> RISC-V for Microsoft surface and RISC-V for Google Chrome may not be fully compatible with each other and RISC-V AWS cloud processors. It is up to software d

> RISC-V for Microsoft surface and RISC-V for Google Chrome may not be fully compatible with each other and RISC-V AWS cloud processors. It is up to software distributors to decide whether it's worthwhile to use those extensions; provided they are even allowed to run their own software on the thing to begin with (which was not the case with Surface RT anyway, extended ISA or not). > When somebody decides to invest into large volume laptop/desktop/server microarchitecture to compete with Intel and AMD, nothing prevents them from adding their own proprietary ISA extensions. Nothing prevents AMD and Intel from doing this either, and they do it all the time! You just don't notice because they agreed privately to cross-license the extensions. And at the end of the day, the parts of the platform that you'd use for a standard operating system (notwithstanding new tagged memory or other exotic architectures, which I'd argue are a good, innovative form of incompatibility) are fully standardized already on RISC-V. If Microsoft wants to make their next version of NT on RISC-V rely on Qualcomm-proprietary instructions, that's their prerogative.