Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542480
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple's CPU suppliers had other businesses besides CPUs, and they weren't as focused as Intel is.
MS and Intel wouldn't have to compete directly. MS could use Intel consultants and fabs. Plus, the two have a long history, so I would expect it to be more of a mutual thing rather than antagonistic.
"Their tight control on UEFI sounds much more worrying to me."
And isn't AMD semi-supportive of OSS alternatives to UEFI? Now, that would be a nice thing for MS to kill off... ;p
And isn't AMD semi-supportive of OSS alternatives to UEFI? Now, that would be a nice thing for MS to kill off... ;p
MS don't need to kill OSS alternatives to UEFI: they control the UEFI spec, and they can force pretty much any mobo manufacturer to implement it through the Windows monopoly, that's more than enough.
Edited 2012-11-16 06:46 UTC




Member since:
2010-03-08
I'm scared.
- Brendan
Apple have tried many times relying on CPUs from a single manufacturer. It has arguably never worked well on a large scale except with Intel. So why would Microsoft bother?
Their tight control on UEFI sounds much more worrying to me.
Edited 2012-11-14 09:50 UTC