5 ms·

I wonder how Microsoft eventually dealt with this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emul

I wonder how Microsoft eventually dealt with this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emulation-is-a-patent-minefield/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel... Intel seemed to indicate at the time that it was really interested in any licensing around the x86 ISA.

rbanffy 9y ago
"It's a nice market you have with high-margin enthusiast desktop CPU's, Intel. It'd be a shame if Windows stopped supporting them"
- loeg 9y ago
  Windows cannot possibly cut support for x86.
  - londons_explore 9y ago
    It could cut support for the highest end x86 CPU's in desktop machines (ie. non-server). That would then make those CPU's un-sellable, since they're pretty much all used for gaming. Obviously, they wouldn't say that - the way to market that is to release 'Windows Gamers edition', which costs way more and 'unlocks' the power in the latest CPU's. When in fact, non 'game edition' windows versions simply leave some cores disabled or sleep some of the time when they detect a 'too fast' CPU and a fullscreen game running...
    - godzillabrennus 9y ago
      At some point I'd like to believe people would just stop paying Microsoft tax to play computer games... Then I remember people pay tons of cash for their rigs that are obsolete within two years anyway. Seems like a lucrative practice for Microsoft and one they should embrace, extend and extinguish.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        The only viable alternative is consoles. Expensive gaming rigs - a bit less so than PC, but for equivalent hardware, about $400 cheaper at introduction, about equal once 1-2 years pass. Obsolete in 2 years - check Expensive software - much more so for consoles. So right now the situation is that if you go for PC gaming instead of console, you'll have about the same expense, but 100 games for PC (and a powerful general purpose computer), and maybe 5-10 on console.
        justsid 9y ago
        Plus you can upgrade parts of your PC during its lifetime, without having to replace the whole thing at once.
      - jakebasile 9y ago
        > At some point I'd like to believe people would just stop paying Microsoft tax to play computer games... I wish I could. The games I like aren't released anywhere else. > Then I remember people pay tons of cash for their rigs that are obsolete within two years anyway. This is false. A moderate gaming PC can last longer than a console. I used my previous rig for 4 years and now my wife is using it perfectly fine. It still has better visual fidelity than a console.
      - imtringued 9y ago
        My GPU lasted me 5 years and then it broke. I now play games like Warframe on iGPU at 720p on the lowest settings. It actually works quite well.
    - gh02t 9y ago
      I dunno if Microsoft could get away with something that extreme without (again) running afoul of anti-trust issues.
  - tw04 9y ago
    No, but they can do things like not optimize code paths and not work with Intel on power saving features. The average consumer is far more likely to buy a Windows laptop with an arm cpu than an Intel laptop running a different os. Intel won't win that fight unless it's in a court room.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Even if the arm laptops are 20% cheaper Intel will start feeling the heat.
Joeri 9y ago
As far as I understand, they don't emulate the x86 instruction set, but instead cross-compile it to ARM native instructions. That means that whatever implementation details are behind the patented x86 instructions are irrelevant, since there is no emulation of those instructions, they are just replaced by equivalent ARM instructions. Intel will probably still sue, but I expect them to settle out of court. http://www.techradar.com/news/a-closer-look-at-windows-10-s-windows-10-on-arm-and-windows-10-iot http://www.techradar.com/news/a-closer-look-at-windows-10-s-...
- cm2187 9y ago
  But can they patent the instruction set rather than their implementation? Feels like a repeat of the google java lawsuit. In fact weren’t the IBM compatible PCs in the 80s doing exactly that?
- rossy 9y ago
  Isn't that equivalent to emulating it? Like emulators for video game systems that have both an interpreter and a JIT recompiler, the latter is just an optimization of the former. They both must interpret the instruction set of the target and run equivalent instructions on the host.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    Patents have a funny feature, in that they (are supposed to) apply to a specific implementation. So "equivalent effect" is not enough for patent violation in the general case.
- mr_toad 9y ago
  "The real-time ‘Just-In-Time’ transcoding emulation that converts x86 instructions to ARM is done the first time you run the software, and then it’s cached by Windows" Still sounds like emulation to me. It's a pretty fine line.

