MetalMusicAddict
August 14th, 2006, 05:41 PM
THIS (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3101) is a old article I ran across and am wondering if its still valid. Also has there been any more movement by them on this?
OVER THE LAST YEAR or so, Microsoft has made its intentions clear. It's had enough of selling things and wants to start licensing and renting. The question on all the top executives' lips is, "how can we make everyone who uses or supplies components for a PC pay us a license fee?"
There has been talk of Microsoft producing their own processor for Xbox and graphics chips too (see Eva Glass' original article and the followup here.)
At first glance this seems unlikely. Why would Microsoft risk antagonising the biggest chip suppliers? The answer is licencing. Microsoft doesn't just want to license end users, it wants anybody who produces components for a PC to pay it a licence too.
How likely is Microsoft to produce a graphics chip? The answer is that it is almost a certainty. They have put out a request for quotation for a DirectX9/10 microcode engine. That's the part of a chip that decodes DirectX instructions and runs them. The only reason to do that is if they are building a chip.
Microsoft already has experience of designing graphics chips in the form of Talisman.
You may think that would be the end of it, but no, Microsoft has recently bought the Silicon Graphics patent portfolio. This means it can introduce features into DirectX that require certain patents. All the graphics chip companies that want to keep up will have to buy patent licences from Microsoft. ATI and Nvidia will have to pay if they want to stay in the game.
But what about the processor? Surely it would be far more difficult to produce an entirely new CPU for the Xbox 2? The answer here is that much of Microsoft's plans revolve around the Microsoft Intermediate Language* (MSIL). And Microsoft wants to make Xbox 2 as much of an MSIL machine as possible.
It wants a processor that will run MSIL as fast as possible. The processor will also have to retain compatibility with Xbox 1, so the chip will also have to be capable of running x86 instructions at a respectable speed.
So it needs a processor that can run MSIL like it is native code but can still run x86 code.
Now look at the fact that Transmeta, which is steadily heading into deep financial waters has refused take-over bids . Or rather, it has refused unsolicited take-over bids. Its share price is bargain basement stuff. It's losing money hand over fist. It has a processor that is capable of running x86 code.
The Crusoe can also code morph. Transmeta could easily build a code morphing engine for MSIL - it has already demonstrated a Crusoe acting as an x86 and Java processor at the same time. It starts to make you wonder why two of the top executives at Transmeta left recently. It starts to make you wonder why they were refusing unsolicited take-over bids. So maybe Microsoft has already found the processor they want. And it's a step further into its licensing strategy.
Remember, "how can we make everyone who uses or supplies components for a PC pay us a license fee?"
Don't forget that Microsoft now owns a stack of SGI graphics patents.. and that Nvidia started when some top SGI developers wanted to go it alone themselves.
If Microsoft owns or controls a processor, it can compile Windows to have best compatibility with its own CPUs. It can start introducing patented technology to their processors which Windows "requires." Then it can start licensing the patents to Intel, AMD, et al. Before you know it, MS will be the OS monopoly, graphics monopoly and the processor monopoly.
Arron Rouse is a contract technical author and business analyst.
*MSIL is Micorsoft's equivalent to Java's Bytecode. It can be run on any processor provided you have an MSIL Virtual Machine, just like you need a Java Virtual Machine to run Java.
All of Microsoft's .NET strategy revolves around MSIL with Visual Studio (C++, C#, Visual Basic, etc.) capable of producing MSIL packages.
What would this do if it actually came to pass?
OVER THE LAST YEAR or so, Microsoft has made its intentions clear. It's had enough of selling things and wants to start licensing and renting. The question on all the top executives' lips is, "how can we make everyone who uses or supplies components for a PC pay us a license fee?"
There has been talk of Microsoft producing their own processor for Xbox and graphics chips too (see Eva Glass' original article and the followup here.)
At first glance this seems unlikely. Why would Microsoft risk antagonising the biggest chip suppliers? The answer is licencing. Microsoft doesn't just want to license end users, it wants anybody who produces components for a PC to pay it a licence too.
How likely is Microsoft to produce a graphics chip? The answer is that it is almost a certainty. They have put out a request for quotation for a DirectX9/10 microcode engine. That's the part of a chip that decodes DirectX instructions and runs them. The only reason to do that is if they are building a chip.
Microsoft already has experience of designing graphics chips in the form of Talisman.
You may think that would be the end of it, but no, Microsoft has recently bought the Silicon Graphics patent portfolio. This means it can introduce features into DirectX that require certain patents. All the graphics chip companies that want to keep up will have to buy patent licences from Microsoft. ATI and Nvidia will have to pay if they want to stay in the game.
But what about the processor? Surely it would be far more difficult to produce an entirely new CPU for the Xbox 2? The answer here is that much of Microsoft's plans revolve around the Microsoft Intermediate Language* (MSIL). And Microsoft wants to make Xbox 2 as much of an MSIL machine as possible.
It wants a processor that will run MSIL as fast as possible. The processor will also have to retain compatibility with Xbox 1, so the chip will also have to be capable of running x86 instructions at a respectable speed.
So it needs a processor that can run MSIL like it is native code but can still run x86 code.
Now look at the fact that Transmeta, which is steadily heading into deep financial waters has refused take-over bids . Or rather, it has refused unsolicited take-over bids. Its share price is bargain basement stuff. It's losing money hand over fist. It has a processor that is capable of running x86 code.
The Crusoe can also code morph. Transmeta could easily build a code morphing engine for MSIL - it has already demonstrated a Crusoe acting as an x86 and Java processor at the same time. It starts to make you wonder why two of the top executives at Transmeta left recently. It starts to make you wonder why they were refusing unsolicited take-over bids. So maybe Microsoft has already found the processor they want. And it's a step further into its licensing strategy.
Remember, "how can we make everyone who uses or supplies components for a PC pay us a license fee?"
Don't forget that Microsoft now owns a stack of SGI graphics patents.. and that Nvidia started when some top SGI developers wanted to go it alone themselves.
If Microsoft owns or controls a processor, it can compile Windows to have best compatibility with its own CPUs. It can start introducing patented technology to their processors which Windows "requires." Then it can start licensing the patents to Intel, AMD, et al. Before you know it, MS will be the OS monopoly, graphics monopoly and the processor monopoly.
Arron Rouse is a contract technical author and business analyst.
*MSIL is Micorsoft's equivalent to Java's Bytecode. It can be run on any processor provided you have an MSIL Virtual Machine, just like you need a Java Virtual Machine to run Java.
All of Microsoft's .NET strategy revolves around MSIL with Visual Studio (C++, C#, Visual Basic, etc.) capable of producing MSIL packages.
What would this do if it actually came to pass?