4 ms·

The existence of an imaginary x86 monopoly in the 80s?

• mort96 2y ago
  Oh, but xbar's interpretation of the phrase "x86 monopoly" is clearly the x86 architecture having a monopoly in the instruction set market. Under that interpretation, I don't really think it's relevant how many companies made x86 chips. I don't think xbar is necessarily wrong, I just think they're interpreting words to mean something they weren't intended so they're not making an effective argument
  • Wytwwww 2y ago
    Did x86 have a monopoly in the 80s to begin with? If there is any period when that was true it would be the 2000s or early 2010s. > intended so they're not making an effective argument To be fair I'm really struggling to somehow connect the "x86 monopoly in the late 80s" with the remainder of their comment (which certainly makes sense).
    • bluGill 2y ago
      x86 didn't have a monopoly, but IBM PC clones were clearly what everyone was talking about and there the monopoly existed. There are lots of different also ran processors, some with good market share in some niche, but overall x86 was clearly on the volume winners track by 1985.
      • Wytwwww 2y ago
        > but overall x86 was clearly on the volume winners track by 1985. By that standard if we exclude mobile x86 has a much stronger monopoly these days than in 1985. Unless we exclude low end PCs like Apple II and Commodore 64. In 1990 x86 had ~80%, Apple ~7%, Amiga ~4% (with the remainder going to lowend or niche PCs) so again not that different than today.