3 ms·
You're absolutely right to do it. There's one platform that's for all intents and purposes not portable (Windows) that has been extremely successful, but outsid
by philistine 3y ago
You're absolutely right to do it. There's one platform that's for all intents and purposes not portable (Windows) that has been extremely successful, but outside of that no one has survived by being wedded to only one architecture.
I guess its a lesson for all those companies on ARM: always have a plan B.
- Rochus 3y agoWell, at least there are many independent chip providers, and that they use the same ARM architecture (i.e. detail design specifications, etc.) even has the advantage that tools and know-how are re-useable by the companies using these chips (and that each of these chip providers has the ARM detail design at hand is even an advantage compared to RISC-V, where "only" the ABI is open source); in contrast MS is indeed a single provider keeping the source code of most of its products closed (which virtually makes it a potential "single point of failure" for a large market).
- anticensor 3y agoBoth Windows NT kernel API and Windows userspace API are designed to be portable across processor architectures, minus a few non-essential assumptions that are sadly assumed to be invariants by some userspace applications.