2 ms·
Clearly a long-term plan because Microsoft wouldn't have been able to do it so quickly. Also, Intel did not leave Microsoft in the lurch: Intel left Intel in t
by scholia 10y ago
Clearly a long-term plan because Microsoft wouldn't have been able to do it so quickly.
Also, Intel did not leave Microsoft in the lurch: Intel left Intel in the lurch.
It made no difference at all to Microsoft, which already had Windows on ARM smartphones and tablets. It didn't even lose any revenue, because Windows is free on small screen devices.
- protomyth 10y agoI think it screwed up Microsoft's original Surface Phone strategy if the tech press is to be believed.
- scholia 10y agoYou're worrying about ill-informed speculation about a hypothetical product? ;-)
- protomyth 10y agoNo, I'm worrying about a strategy that would have been a bit easier to implement. I have about as much belief in the hypothetical nature of a Surface Phone as people had about an Apple Phone. An intel chip would have made much more sense for Microsoft.
- scholia 10y agoNo, it wouldn't. Microsoft's long term preference is to move to sandboxed apps downloaded from the Windows Store. If you're running Windows 10 on a smartphone with an Intel chip then you're potentially leaving yourself open to badly-written Win32 programs that can have devastating effects on performance, security and battery life. If you're only going to allow UWP apps then it doesn't matter whether it's a ARM chip or an Intel chip. In passing, OEMs can already make and sell Intel-based smartphones and tablets with free Windows 10. However, Intel-based phones like the Asus ZenPhone weren't successful, which is why Intel dropped the new Atom SoCs for phones and tablets....