virtualization wonderful?

It’s quite possibly the saving grace of Microsoft’s new Windows 7: the Windows XP compatibility option.  Frankly, Windows XP is far too valuable for consumers to just accept that it’s gone forever, especially in that Windows Vista has rather failed to grab the market away from this old OS, rather leaving Vista’s replacement – Windows 7 – in a sticky predicament.  So let’s examine this XP compatibility feature a little more closely.

The Windows XP compatibility feature is planned as an add-on for Windows 7 Professional and higher versions.  Theoretically lower versions may be able to run it as well, but don’t take my word for it.  I’ll explain.

The XP compatibility actually comes by combining two parts.  A new free (presently beta) version of Microsoft’s Windows Virtual PC based on their acquisition from Connectix in 2003 (which this part may be available to lower versions of Windows 7) and a pre-loaded virtual hard drive licensed with Windows XP SP3.  Now, the latter will not likely be available to those with more basic versions of Windows 7.  However, if you have a Windows XP disk still kicking about (or can buy one) it should be possible for you to create this part yourself.  Note however that installing these two components creates a number of Windows XP compatibility mode options, not all of which may become available to any versions of Windows 7 lower than the Professional version.  Though I’m sure if that’s the case, someone will eventually find a registry hack to make them available.

And basically, that’s it.  By installing these two packages together you will be able to run your Windows XP applications on a virtual PC embedded into the background of Windows 7, tailored seamlessly into the operating system kernel so that it will look more-or-less like any native Windows 7 application to the untrained eye, but will in fact be running in Windows XP instead.  You almost won’t know the difference.  You’ll have the option to open up applications on a virtualized Windows XP mode seamlessly integrated into the Windows 7 environment.  And, alternatively, you’ll be able to run a full-blown Windows XP environment.  With some caveats.

And by that I mean there are host of flaws that I know of so far:

1. Perhaps the most critical flaw to many people, is one of the requirements of Microsoft’s desktop virtualization platform: hardware virtualization support from your CPU.  Yes, that’s right.  You need a CPU from Intel with Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel VT) or from AMD with AMD Virtualization (AMD-V).  If you have such a processor, then you’re good to go.  Knowing if you’re good to go however isn’t all that easy to figure out.  Fortunately there’s a free app (not from Microsoft, of course, because that would be too easy and clean) that can quickly tell you if your CPU supports virtualization.  But the big question is why does the CPU need virtualization support to run?  Virtualization has been around forever and hardly needed this as a requirement before.  Leave it to Microsoft…
2. Most importantly to gamers, but certainly applicable to others as well, this virtualization is designed to only support basic applications like MS Office and Minesweeper.  Things that have more in-depth hardware usage like TV tuners and games will not be guaranteed to work.  According to Scott Woodgate, director of Desktop Virtualisation at Microsoft, “Windows XP Mode is best suited for older business and productivity applications such as accounting, inventory and similar applications. Windows XP Mode is not* aimed at consumers because many consumer applications require extensive use of hardware interfaces such as 3-D graphics, audio, and TV tuners that do not work well under virtualisation today.“  This screams to me that your graphics card in the virtual Windows XP PC will be nothing more than a generic VGA with minimal to no hardware acceleration.  Or, in other words, 2D only.  Which will make games s … l … o … w.  If the games even let you install them and/or run them at all.  (*=my emphasis)
3. On the first time you start up an application in Windows XP mode, it will take a while to bring up the app because it also has to start up Windows XP in the background.  After the first time however, the WinXP virtual PC will be ready and waiting.
4. The WinXP virtual PC is a leech.  It doesn’t sit around doing nothing.  It is Windows XP running.  Even after you close your app, the Windows XP virtual PC will still be hibernating in the background!  By default the Windows XP virtual machine is set up to only use 256MB of RAM, but even that is something.  It will chew up additional memory.  And because it is integrated seamlessly into Windows 7′s front-end, it will pop-up notifications such as the Windows Genuine Advantage nonsense, in such a way that if you aren’t psychic you’ll have no way to realize that it isn’t coming from Windows 7 but from the Windows XP virtual PC.  And let’s face it, Windows XP configured with only 256MB of RAM will be slow.  Especially when virtualized.  You’ll likely need to find a way to up that memory usage if you do anything serious in Windows XP, which means leeching even more from Windows 7.
5. It’s only Windows XP.  Windows 7 has a lot of nifty new features.  Do not expect any of these to work in the virtual WinXP compatibility mode apps.  Things like pretty thumbnail previews won’t work.  It’s only Windows XP.  But, thanks to a bit of smart engineering on Microsoft’s part, things like the location of your folders will work.  All of your Windows 7 documents folders and printers should be where your WinXP apps navigate to automatically.  You won’t be living in a world of OS dichotomy there at least.
6. There are apparently two modes of virtualization: per-app and a full-blown virtual XP.  The per-app is what most people will be using.  But these two cannot run simultaneously and your USB devices will only work in your Windows XP apps if you are running the full-blown virtual WinXP mode.  Which means that most of the time your XP apps won’t be able to use USB devices like memory sticks.  Even though a lot of information says that you will be able to.
7. And one last little flaw that will hopefully be corrected somehow before this all goes official, is one hilarious (or not) oversight in the whole concept.  You download from Microsoft a virtual hard drive pre-loaded with Windows XP.  What happens when Windows XP inevitably at some point asks you for your install disk?  You don’t have one.  And you can bet Microsoft isn’t going to send you one for free, if at all, ever.  So it becomes a brick wall you’ll bang your head against.  Therefore, any organization using the Windows XP virtualization for compatibility will be advised to keep around their own Windows XP disk for just such occasions.  Chances are though that you not only already have at least one, but that you’re treating it as if it were made of gold.

