He's actually kinda right, they don't really have their own complete software ecosystem.
...Instead they contribute quite a lot to the open source ecosystem that combines the resources of quite a large amount of companies and fits in with what software AMD does have, however, and I'd personally regard that as a vastly
superior option to "Here's a bunch of proprietary stuff that only works on our products, and would die off in an instant from this business model if we didn't have such a large marketshare" especially as the open source route leads to benefits for everyone (eg. Vulkan, Valve's Linux push leading to some extra optimisations for nVidia's Windows drivers, etc) rather than it always having to be a huge benefit for the company that made it.
Originally Posted by WannaBeOCer
A joint development is somehow a HP development? Again only reason AMD64 took off was because Microsoft pushed it AMD most likely since they didn't want to develop a native 64 bit OS. Point is 64 bit processors were around before AMD64.
It was more because Itanium was kinda crappy for normal CPU tasks when it came down to it. It was designed to be very wide, which is an area that mostly applies to calculating 3D graphics, supercomputers and server, hence why its name was "Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing" and it was very similar to a more traditional VLIW design. (Which is what AMDs GPUs used for quite a long while, too...kinda showing that it's more suited to the type of tasks that we'd run on GPGPU today, than normal CPU style roles.)
That's not to say MS didn't play any role in it at all, it's just that if it was purely MS then that'd only explain why there's no desktops running IA-64 which wasn't ever really its main market, given that the main market that it was aimed at tends to make use of unix more than Windows...an area where IA-64 still sees support to this day. The only reason Intel ever considered pushing IA-64 to the desktop was because they wanted to try and remove any competitors that could make CPUs that can run compatible code, but they stopped that pretty quickly when AMD announced AMD64 because it was pretty obvious that was going to ensure x86 stuck around.
...and I feel like its worth noting that Itanium wasn't Intels first stab at this type of architecture, the i860 was straight up VLIW and it failed for the same reasons as Itanium did: Great theoretical performance, but a lot of workloads either couldn't get to that level or required much more optimisation than a traditional CISC or RISC CPU would. (Hell, one of the more notable uses of the i860 was as the Geometry Engine in one of those earlier SGI workstations.)