From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   David Goodwin   wrote:   
   >In article <10bhqe4$uqv$3@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid says...   
      
   In general, arguing with Lawrence is like trying to reason with   
   a leaking pen: it doesn't change and just gets ink all over your   
   fingers.   
      
   >> >> The MIPS version of NT didn?t last long, either.   
   >> >   
   >> > The MIPS version was never very popular to begin with - today the   
   >> > hardware is flying pigs rare.   
   >>   
   >> I already mentioned that MIPS processors outship x86 by about 3:1,   
   >> last I checked. You wouldn?t call x86 ?flying pigs rare?, would you?   
   >   
   >Set top boxes and routers were not the target market for Windows in the   
   >90s, and they are clearly not a market Microsoft is interested in   
   >pursuing today.   
      
   Moreover, 99.9% of those MIPS CPUs that are outselling x86 are   
   embedded microcontrollers that just happen to use the MIPS   
   instruction set.  If they run any OS at all, it's way more than   
   likely to be some kind of RTOS.   
      
   For that matter, ARM Cortex-M0 CPUs are _incredibly_ common, in   
   all sorts of things that many people are unaware even has a   
   microcontroller inside of it, but Linux isn't running on them.   
      
   There are cute hacks like uCLinux designed to run on constrained   
   systems, but I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of those   
   CPUs are running it, and besides, it's not being used for   
   general-purpose compute, which is what Windows targets.   
      
   Bottom line: pointing to the number of MIPS CPUs shipped versus   
   x86 as some kind of "evidence" for the non-portability of   
   Windows is similar pointing to the number of pineapples shipped   
   versus cars as evidence that cars don't grow on trees.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)