>>9
Backwards compatibility with 16-bit programs is making us slaves to two companies (three if you count VIA) who cross-license patents in exchange for being able to use each others' chip designs. Despite idiots claiming that x86 is ``open'' it is not, because it requires licenses to manufacture. Not "if you can afford it, you can buy it" licenses like ARM and PowerPC, but "if you can afford it, we'll turn you down unless required by law" like Intel does to AMD and VIA, making them basically their slave subsidiaries. If AMD tries using another chip architecture (not the AMD64 extensions crap), Intel could cancel their x86 license and force them out of the Windows PC market. MIPS and SPARC are fully open architectures that can be adopted by anyone without paying royalties to any company or individual. Chips today are much less constrained than they were when x86 was designed. Instead of 30,000 transistors we have billions. Intel doesn't care if they can fit the logic of an entire operating system with single-cycle hardware garbage collection on one die as long as they get your money for their shit architecture.