An intentional delay of 10X might be a strategy to slow/undermine Apple's migration to ARM.
And how is that? I doubt Apple has even minimal care about what Microsoft does with Windows. Office365 already runs under iPadOS/iOS, so it will also then run on MacOS/ARM.
Windows users don’t know it yet, but Microsoft is putting its emphasis on the enterprise and not fretting over the consumer market. Office 365 works well on Apple Silicon. Gaming is either Xbox or Apple Silicon going forward. Microsoft is doubling down on Azure. Windows 10 may be dead in 3 years.
Oh, and it’s not Windows 10 on Arm. It’s Windows 10 on Qualcomm. There is no macOS on Arm. It’s macOS/tvOS/iPadOS/iOS on Apple Silicon.
Apple asked Microsoft whether they would be willing to port Windows to Apple silicon. Microsoft said they weren’t well-positioned for that since their Arm work is heavily Qualcomm dependent.
Windows users don’t know it yet, but Microsoft is putting its emphasis on the enterprise and not fretting over the consumer market. Office 365 works well on Apple Silicon. Gaming is either Xbox or Apple Silicon going forward. Microsoft is doubling down on Azure. Windows 10 may be dead in 3 years.
Windows users don’t know it yet, but Microsoft is putting its emphasis on the enterprise and not fretting over the consumer market. Office 365 works well on Apple Silicon. Gaming is either Xbox or Apple Silicon going forward. Microsoft is doubling down on Azure. Windows 10 may be dead in 3 years.
I wouldn't bank on that.
Well, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 lives on and is powering equipment at many a building. Let's see if Microsoft is willing to just milk that cow rather than seek out new pastures. They can keep revenue going nicely by promoting thin clients that connect to Windows "in the Azure cloud."
That guess is wrong. This may come as a shock to you but Microsoft is the dominant force in PC computing. They are not in a position to where they have to respond to anything that Apple does until Apple's marketshare like triples. It would be great for someone to come up with a competitive alternative to Apple's offerings ... let me state this again. Microsoft has 90% of the market. Because of software compatibility and other issues, they have no reason to believe that ARM-based Macs are going to lead to this massive shift. Apple designing its own desktop chips is a huge deal to the Apple fandom but outside of that nobody cares, just like most people really don't care about Intel vs AMD on the Intel side.
That guess might be indeed correct. You're missing something! Once I was working in a fab as an SMT line operator. The line itself has 10 PCs, loaded with Windows XP embed, and Windows 10 - and that's what Microsoft calls "10 users" in their numbers. However, more than 30% of all my collegues has Macs at home. Try to understand the value of alleged "user bases" - 10 PCs running all the time all the same software.. and swapped very often. Tons of PCs in and tons of wreck out non-stop. Compare to the computers at home, with users buying software, using services, and maintaining the device for much longer. And this is no 9% for Mac worldwide, this is hell much more. Microsoft is ringing alarm when they just have realized where's Apple going with their own silicon, processor independent macOS, along with advanced dev resources. Sorry, I really like your rationale, but get real about this!
Windows users don’t know it yet, but Microsoft is putting its emphasis on the enterprise and not fretting over the consumer market. Office 365 works well on Apple Silicon. Gaming is either Xbox or Apple Silicon going forward. Microsoft is doubling down on Azure. Windows 10 may be dead in 3 years.
I wouldn't bank on that.
Well, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 lives on and is powering equipment at many a building. Let's see if Microsoft is willing to just milk that cow rather than seek out new pastures. They can keep revenue going nicely by promoting thin clients that connect to Windows "in the Azure cloud."
Fuchsia: is going to be a completely modular micro-kernel based OS (all well known OSes today run monolithic kernels).
I always appreciate when people make incorrect claims right up front. That often saves a bit of reading... especially when it's a long winded post.
