Microsoft Please Read! Re:XScale optimization

[cideo]

CeNet is actually CE4 or the Next version of the CE OS and IT is based on the StrongArm! Oh My Gosh! Microsoft wasn't fooling around when they said no support for XScale for years - if ever! As I recall, CE3 has been in use for two years when Microsoft set the one processor policy that eliminated MIPS and SH3. Jeff do you know what has been improved with CENet? Is this a big deal? What about media? Also if none of the OEMs are using the StrongArm any more, which is what CENet was built for, what does this mean for the end users?

Cruzz suggests here that because of the mismatch between the processor and the OS and software, it probably doesn't make a difference how fast the processor becomes. He thinks the performance will never be able to beat what we have with the StrongArm! I don't know what his credentials are but if this is true we are in double jeopardy.

My head is aching! I understand Jeff's defense of Microsoft a little better now but the bottom line is that users are going to get screwed in this huge power play years into the future. I don't understand the business logic of this at all. This is ten times worse then I ever thought - almost like a nightmare!

[cideo]

Dup Post Please Remove!

[SiGen]

Originally posted by Gamma Ray

I understand that CE.net is also available for the Casio BE-300. So here's another basic question. What is CE.cet? The next CE interface or OS? Thanks again.

Im a BE300 owner, and the CE.NET released for this device is not build under CE.NET platform OS!!!

yes, im sure about this, the BSQUARE techsupport guy told us that in the official developers forum for the Cassiopeia BE300. CE.Net is just the name they gave to the ugly TopMenu GUI update in the be300.

[imported_jeff]

CeNet is actually CE4 or the Next version of the CE OS and IT is based on the StrongArm!

No. CE.Net has support for many processors, including XScale. CE is not PPC -- you must understand this basic fact before moving on.

Oh My Gosh! Microsoft wasn't fooling around when they said no support for XScale for years - if ever! As I recall, CE3 has been in use for two years when Microsoft set the one processor policy that eliminated MIPS and SH3.

That policy is only for PocketPC (perhaps for smartphone as well). CE supports many CPUs. PocketPC, although it's based on CE, only supports StrongARM 4 instructions.

Jeff do you know what has been improved with CENet? Is this a big deal? What about media? Also if none of the OEMs are using the StrongArm any more, which is what CENet was built for, what does this mean for the end users?

Go and see the CE.Net page at CE.Net page

My head is aching! I understand Jeff's defense of Microsoft a little better now but the bottom line is that users are going to get screwed in this huge power play years into the future. I don't understand the business logic of this at all. This is ten times worse then I ever thought - almost like a nightmare!

Take a deep breath and go back and read Derek's quotes, and those of the other MS rep (Ed Suwandihar?? sorry can't remember Ed's last name exactly), and the business reasons are pretty clear. I don't understand how you think that users are being screwed, though. MS's PPC team has made a business decision that is probably bounded by support and budget issues, and it does make a certain amount of sense for them, as hard as it is for some folks to hear it. Personally I'd rather have them spend the time to improve Pocket Word and other infrastructure issues than worry too much about XScale. But that's just me.

The sky is not falling, though maybe it could be a little bit bluer. But that's always the case.

[Bandung]

Gamma Ray,

The on-board co-processor that you are referring to is what Intel calls its Media Processing Technology. It is not a math co-processor but more like a Digital Signal Processor (DSP). DSPs are used a lot for audio signal processing, for example, decoding the audio channel of your media file or to build high quality audio equalizers.

Preliminary testing using this DSP to process audio did not show any significant speed gains over using the cpu. However, the advantage of using the DSP over the cpu is that the cpu's load is reduced, permitting it to process more video bits. So I see the the DSP as a definite plus. Will the multi-media apps developers restructure their software to incorporate this feature? Who knows. Will Microsoft build a nice OS extension that permits the app to use this hardware through a common interface? Apparently not.

As to using the DSP to process portions of the video - I'm not sure about this aspect. I suppose that its theoretically doable. Whether or not someone like Pocket TV would want to use the DSP to process some of their mpeg1 video in this fashion, is a question best left to them. The mpeg4 apps don't need to worry about this because, as previously mentioned, they can use the mpeg4 decoder functions within the ATI video chipset.

According to ATI, the use of their mpeg4 calls within the Imageon 100 can offload the cpu by as much as 50%. That would result in significant video performance improvements.

[Bandung]

It's worth reading the PXA250 White paper link that I previously provided. Its only 12 pages and it gives a pretty decent explanation for technologies such as Phase Lock Loops. (Pg 4)

You will note in this document where Intel occasionally suggests things for the programmers to pursue.

Quote
-----------------------
Clever programmers can also further reduce power consumption through software. If the program can detect when the PXA250 wont be used for a short time, they can put part or all of the processor to sleep. Even short naps for a few milliseconds are worthwhile for maximizing eergy savings. For example, a handheld computer can take naps in between each tap on the keyboard; even the fastest typists are slow compared to a microprocessor. The Intel PXA250 might be asleep for as much as 95% of the time, yet the user would notice no difference in the device's operations.
--------------------------------
If Microsoft were so inclined, features like this could be made to be activated via the OS. But for now, its by direct access to the hardware from the software program.

