4 ms·

Microsoft has transitioned from 16bit DOS, to 16bit windows, to hybrid win95, full 32bit to 64bit architectures. All with mostly seamless backwards compatibilit

by dagaci 3y ago

Microsoft has transitioned from 16bit DOS, to 16bit windows, to hybrid win95, full 32bit to 64bit architectures. All with mostly seamless backwards compatibility, this with billions of active users running literally 1000s of different configurations. I would love to know what you mean by ‘inability to build and coordinate software at scale’

vl 3y ago
And also made it work on IA64, Alpha, PPC and MIPS.
badsectoracula 3y ago
That was a different, much smaller and more agile Microsoft, with a different leadership and MUCH smaller software base. Of all those you mentioned, the 32bit to 64bit architecture would be the most relevant but even that was almost two decades ago and there was hardware support for existing programs to keep working (and Windows 32bit programs are still released and used to this day). Keep in mind that the problem isn't having Windows build and run on an Arm chip - they already have that - but having all existing programs keep working as they did on the new chip without any perceived loss of functionality and performance. And aside from Microsoft, i do not see Intel and AMD to stay still and go "oh well, it was nice while it lasted". IMO of everything mentioned in the article, the most realistic option is for Microsoft to have the next Xbox use ARM chips instead of x86 as they'll have little existing backwards compatibility concerns (and can always benefit by selling existing games again for a new console :-P).
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > Of all those you mentioned, the 32bit to 64bit architecture would be the most relevant It's worth remembering that Dave Cutler was in charge of that transition. He's widely viewed as one of their best.
  - mycall 3y ago
    Dave also worked on the initial Azure platform in 2008.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      Also Windows NT and XBox One. If Microsoft had a high profile project, until he retired, Dave was the go to guy to lead it.
- jitl 3y ago
  They already have a good-enough Rosetta-like x64 -> ARM translation layer. You can run any x64 windows program on ARM windows. They can optimize the performance more, but that’s not a whole-company effort, a small dedicated team can make the optimization happen. If Qualcomm or Nvidia start shipping M3-comparable chips I can see it going pretty smooth without large changes at MSFT.
- robocat 3y ago
  > but having all existing programs keep working as they did on the new chip Surely not relevant to the vast majority of consumers. Developers and businesses may have old executables they still use. But those users can buy Intel based PCs.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Isn't that latter category the one Microsoft cares much more about?
znpy 3y ago
But the true backwards compatible think here is x86: afaik up an until uefi took on, x86-64 computers still booted into real mode, so much so that some vendors shipped computers with freedos… But the music stops when the isa is completely different

by dagaci 3y ago

vl 3y ago

And also made it work on IA64, Alpha, PPC and MIPS.

badsectoracula 3y ago

That was a different, much smaller and more agile Microsoft, with a different leadership and MUCH smaller software base. Of all those you mentioned, the 32bit to 64bit architecture would be the most relevant but even that was almost two decades ago and there was hardware support for existing programs to keep working (and Windows 32bit programs are still released and used to this day). Keep in mind that the problem isn't having Windows build and run on an Arm chip - they already have that - but having all existing programs keep working as they did on the new chip without any perceived loss of functionality and performance. And aside from Microsoft, i do not see Intel and AMD to stay still and go "oh well, it was nice while it lasted". IMO of everything mentioned in the article, the most realistic option is for Microsoft to have the next Xbox use ARM chips instead of x86 as they'll have little existing backwards compatibility concerns (and can always benefit by selling existing games again for a new console :-P).

GeekyBear 3y ago
> Of all those you mentioned, the 32bit to 64bit architecture would be the most relevant It's worth remembering that Dave Cutler was in charge of that transition. He's widely viewed as one of their best.
- mycall 3y ago
  Dave also worked on the initial Azure platform in 2008.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Also Windows NT and XBox One. If Microsoft had a high profile project, until he retired, Dave was the go to guy to lead it.
jitl 3y ago
They already have a good-enough Rosetta-like x64 -> ARM translation layer. You can run any x64 windows program on ARM windows. They can optimize the performance more, but that’s not a whole-company effort, a small dedicated team can make the optimization happen. If Qualcomm or Nvidia start shipping M3-comparable chips I can see it going pretty smooth without large changes at MSFT.
robocat 3y ago
> but having all existing programs keep working as they did on the new chip Surely not relevant to the vast majority of consumers. Developers and businesses may have old executables they still use. But those users can buy Intel based PCs.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Isn't that latter category the one Microsoft cares much more about?

znpy 3y ago

But the true backwards compatible think here is x86: afaik up an until uefi took on, x86-64 computers still booted into real mode, so much so that some vendors shipped computers with freedos… But the music stops when the isa is completely different