rbanffy 9y ago

"It's a nice market you have with high-margin enthusiast desktop CPU's, Intel. It'd be a shame if Windows stopped supporting them"

loeg 9y ago
Windows cannot possibly cut support for x86.
- londons_explore 9y ago
  It could cut support for the highest end x86 CPU's in desktop machines (ie. non-server). That would then make those CPU's un-sellable, since they're pretty much all used for gaming. Obviously, they wouldn't say that - the way to market that is to release 'Windows Gamers edition', which costs way more and 'unlocks' the power in the latest CPU's. When in fact, non 'game edition' windows versions simply leave some cores disabled or sleep some of the time when they detect a 'too fast' CPU and a fullscreen game running...
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    At some point I'd like to believe people would just stop paying Microsoft tax to play computer games... Then I remember people pay tons of cash for their rigs that are obsolete within two years anyway. Seems like a lucrative practice for Microsoft and one they should embrace, extend and extinguish.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      The only viable alternative is consoles. Expensive gaming rigs - a bit less so than PC, but for equivalent hardware, about $400 cheaper at introduction, about equal once 1-2 years pass. Obsolete in 2 years - check Expensive software - much more so for consoles. So right now the situation is that if you go for PC gaming instead of console, you'll have about the same expense, but 100 games for PC (and a powerful general purpose computer), and maybe 5-10 on console.
      - justsid 9y ago
        Plus you can upgrade parts of your PC during its lifetime, without having to replace the whole thing at once.
    - jakebasile 9y ago
      > At some point I'd like to believe people would just stop paying Microsoft tax to play computer games... I wish I could. The games I like aren't released anywhere else. > Then I remember people pay tons of cash for their rigs that are obsolete within two years anyway. This is false. A moderate gaming PC can last longer than a console. I used my previous rig for 4 years and now my wife is using it perfectly fine. It still has better visual fidelity than a console.
    - imtringued 9y ago
      My GPU lasted me 5 years and then it broke. I now play games like Warframe on iGPU at 720p on the lowest settings. It actually works quite well.
  - gh02t 9y ago
    I dunno if Microsoft could get away with something that extreme without (again) running afoul of anti-trust issues.
- tw04 9y ago
  No, but they can do things like not optimize code paths and not work with Intel on power saving features. The average consumer is far more likely to buy a Windows laptop with an arm cpu than an Intel laptop running a different os. Intel won't win that fight unless it's in a court room.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Even if the arm laptops are 20% cheaper Intel will start feeling the heat.

Joeri 9y ago

As far as I understand, they don't emulate the x86 instruction set, but instead cross-compile it to ARM native instructions. That means that whatever implementation details are behind the patented x86 instructions are irrelevant, since there is no emulation of those instructions, they are just replaced by equivalent ARM instructions. Intel will probably still sue, but I expect them to settle out of court. http://www.techradar.com/news/a-closer-look-at-windows-10-s-windows-10-on-arm-and-windows-10-iot http://www.techradar.com/news/a-closer-look-at-windows-10-s-...

cm2187 9y ago
But can they patent the instruction set rather than their implementation? Feels like a repeat of the google java lawsuit. In fact weren’t the IBM compatible PCs in the 80s doing exactly that?
rossy 9y ago
Isn't that equivalent to emulating it? Like emulators for video game systems that have both an interpreter and a JIT recompiler, the latter is just an optimization of the former. They both must interpret the instruction set of the target and run equivalent instructions on the host.
- beagle3 9y ago
  Patents have a funny feature, in that they (are supposed to) apply to a specific implementation. So "equivalent effect" is not enough for patent violation in the general case.
mr_toad 9y ago
"The real-time ‘Just-In-Time’ transcoding emulation that converts x86 instructions to ARM is done the first time you run the software, and then it’s cached by Windows" Still sounds like emulation to me. It's a pretty fine line.