I've never seen a RISC processor that can match the performance of the best CISC processors. You know, nevermind the fact that tons of money has been poured into CISC processors making them faster and faster.
Sometimes, it's just a matter of where the attention has been placed.
That's b'cos active development of RISC processors stopped in the last decade, most of them sunk by the hype around the Itanic. Otherwise, the last time you had the big 3 RISC processors - POWER2, PA-RISC and Alpha 21264, they were heavily ahead of the Pentium. Except that most people don't run Dhrystones or SPEC## or other such benchmarks - they run real software, which just wasn't available for most of the above CPUs.
Two things happened since the demise of the PA-RISC, Alpha and MIPS III & IV: first, Intel continued to shrink their CPUs faster, thereby increasing their individual performance and closing the gap w/ RISC CPUs. But the biggest coup for Intel was Windows NT becoming the underlying OS for all Windows OSs in Windows 2000 and then XP. While Windows 9x wasn't SMP capable, suddenly, Windows XP was. So Intel could take an optimal CPU core, toss in as many as made sense - 2, 4, 8, whatever - and run them against the fastest of RISC workstations. That had 2 big advantages over RISC - first, it continued to run native Wintel software, regardless of whether they were multithreaded or not, or optimized for multi-core or not. The second was that at a given price point, Intel could toss several cores to not just match, but even exceed the performance of a RISC workstation. Once that happened, the reason to prefer RISC at all went away. RISC could have gotten the same attention that the x64 got, but unless Microsoft took the initiative in porting the bulk of their applications to, say, the Alpha, that wasn't gonna move. Compaq saw that and pulled the plug on that platform.
there's no way to close the application without invoking the Task Manager.
Sure there is. You swipe from the left side of the screen and all active background windows appear. You drag the little window you want to kill across the screen and down to the bottom edge. Once you've done it a few times it's a simple swiping gesture.
Do you even use Windows 8.1 on a tablet to know what you're talking about?? I'm on my second Windows tablet, because I decided I wanted a bigger 10" display and physical keyboard (got an Asus Transformer, old machine was a Venue 8 Pro)
Yes, I just bought a Winbook, as I wrote elsewhere. When you swipe from the left of the screen, it switches b/w apps, pulling up the last running app: however, you can't pull the boundries enough to have all the running apps show up, and then you swipe them down. It's more refined on both iOS and Android in that respect
Also, what I've been told - in 10, the Windows Phone OS and Windows will both be identical (aside from the CPU level binary differences), and the store will have common apps for both. For instance, right now, you can download Yelp! on Windows Phone, but not from an Atom based tablet. In 10, any app that's there on the phone will be there for the tablet, and vice versa. I'm assuming that apps that require cellular connections (like calling apps) might be an exception.
This is certainly good news, since there are some things that my Windows tablet can do quite handily, but while Windows Phone has those apps, the tablet doesn't. Downside could be that legacy Windows apps (from, say, 7) may not work, if the only way of getting things installed in a laptop or tablet would be over the internet. Next week, I'll see whether I can get the technical preview on my tablet
Loading apps drains the battery more and wears out memory faster in mobile devices than just leaving them running. Even on an Android device, everything you do is kept running until you manually kill it, and some things just immediately restart. So, there's a sound technical reason for it.
Loading apps would only do the above things more if one spends very little time w/ an app. But it can't take more energy than leaving the app running in the background for hours, consuming CPU cycles when the device is idling, thereby consuming the battery along w/ it. Which explains why my new Winbook battery doesn't last long (and I can't exactly complain, since I paid just $99 for it).
On both Android & iOS, killing an app is very easy - in iOS, it's double-pressing the center button and swiping out the background apps that you no longer want, while on Android, it's tapping the right-most button at the bottom. In Windows 8.1, you need to swipe first south and then east, and then hit Task Manager, which takes you to the desktop, and then you highlight the app you wanna kill, and tap 'End Task'. Or you go into the desktop, tap on the taskbar and select Task manager, and do the same. A lot less intuitive, and not convenient for a touch interface either
Getting out of a metro app is a mystery to me. I want to kill the video, not have it running in the background. The only way I can find is to swipe to the metro start screen, click on the desktop icon, go to task manager, find the metro app I want to kill, and end the process.
Why can't they let me exit the metro app directly?
If I don't kill the video, when I try to go back to it it gives me some message about being offline, or some advertising or whatever.
Actually if you swipe to the lower screen & then swipe right (assuming a touch interface here - I neither try nor recommend 8.x for non-touch), you'll find the Task Manager there.
I find this constant switch b/w Metro & Desktop really annoying. More annoying to me is that there is no way to close an application w/o going into Task Manager & then End Task: something that doesn't need to be done for desktop apps, but does for Metro apps. I do not want all applications running at the same time - that's probably what causes my tablet's battery to run out pretty quickly. Once I'm done w/ an application, I'd like to hit on the 'X' in the north east corner, and end it! All apps don't need to run in the background all the time.
I am posting this question because I am not a hardware engineer. Apple's switching from Qualcomm chip to one from Intel
If the answer is yes, then in what way Intel's chip is better?
Does it have better reception? Does it run faster? Does it use less power?
Might it be Intel's fab advantages over Qualcomm? Or anyone else Qualcomm is using?