←back to thread

331 points giuliomagnifico | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.45377613[source]
I remember at the time thinking it was really silly for Intel to release a 64-bit processor that broke compatibility, and was very glad AMD kept it. Years later I learned about kernel writing, and I now get why Intel tried to break with the old - the compatibility hacks piled up on x86 are truly awful. But ultimately, customers don't care about that, they just want their stuff to run.
replies(5): >>45377925 #>>45379301 #>>45380247 #>>45385323 #>>45386390 #
zokier ◴[] No.45377925[source]
It is worth noting that at the turn of the century x86 wasn't yet so utterly dominant yet. Alphas, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC and whatnot were still very much a thing. So that is part why running x86 software was not as high priority, and maybe even compatibility with PA-RISC would have been a higher priority.
replies(3): >>45378981 #>>45379383 #>>45379735 #
1. unethical_ban ◴[] No.45379735[source]
Is that true in 2000, especially as consumer PCs ramped up?