By: wumpus (lost.delete@this.in.a.cave), October 18, 2018 8:46 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on October 17, 2018 8:19 am wrote:
> AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com) on October 16, 2018 10:03 am wrote:
> > someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on October 15, 2018 5:35 am wrote:
> > > AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com) on October 14, 2018 8:50 am wrote:
> > >
> > > > MS is dead serious about ARM -- they invested years of work into it by now, developing Win Server on ARM64,
> > > > deploying lots of ARM servers inside, in Azure, and their switch is not limited to servers -- MS clearly
> > > > had a big hand in the launch of ARM hybrids with Win 10 as well; and the fact that some, if not all, of
> > > > Centriq design team folks are at MS now means to me there's no turning back for MS on this path.
> > >
> > > Yeah just like there was no turning back for MS with i860, MIPS, and Itanium after years of work. ;-)
> >
> > Interesting point (I actually recalled their ports when writing), but your winkie says it all -- given
> > how they go about ARM of late years, it seems they learned enough from the past experiences.
>
> Looks to me like they haven't learned a thing.
Microsoft has historically been able to manage to get their software on any system if they have remotely functional software for it. They certainly don't want to have to convince people used to functional software to switch to Microsoft, so they have to have their system ready once it launches. Beyond that, they have little reason to care, and also little reason to push it beyond x86 (granted, this all happened when Bill Gates was at the helm, and MS didn't lose fights over marketshare like their repeated mobile debacles. They have trouble competing with Sony now).
I don't see why Microsoft should care all that much about ARM servers anyway. They will continue to own the market for servers that primarily serve Microsoft machines and have little reason for anyone else to run Windows server.
To a certain extent, any dollar spent on Intel (or AMD) hardware isn't spent on a Windows/Office license, so Microsoft might want to try to reduce costs everywhere but their own licenses. On the other hand, as prices continue to erode everywhere else, that keeps people wondering why they keep paying Microsoft historically hefty prices.
> AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com) on October 16, 2018 10:03 am wrote:
> > someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on October 15, 2018 5:35 am wrote:
> > > AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com) on October 14, 2018 8:50 am wrote:
> > >
> > > > MS is dead serious about ARM -- they invested years of work into it by now, developing Win Server on ARM64,
> > > > deploying lots of ARM servers inside, in Azure, and their switch is not limited to servers -- MS clearly
> > > > had a big hand in the launch of ARM hybrids with Win 10 as well; and the fact that some, if not all, of
> > > > Centriq design team folks are at MS now means to me there's no turning back for MS on this path.
> > >
> > > Yeah just like there was no turning back for MS with i860, MIPS, and Itanium after years of work. ;-)
> >
> > Interesting point (I actually recalled their ports when writing), but your winkie says it all -- given
> > how they go about ARM of late years, it seems they learned enough from the past experiences.
>
> Looks to me like they haven't learned a thing.
Microsoft has historically been able to manage to get their software on any system if they have remotely functional software for it. They certainly don't want to have to convince people used to functional software to switch to Microsoft, so they have to have their system ready once it launches. Beyond that, they have little reason to care, and also little reason to push it beyond x86 (granted, this all happened when Bill Gates was at the helm, and MS didn't lose fights over marketshare like their repeated mobile debacles. They have trouble competing with Sony now).
I don't see why Microsoft should care all that much about ARM servers anyway. They will continue to own the market for servers that primarily serve Microsoft machines and have little reason for anyone else to run Windows server.
To a certain extent, any dollar spent on Intel (or AMD) hardware isn't spent on a Windows/Office license, so Microsoft might want to try to reduce costs everywhere but their own licenses. On the other hand, as prices continue to erode everywhere else, that keeps people wondering why they keep paying Microsoft historically hefty prices.