I Installed Windows 95 On My Apple Watch

[Megalith]

Great, but everything is so damn tiny. Maybe Deadpool’s baby hand could be useful here.

With a 520 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and 8GB of internal storage, the Apple Watch packs a lot of computing horsepower into a very small package. On paper, its processor alone is about twenty-five times faster than the average 386, and 512 MB was the size of a hard drive in the mid nineties, not memory. As a result, I was feeling confident that the Apple Watch had the ability to run one of the most revered desktop operating systems Redmond has ever produced.

 

[jfreund]

How about XP?

 

[rezerekted]

But why?

 

[viscountalpha]

But why?

Bragging rights

 

[kandrey89]

What's up with the motor spinning the knob?
Why is he fast forwarding, it looks sooo slow.

 

[LightningCrash]

What's up with the motor spinning the knob?
Why is he fast forwarding, it looks sooo slow.

Give the article a read.

 

[MV75]

LOL Comparing ARM specs to x86 specs. I'm not even going to bother with this crap.

 

[Nukester]

That's seriously funny, in a tech geek sort of way.

 

[Nukester]

What's up with the motor spinning the knob?
Why is he fast forwarding, it looks sooo slow.

Ge hot glued the spinning motor to the crown to keep it from falling asleep, since it took about an hour to boot.

 

[athenian200]

Windows 95 ran faster than this on my 486DX at 33MHz. ARM must be more vastly inferior to Intel than I thought... it's a shame they won in the mobile arena due to power constraints.

 

[LightningCrash]

Windows 95 ran faster than this on my 486DX at 33MHz. ARM must be more vastly inferior to Intel than I thought... it's a shame they won in the mobile arena due to power constraints.

Emulating the SPARC V9 ISA on x86 is slow, does that mean SPARC is faster than x86?

 

[athenian200]

Emulating the SPARC V9 ISA on x86 is slow, does that mean SPARC is faster than x86?

I don't know, I've never used a SPARC. Those are pretty high-end machines used in Sun Mainframes or something... so they might be? I've heard IBM POWER chips are faster than x86 clock for clock, but I haven't even heard anything about SPARC.

I do know that emulating ARM on x86 is usually pretty fast, though.

 

[LightningCrash]

I don't know, I've never used a SPARC. Those are pretty high-end machines used in Sun Mainframes or something... so they might be? I've heard IBM POWER chips are faster than x86 clock for clock, but I haven't even heard anything about SPARC.

I do know that emulating ARM on x86 is usually pretty fast, though.

Hm. Do you think a watch sized x86 SoC could run ARM Android very well? Maybe one of those Galileo boards or something would be a good test.

 

[Exavior]

at least somebody found a use for an apple watch.

 

[nutzo]

Windows 95 ran faster than this on my 486DX at 33MHz. ARM must be more vastly inferior to Intel than I thought... it's a shame they won in the mobile arena due to power constraints.

It's not just are, but they are emulation an Intel CPU. Emulation tends to run several times slower than native code.

 

[DejaWiz]

Should have downloaded and installed the free trial for Windows CE7...it has native ARMv7 support. *shrug*


Windows Embedded Compact 7 | Microsoft

 

[SvenBent]

Windows 95 ran faster than this on my 486DX at 33MHz. ARM must be more vastly inferior to Intel than I thought... it's a shame they won in the mobile arena due to power constraints.

emulation is the word here.

 

[rat]

Bragging rights

Already been done on Android Wear... and to be painfully honest, quite pointless.

People hawwwing about how processing capabilities in these watches are better than what Win95 or WinXP ran on when it first came out are ignoring that it's a completely different architecture that needs to be emulated. Of course it's going to be pathetically slow like it is in the video.

No, ARM is not going to be able to run x86 code without a significant performance hit.