Why did alternative architectures fail and only Intel won out?

Why did alternative architectures fail and only Intel won out?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_the_IBM_PC_on_the_personal_computer_market
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

ARM is literally winning the microprocessor bowl.

What makes you think other architectures have failed?

Also, there is a long, storied history of the CPU industry. Shouldn't be too hard to find.

This. Just because they aren't used in the consumer space doesn't mean they failed.

>What CPU does your car run on?
>What CPU do missile guidance systems use?
>Infinity, into infinity....

But Intel is actually going to disappear soon.

Now if you had said "chip bowl" you would have had a marketable event name right there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_the_IBM_PC_on_the_personal_computer_market

In 10 years we will sit around wondering ‘what happened to intel’

Intel didn't win, the PC with x86 did.
PC was easily conable, easy to profit for other companies, it quickly became the standard thanks to IBM's early marketing it as a office machine.

How old are you? Just curious how young people are nowadays that browse a technology forum and have so little knowledge about history.

Software development killed anything other than x86. Apple had to leave it behind because of compatibility and cheap developers who couldn't afford to develop for more than one architecture

ARM is just doing fine and dandy.

POWER is still used by IBM for their big irons, also military and medical market.

Apple left x86 behind because IBM was withdrawing from the consumer market and didn't focus on the PowerPC anymore.
The last PowerPC chips where much more inefficient than x86 of the time, even when PowerPC was way ahead for most of the 90's.

You never developed for OS X (now macOS) and cross platforms?
With it's own APIs and development tools, developing for both x86 and PPC was very, VERY easy.

the x86-64 architecture was actually developed by AMD, which Intel ended up adopting, even though they had their own 64bit architecture ready :^) AMD 1 - INTEL 0

And AMD was created by Intel.

Simply because back then there was built-in dependencies between the software and the hardware to it on.
With the portable libraries, the cloud, virtualisation and FOSS (w/ability to recompile the source to your target), it's becoming less of a problem.

Intel licenced x86 to AMD for nothing because Intel itself could not satisfy the market demand and didn't want to lose position.
Intel literary asked AMD for help so they both could win from the PC sales.

>And AMD was created by Intel.
laughingwhores.jpeg

Microsoft was the lead vendor of Intel based OSs, became the most popular, scored subsidies and contracts with the government, congrats your tax dollars are funding a monopoly

IBM brought out the PC.
Made contracts with Intel/AMD and Microsoft for their chips and OS.
Marketed it successfully for offices and workspaces.
Others started cloning the PC because the only non off the shelf part (unlike many other machines of the time) was just the BIOS.
They cloned the BIOS and built rest of the computer from off the shelf parts just like IBM did.
IBM had no exclusive contract with Microsoft or Intel/AMD to only supply them the chips and software, so every company who made clones could just buy the OS and CPU from Microsoft and Intel/AMD for their own clones and sell the machines for much cheaper than IBM.

That's how the Wintel era started.

why?