On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 22:55, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
This reminds me of the stories I've heard about Microsoft's inability to
port Pinball to /their/ 64-bit processor, the Itanium.
(?) Itanium was Intel's, not Microsoft's.
No, not their copy of /AMD/'s 64-bit extension on
Again, not MICROS~1: Intel.
MS is the reason Intel supports x86-64.
When it saw that Itanium was failing, just like i860, just like
iAPX-32, Intel built its own 64-bit extension to x86-32, to compete
MS told Intel: look, we are already supporting *one* deadbeat
unprofitable 64-bit arch of yours (i.e. Itanic.) We're not supporting
*two*. No. You make it compatible with AMD's, because we're doing just
one 64-bit x86 and we're already working on it.
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053