Now Microsoft ports Windows 10, Linux to homegrown CPU design

I suspect they have. There was a lot of work in the late 90s in "alternative architectures" like asynchronous clock less CPU stuff. Most of it seems to have been abandoned in the early 00s though. Perhaps it was just too far ahead of its time.

"Why have neither Intel, AMD, ARM or Samsung developed a similar approach, or bought this particular technology in from academia?"

That was pre Spectre/Meltdown. I bet it looks a whole lot more attractive now people have taken an interest in the side channels CPUs create.

It is probably much much simpler and its why x86 persists, why Windows RT was doomed, and why practically all phones use ARM chips: Software.

No one really wants to recompile, test (yes, I know its a novel concept), debug and support existing software for a new product hardly anyone uses. And so the new product remains hardly used.

Why have neither Intel, AMD, ARM or Samsung developed a similar approach, or bought this particular technology in from academia? You can argue that Intel, and to an extent ARM are victims of their own success and would dismiss it as "not invented here", but AMD could certainly do with a technology break out.

Do those companies know something that MS don't?

Do Samsung have a history of innovating in the CPU space? I get they're a core ARM licencee but they do more 'mass market' stuff don't they?

Intel couldn't be seen to do anything to significantly de-stabilise X86 as that's where the money comes from. Although they have tried a few times.

ARM are stuck with ARM, and AMD doesn't have the thing that Microsoft have lots of... spare cash. (Remember, whilst we don't care any more, Windows is still the dominant computer OS, and still makes Microsoft a lot of money).

Companies with lots of money can spend it doing R&D, hence this, and why Apple do their own CPUs and GPUs now.

Re: Why have AMD not developed a similar approach

AMD don't have the money, while MS has.

There's a chance, but not a big one

The way I see it, microsoft have chosen a good time to think about switching over, as they are at a relatively pivotal point. This is similar to the many stories about their thoughts of running windows 10 on arm. I don't see a reason this has to fail, but I can see lots of ways it could. The last time microsoft tried it, for example, they got windows RT and it didn't succeed. They will need to realize that very little is going through the windows store and that the rest needs to be available. That means either getting devs to recompile a lot of things or making a compatibility layer. However, if they manage that, I see no reason this couldn't be a new architecture.

However, given microsoft's track record with this and their current software base, I doubt it will happen. Apple could switch to arm because their low-end users get their software from the appstore, and their high-end users use software made by companies that have enough money to recompile and test the new code to death. Linux can switch to most things because the software can be recompiled by anyone and patches provided by anyone with the knowledge and inclination. If microsoft makes this available, and things start to break, it may fail at that point. They aren't really providing something that we couldn't get before, so it will need to be very good for it to get the chance to become better.

The more interesting question...

> Why have neither Intel, AMD, ARM or Samsung developed a similar approach

...is why Microsoft *did* do it, only to apparently shut it down "since the research questions have been answered" (by the looks of it, in the positive).

That, along with the last sentence about not upsetting their "silicon partners" reads to me like one important strategic goal of this project would have been precisely to put pressure on those partners by saying, "look, you're not indispensable, in fact we could really upset your boat if we wanted to, so now about those prices..."

PS: I must stress, I am talking from a position of complete ignorance about these things. Take the above more as a question than as any form of assertion.

Re: The processor really shouldn't matter to applications these days.

I don't mean built from source. I mean the rpm / deb contains compiled binary as LLVM bitcode and then during installation the binary is turned into a native executable. This is relatively quick step to perform and doesn't require an entire development toolchain.

<p>

From an app's perspective it means shipping a single package that could be used on any supported architecture. It means the product could be instrumented with additional security checks configured by the administrator, modified to run in a sandbox / virtual environment and other things of that nature.

That wan't punny

(body)

Re: Real opportunity to move forwards

@Doctor Syntax:

Very true. This reminds me of the thread yesterday on security of SCADA systems when you have air gapped PCs. Yes, Redmond do ned to find a proper way of doing DRM confirmation. But for a company like Microsoft, this is not beyond our technology to solve.

By the way, the screens I saw were displaying rolling news, so clearly there was an internet connection!