Re:Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems
by fidotron on Thursday December 05, 2013 @10:47AM
(#6854955)
As time goes on I'm more convinced arstechnica doesn't understand the increasingly non-Wintel world we're in. Things like the comment about Intel based phones, the whole premise of the article here (without going into how the whole point of WP8 was it was supposed to have the same API as RT, but it actually didn't and thus was pointless) and their confusions about the XBox are all indicative of a mindset that still believes in the ultimate invincibility of MS and Intel.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems
by DrPizza on Thursday December 05, 2013 @01:32PM
(#6856149)
I think you miss my point about Intel phones. Intel is threatening to have processors that will be somewhere between "credible" and "best in class" for smartphones. It's not guaranteed at this stage, but it's absolutely within the realm of possibility. Should this happen, it's absolutely something that Microsoft will need to support, especially since Android already runs on such phones.
Windows Phone 8 was intended, first and foremost, to bring the kernels into alignment. It did this. It is a shame that it does not provide the full WinRT API, but Microsoft never said that it would, so I'm not sure why you're saying that it was "supposed" to.
Re:Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems
by chc on Thursday December 05, 2013 @01:25PM
(#6856092)
I don't understand what you're talking about or how you get anything about "the ultimate invincibility of MS and Intel" from this article. You think an Atom phone is completely impossible? And what "confusions about the Xbox"? Is it really controversial to suggest that the Xbox One doesn't run a stock install of Windows 8?