3 ms·
> the cost of continuing 32 bit support on x86 is for Intel/AMD Pretty sure they still have 16-bit support. It's easier to migrate for a CPU mostly used for A
by dehrmann 5y ago
> the cost of continuing 32 bit support on x86 is for Intel/AMD
Pretty sure they still have 16-bit support.
It's easier to migrate for a CPU mostly used for Android because it's already had a mix of architectures, there are fewer legacy business applications, and distribution through an app store hides potential confusion from users.
- klelatti 5y agoGood point on 16 bit! I suppose idly wondering at what point the legacy business applications become so old that the speed penalty of emulation becomes something that almost everyone can live with.
- jeroenhd 5y agoAnother advantage the Android platform has specifically is that its applications mostly consist of bytecode, limiting the impact phasing out 32 bit instructions has on the platform. Most high performance chips are in Android devices like phones and tablets where native libraries are more the exception than the rule. Desktop relies on a lot of legacy support because even today developers make (unjust) assumptions that a certain system quirk will work for the next few years. There's no good reason to drop x86 support and there's good reason to keep it. The PC world can't afford to pull an Apple because there's less of a fan cult around most PC products that helps shift the blame on developers when their favourite games stop working.
- dehrmann 5y agoRun-anywhere was (and halfway still is) a huge selling point for Java. It was always clunky for desktop apps because of slow JVM warmup and nothing feeling native, but Android shifted enough of that into the OS so it's not a problem.