And the entire issue of "Apple proprietary" goes out the window with virtualization solutions as they provide their own virtualized device drivers. ![]() Apple bore the expense of changing their boot environment with Boot Camp, and providing drivers for their own hardware. ![]() Microsoft didn't have to spend R&D and support money to support Apple "proprietary" peripherals, and they don't have to do that on M1 Macs if they follow their own established policies. They would use the "SystemReady SR" specs as a supported reference CPU architecture, and allow Apple/VMware/Parallels to build the drivers necessary to support their peripherals. If Microsoft is serious about letting system vendors openly build ARM architecture devices for Windows, they wouldn't force you to use a Qualcomm development system and list only Qualcomm CPU chips as "supported CPUs". I suspect that Microsoft is building Windows for ARM to those specs, given how easily Parallels and to a lesser extent VMware can run Windows for ARM in VMs out of the box. In the ARM world, they have a published SystemReady SR spec for workstations and servers that accomplishes something similar. They leave it to hardware OEMs to build drivers for the devices that are included in systems. Microsoft's policies for Windows is are to provide rminimum system reference configurations and supported chip sets along with a set of default drivers. I don't think the costs would be as high as you think. ![]() ongoing costs) their competitor's proprietary hardware? Is it that nobody wants to hold Microsoft’s feet to the fire on this because it it their refusals that’s ultimately causing this issue.Īnd please explain why they should? Why should Microsoft be expected to spend their resources to create and then Support (which ultimately costs way more, with QA and Help Desk, etc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |