4 ms·

I personally want to see this end up being something of a consortium effort, one where operating systems won’t need to target specific chips to work, but rather

I personally want to see this end up being something of a consortium effort, one where operating systems won’t need to target specific chips to work, but rather a shared instruction set. I know the M1 decidedly isn’t this but that is the one thing I don’t like from an industry point of view. I like that I can build an Intel or AMD machine and install a wide variety of operating systems as I choose to. That is a key advantage as a consumer of the x86 platform I also think they could catch up faster if they work together on some common industry standard. I don’t remain hopeful that will happen though

coldtea 6y ago
>I like that I can build an Intel or AMD machine and install a wide variety of operating systems as I choose to. That is a key advantage as a consumer of the x86 platform A key disadvantage on the other hand is companies coasting for a decade now at the speed/battery/etc front, plus a monoculture with no innovation...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The disadvantage is a consequence of Intel having a de facto monopoly for a decade. But that isn't necessary to have industry standards, as exemplified by what came before it -- there was plenty of competition and advancement in the 90s and early 2000s. For that matter, it's what's happening now. The current Zen line has world-class performance but they're still in systems using ACPI and ATX and PCIe.
- brnt 6y ago
  AMD has done their best to innovate though, and with Ryzen are succeeding big time. Since Ryzen came out I find CPUs interesting again.
spiderfarmer 6y ago
Design by committee is a very slow process. I doubt the advantages outweigh this huge disadvantage.