Linux is indeed a monolithic kernel. Windows, Mac, iOS use what is called a hybrid kernel (sometimes called macrokernel). They are typically designed like a microkernel but keep some of the services in the kernel space for performance reasons. You see with kernel design, there is a trade-off between stability and performance. Microkernels are more stable because very little is in the kernel space. Other services exist in user space. If something fails with these services, it doesn't crash the OS. However, there is a performance penalty associated with interprocess communications with this design. That's why Linux is designed for maximum performance above all else which is why it's a monolithic kernel. Windows and Mac kernels attempt to find a happy medium between these two extremes.
This may come as a shock to you but Microsoft is the dominant force in PC computing. They are not in a position to where they have to respond to anything that Apple does until Apple's marketshare like triples. It would be great for someone to come up with a competitive alternative to Apple's offerings ... let me state this again. Microsoft has 90% of the market. Because of software compatibility and other issues, they have no reason to believe that ARM-based Macs are going to lead to this massive shift. Apple designing its own desktop chips is a huge deal to the Apple fandom but outside of that nobody cares, just like most people really don't care about Intel vs AMD on the Intel side.
Realistically, both Apple and Microsoft have approximately 1.5 billion active computing devices. Android has 2.5 billion. When you speak of PC's specifically, yes, Microsoft has more, but realistically with out people use their computing devices, that distinction is largely irrelevant. For that matter, most PCs sold are the low end variety that could easily be replaced by a tablet, etc. The last numbers I saw said Apple has over 90% market share of higher end PCs costing >$1000 USD. Also, if you're comparing CPU designs, it's something like 4 billion ARM based active devices vs. 1.5 billion Intel based devices. That should give you an idea why more R&D is being put into ARM based designs. The "Wintel" market is still very large, but becoming increasing less significant each year... especially as we move to the cloud (where MS does quite well) and business apps are not designed for any particular platform anymore.
Comments
Apple asked Microsoft whether they would be willing to port Windows to Apple silicon. Microsoft said they weren’t well-positioned for that since their Arm work is heavily Qualcomm dependent.
That guess might be indeed correct. You're missing something! Once I was working in a fab as an SMT line operator. The line itself has 10 PCs, loaded with Windows XP embed, and Windows 10 - and that's what Microsoft calls "10 users" in their numbers. However, more than 30% of all my collegues has Macs at home.
Try to understand the value of alleged "user bases" - 10 PCs running all the time all the same software.. and swapped very often. Tons of PCs in and tons of wreck out non-stop. Compare to the computers at home, with users buying software, using services, and maintaining the device for much longer. And this is no 9% for Mac worldwide, this is hell much more. Microsoft is ringing alarm when they just have realized where's Apple going with their own silicon, processor independent macOS, along with advanced dev resources. Sorry, I really like your rationale, but get real about this!
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-working-on-an-azure-powered-cloud-pc-service/
Linux is indeed a monolithic kernel. Windows, Mac, iOS use what is called a hybrid kernel (sometimes called macrokernel). They are typically designed like a microkernel but keep some of the services in the kernel space for performance reasons. You see with kernel design, there is a trade-off between stability and performance. Microkernels are more stable because very little is in the kernel space. Other services exist in user space. If something fails with these services, it doesn't crash the OS. However, there is a performance penalty associated with interprocess communications with this design. That's why Linux is designed for maximum performance above all else which is why it's a monolithic kernel. Windows and Mac kernels attempt to find a happy medium between these two extremes.
Realistically, both Apple and Microsoft have approximately 1.5 billion active computing devices. Android has 2.5 billion. When you speak of PC's specifically, yes, Microsoft has more, but realistically with out people use their computing devices, that distinction is largely irrelevant. For that matter, most PCs sold are the low end variety that could easily be replaced by a tablet, etc. The last numbers I saw said Apple has over 90% market share of higher end PCs costing >$1000 USD. Also, if you're comparing CPU designs, it's something like 4 billion ARM based active devices vs. 1.5 billion Intel based devices. That should give you an idea why more R&D is being put into ARM based designs. The "Wintel" market is still very large, but becoming increasing less significant each year... especially as we move to the cloud (where MS does quite well) and business apps are not designed for any particular platform anymore.