Feel free to poke me once Microsoft decides to support Apple's hardware on Windows for ARM.

I honestly do not see it happening.

Until then, whatever hardware Apple has is irrelevant to the Windows discussion.

Microsoft is already having issues to move Windows development community into ARM for the last decade, it is a pipe dream they will ever care with RISC-V.

>it is a pipe dream they will ever care with RISC-V.

They already care about RISC-V as I explained in other posts in this discussion, and there's not even hardware yet.

Hardware is finally about to show up, also explained, to you specifically, in another post in this discussion.

RISC-V is inevitable.

> RISC-V is inevitable.

While it does seem pretty likely, "inevitable" is perhaps overstating things.

If RISC-V does make solid inroads into servers and supercomputers, then (perhaps ironically?) the US gov may start doing funky things to suppress it. They don't want China successfully countering the recent chip-making suppression efforts, which RISC-V could enable.

Probably not something we'll see in 2023 though, so that's totally wild guessing. ;)

>"inevitable" is perhaps overstating things.

The momentum has grown far beyond the point of no return.

As we can see it already happening, it is far more likely for me to be struck by lightning than RISC-V not take over the world.

>If RISC-V does make solid inroads into servers and supercomputers

See recent talk from BSC's Mateo Valero[0]. EU's supercomputer roadmap already is RISC-V centric, and their researchers already have a few generations of finished RISC-V designs.

>then (perhaps ironically?) the US gov may start doing funky things to suppress it

They cannot. RISC-V Foundation is based in Switzerland.

0. https://www.youtube.com/@tenstorrentinc (it's somewhere in the recent "Nerds Talking to Nerds About RISC V", which has a load of good talks)

> They cannot. RISC-V Foundation is based in Switzerland.

You're not taking into account the difference between theory and reality.

"In theory" the US government "cannot" due to technical aspects like the RISC-V Foundation being based in Switzerland.

"In reality" though, the US government could (for example) introduce targetted sanctions on companies having anything further to do with RISC-V.

The vast majority of those companies would terminate their RISC-V involvement on the spot, as they have substantial US involvement with their businesses.

The remaining ones could indeed keep on pursing RISC-V, but the whole "take over the world" thing would be either dead or have its timeframe pushed out by many years.

Note - I'm trying to illustrate that "inevitable" isn't correct when powerful players are involved. So the above example is just the first one to spring to mind.

I'll just reiterate: It is far more likely for me to be struck by lightning than RISC-V not take over the world.

RISC-V is inevitable.