Could the OS make an existing program run 30% faster on the XScale? Its not likely to do any better than what the programmer can do directly accessing the XScale hardware himself. Sure its more convenient if the OS supports such features through api's, registry values and the like. But the ability to goose this XScale needs to be there first.

The PDA manufacturer has a role to play in this as well since, often he is the one responsible for writing some of the hardware specific drivers. His job is made easier if the OS already has a generic driver available. Its the classic which come first, the chicken or the egg?

I think we also need to rely upon the PDA manufacturer to ship well written drivers. Will MS start to include these drivers in its next OS upgrade? Well it seems like the embedded boys aren't into playing this game to the same extent that their desktop bretheren do. And how many folks want to be re-flashing the system rom on a regular basis?

[cideo]

Bandung thanks. Last I heard, PocketDivX has had a version optimized for the ATI chip but was waiting for a public release of the new ROM from Toshiba for this to work. Last I heard on this, no one knows when this will take place and the ROM from Singapore does not work with the USA e740. I know that DivX supports the simple MPEG4 standard but I am not sure that this extends to the PocketPC. Do you know if any simple MPEG4 player for the PPC exists?

Jeff, thanks again for the clarification. My comments were not directed at Microsoft but at two giants who are co-dependent but seem to be moving in completely different directions. I am not saying that Microsoft is to blame now that I understand the structure better - but I still maintain that users are getting screwed by a political or business situation they have no control over.

I don't care who is to blame, I just think it is very good business practice to get this situation fixed before general users, who don't care about who is right or wrong, leave the PPC in disgust. I also don't see how you are saying that this is no more than cloudy skies for PPC users. From what I take away from all of this now is XScale will never surpass the performance of the StrongArm without each program being individually tweaked for the processor and hardware. We already know this is probably never going to happen with the programs from Microsoft. Also, I'm not sure how many developers have the perseverance and the resources of a company like PocketTV.

In the "Correct Me If I Am Wrong Department:"

1. From what I see, the whole problem is with the PocketPC 2002 interface to WinCE3 that will not support XScale.

2. WinCE3 and CENet both can support XScale but we need an interface that will.

3. If Casio were to release an XScale version of BE-300 and tune their interface to XScale, we would have a killer PPC operating at state-of-the-art performance.

In the "I Am Completely Mixed Up Department:"

4. The BE-300 can now be used with CENet BUT SiGen says this OS is not built under CE.NET platform. What the heck does this mean????

General Observations.

-CENet looks very nice. Drivers are there for DVD, CDROM drives with all kinds of amazing advanced features especially for media. I haven't a clue how any of this translates to the PPC though given the problems we are seeing now.

-In the past three months we have seen some of the best posts and threads in years on Brighthand. This is great news and I hope this continues and we get to see more give and take. Bandung, the search function here seems to be pretty messed up and you especially have had some great overall posts on MPEG, compression, XScale and hardware issues. I am wondering if you would consider collecting this material for a FAQ that could be hosted at Brighthand or any of the other PPC sites that are springing up. In the worst case, maybe someone in the Brighthand community would donate server space to you?

[PocketTV Team]

Originally posted by Bandung

The easiest question to deal with first is the one about the MPEG4 co-processor. (ie the functions that ATI's Imageon 100 video chips perform) It performs some of the actual decoding functions in hardware, to offload the main CPU and allow it enough overhead to handle other tasks such as audio decoding.

Each compression standard uses different mathematical algorithms and processes with which to decode a file. Something hard wired in hardware for MPEG4 will not help with an MPEG1 decode. Its a cost vs flexibility tradeoff that one chooses if you use ASIC chips (Application Specific IC's) to do things rather than a programmable device like a cpu.

The ATI Imageon provide acceleration for various specific blocks that are used by MPEG-4 but also by MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 (e.g. IDCT, motion compensation, YUV to RGB. It is not hardware to handle only MPEG-4.

PocketTV now takes advantage of the ATI hardware on the Toshiba e740 for the YUV to RGB conversion.

[PocketTV Team]

Originally posted by Gamma Ray
Bandung the math co-processor I am talking about is part of the XScale chip and is not specific to mpeg. As far as plain English, a better approach here might be something like "Phase Lock Loop (PLL)." Maybe even a short explaination for the technical newbies.

The current Xscale processor have only a coprocessor that helps a little bit some operations (e.g. windowing filter) performed when decoding audio (e.g. MP3). It is a multiplier-adder. This is of no use for video decoding.

The next generation Xscale with have a variant of MMX (called Wireless MMX) which should allow video decoding to be at least twice as fast, even on slower 300 MHz processors. This was announced by Intel more than a month ago, but you won't see those processors before a year or so.

[cideo]

PocketTV thanks for the information and congratulations on your PocketPC Magazine award for best video software. It was well deserved!

I know that your primary product line will always be MPEG1, but since you are so well versed in MPEG and WinCE, I wonder if you will consider a simple MPEG4 decoder? The reason I ask, is that all of a sudden we are seeing a lot of digital camera combinations coming on the market with MPEG4 capabilities (Panasonic and Casio to start). At 320 x 240 and up to 256Mbs per second these files are about right for PPCs but there is nothing to play them with. That could be a whole new segment of use for sales people as well as enthusiasts because these would never look good as transcodes.