Normally I’d say that any journalist that spreads rumors is not really a journalist. And, actually, I stick to that. This isn’t journalism. This is blogging. I’m not a professional. I don’t have an editor. I’m not even paid. (Heck, my “advertising” isn’t even making any notable quantity of money.) So I feel perfectly free to put this out there:

Long ago, at what seems like the dawn of modern PCs, there was a company who took their processor, bus, and memory knowledge from producing graphics cards and re-tuned their work to also fill in a huge gap created by AMD for quality performing chipsets. That company was nVIDIA. For a long time AMD failed to really press competition with their own chipsets, making lackluster performers, and so it was a huge business for nVIDIA to delve into with lots of dollars to make.

ATi tried to get in on the action, but never really impressed. While VIA took the ultra-cheap low-ground with ho-hum performance and questionable stability. While nVIDIA proved that the same heart that made blazing-fast graphics processors could make equally robust and lightspeed chipsets. They quickly ruled the roost for the top end motherboards in AMD-based systems. nVIDIA and AMD just went hand-in-hand.

Of course nVIDIA also produced Intel chipsets now and again, but rarely so.

That is, until the day that the unthinkable happened: AMD bought out ATi.

Suddenly AMD – with the help of their new acquisition of ATi – was serious about providing their own chipsets. And together they finally had the know-how to take a serious chunk back. And so nVIDIA’s chipset market shrank. Fast.

nVIDIA tried to branch out to Intel then. For the first time in forever they took Intel platforms seriously and seemed to commit to the idea. It made good market sense. But Intel has always been (and probably will always be) good at producing their own high-quality chipsets with excellent performance. So there wasn’t really much of a displeased market for nVIDIA to steal there. The only real gap to firmly steal was the top-end gaming market, which is big dollars, but only a small percentage of the market.

And that brings us to the almost equally unthinkable: the rumor that nVIDIA is thinking of leaving the chipset business all together.

When you look at what has gone on recently in the market, combined with the falling world economy, it makes sense that nVIDIA would be thinking of ways to “cut the fat”. So it’s no surprise to hear if nVIDIA has called a meeting to gauge support for chipset development. You’d be crazy not to re-examine every aspect of your business in today’s market. Almost no one is making money right now, especially on something of a luxury item as a high-performance gaming computer. But everyone knows that the bad economy won’t last forever, so it’s time to look at how to weather out the bad economy, not time to ditch business entirely.

Still, that doesn’t stop the rumor-mongers from saying stupid things like, “OMG! nVIDIA is like totally quitting the chipset industry!”

Is it true? How the heck should I know? I’m just an intelligent observer. I have no connections to the inside of nVIDIA.

But I seriously doubt they’d do something so drastic.

In spite of AMD having bought ATi to make their own graphics and chipsets, the whole thing was done because alone neither AMD nor ATi could compete with nVIDIA’s chipset domination for an AMD platform. And that’s one thing AMD really decided they wanted (finally) was to provide a whole platform. Even together though, they’re still not besting nVIDIA’s quality. And while Intel might make a lot of good chipsets and motherboards, they certainly aren’t top-notch when it comes to gaming platforms. So nVIDIA has been taking and holding a nice chunk of the gaming market.

And, ultimately, that’s what nVIDIA is all about, is gaming. They’re the best. Period. Occasionally ATi comes close, but long-term, nVIDIA definitely holds that crown. So why would nVIDIA ditch their top position in the gaming platform chipset market by dropping their chipset business and just sticking to graphics? It just doesn’t make sense. You don’t exit a high-price market niche that you own. You just don’t. In a high-price market they can virtually make up their own premiums. They don’t have to compete there against low prices. It’s the best part of the market to dominate.

So while I can see where the rumor mill got its crazy ideas from, that’s all they are, are rumors. There might even be one or two grumblers over at nVIDIA that want to quit while they’re ahead. But I just don’t see it happening. They’d have to be fools to ditch what they have and are holding on to.

It’s just a rumor.

Trust me.