From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Lawrence D’Oliveiro  writes:   
   > Richard Kettlewell wrote:   
   >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>> Because in general-purpose computing, the proprietary vendors   
   >>> anyway (Microsoft being the obvious example) have a great deal of   
   >>> trouble supporting more than one platform.   
   >>   
   >> Apple have changed architecture three times now ...   
   >   
   > But never more than main one at a time -- not for longer than   
   > absolutely needed to make the transition.   
      
   So what? The claim I made was about an architecture migration, not about   
   supporting multiple architectures concurrently.   
      
   >> ... HP and Sun at least twice each.   
   >   
   > All the old HP minis and RISC architectures have gone. Itanium has   
   > gone. HP only does x86 now. And Sun has gone.   
      
   Again, so what?   
      
   >> Microsoft support two architectures at present and have supported   
   >> more in the past.   
   >   
   > Windows-on-ARM is struggling. And Windows NT on non-x86 architectures   
   > never lasted long. Fun fact: even on x86, which is now 64-bit, Windows   
   > is still a 32-bit architecture at heart.   
   >   
   > You see what I mean, don’t you?   
      
   You’re obviously not addressing the claim I actually made, so I’m going   
   back to assuming you’re not arguing in good faith.   
      
   --   
   https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)