4 ms·
In the DirectX comments, I'm struck by how interesting the strategic development of Intel and Microsoft is. I'd never thought about it before, but there aren't
by ethbro 9y ago
In the DirectX comments, I'm struck by how interesting the strategic development of Intel and Microsoft is.
I'd never thought about it before, but there aren't many industries that could instantly (2-4 years) be killed solely by technical development.
If Intel had developed an OS-independent abstraction layer for devices, if Microsoft had pushed harder on ISA-independent programs, etc, how would today look?
- Symmetry 9y agoOh, Intel was certainly a contributor to Linux and Microsoft flirted with having Windows run on other hardware. But backwards compatibility prevented either from commoditizing their complement on the desktop.
- AceJohnny2 9y agoTalk about co-dependent relationships...
- tachyonbeam 9y agoFYI, Microsoft now has an emulator to run x86 programs on ARM. This is for future laptops/tablet products.
- mtgx 9y agoThere is a reason this partnership/cartel has been called "Wintel." Both knew it's in their best interest not to screw each other over by adopting other platforms more aggressively. I think they've been increasingly more dissatisfied with that arrangement since Intel was trying to get into iPads/iPhones, and then Microsoft built Windows RT and Windows Phone for ARM-only. Similarly, Google has been pushing Intel chips in Chromebooks (even though Chrome OS is architecture-agnostic, as you were hoping Microsoft to do with Windows), because they get those sweet discounts and early-access to Intel server chips. Plus, I think Intel is still on Google's board.
- StillBored 9y agoWell if google is pushing "intel" in chrombooks, it still doesn't explain why the intel chrombooks tend to have far more ram/disk space/etc than the ARM ones. Side by side, the ARM chrombooks seem like phones with big screens while the intel devices appear to be inexpensive ultrabooks.