From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 12:58:51 +1200, David Goodwin wrote:   
      
   > In article <10asked$2lq0s$3@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid says...   
   >>   
   >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 20:13:12 +1200, David Goodwin wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> So I think its a bit disingenuous to claim Windows NT wasn't   
   >>> portable.   
   >>   
   >> The fact that many of the ports you mention never made it to   
   >> production release, and even the ones (other than x86) that did are   
   >> now defunct, I think reinforces my point. The ports were difficult   
   >> and expensive to create, and difficult and expensive to maintain.   
   >> In the end they were all just abandoned.   
   >   
   > What makes you think they were difficult or expensive?   
      
   The fact that you admit as much in you very next sentence:   
      
   > There are plenty of other reasons why Microsoft, a for-profit   
   > company, might choose to discontinue them.   
      
   Only one that matters: profit.   
      
   > [lots of other discussion of exactly how difficult and expensive it   
   > is to maintain a cross-platform proprietary OS omitted]   
      
   Again, just reinforcing my point.   
      
   > Linux is not immune to this either.   
      
   It does seem to manage portability much more easily. It seems like,   
   every time somebody creates a new processor nowadays, the first thing   
   they get running on it is Linux.   
      
   > Linux no longer supports Itanium for the same reason Windows no   
   > longer supports Itanium: the costs started to ought-weigh the   
   > benefits.   
      
   The point being, Linux was able to continue supporting Itanium long   
   after Microsoft started winding down the addition of new features   
   to its Itanium port.   
      
   Even now, as I mentioned before, Linux continues to support Alpha,   
   decades after Microsoft completely gave up on it. That was an   
   architecture that died before Itanium!   
      
   The fact remains, the cost of porting Linux to every architecture   
   under the sun is a lot lower than for Windows.   
      
   >> Even the concept of a portable OS seems to have gone from Windows   
   >> nowadays. It has taken Microsoft a lot of trouble to come up with   
   >> the ARM port, for example, and I don?t think the compatibility   
   >> issues have entirely been worked out, even after all these years.   
   >   
   > A lot of trouble? They made some (obviously) bad decisions with   
   > Windows RT, but that doesn't imply the port was especially   
   > difficult.   
      
   The fact that they have needed so many tries to actually create a   
   semi-usable Windows-on-ARM port indicates otherwise.   
      
   >> A RISC-V Windows port will likely never happen.   
   >   
   > That of course depends on if it will ever look like a *profitable*   
   > platform to sell Windows on.   
      
   It’s already plenty profitable for lots of companies selling   
   RISC-V-based products, as witness the growth in same. RISC-V CPUs are   
   already shipping in the billions of units per year, as compared to   
   x86, which at its peak was only about a third of a billion, and has   
   since fallen back from that.   
      
   Think of it this way: profits from x86-based products are declining.   
   This includes Windows. Future growth requires Microsoft to look to   
   other hardware platforms. But Windows is just too difficult and   
   expensive to port to non-x86 platforms -- it has just about managed   
   ARM, after a great deal of trouble; to have to spend a great deal to   
   move, yet again, to something else, while profits continue to decline,   
   is just out of the question.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)