3 Jun
2013
3 Jun
'13
3:59 p.m.
On 06/03/2013 04:30 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Huh?
Define "failed". None of the architectures you've listed has ever
tried (at least not that I recall) to take over the low-end desktop
market. And three of the four are still current architectures. One of
the four has been spanking x86-based PCs in unit shipments for a long time.
I respectfully submit that you are wearing "desktop blinders". I'm
not at all trying to argue with you here; I'm just saying that it sounds
to me like your only definition of "successful architecture" is "sold in
mass-market retail in a chassis that looks like a PC". That point of
view seems odd to me, as you asserted that PCs were "dead" just today.
I won't touch the other flame bait.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
That's
what bothers me about the x86 architecture...it gets such a kludgy
mess due to tacking it all on. Intel EM64T: it's amd64 so 64-bit with
32-bit x86 which is tacked on to a 16-bit architecture which is tacked on to
an 8-bit architecture and so on...
Yes it is. However, it has thrived when simpler, cleaner CPU
architectures have failed. Possibly an exemplar of the "worse is
better" school of thought, possibly because of its installed base of
software, possibly because of the tools, chipsets etc. - or possibly
because of the strength of Microsoft, who knows.
POWER is bigger and runs hotter these days.
SPARC and MIPS were unable to compete on CPU performance.
ARM never competed on CPU performance since the end of the 1980s, but
did on performance/Watt and price.
Alpha coulda been a contender -- maybe -- but I learned recently that
its inter-CPU comms, synchronisation and so on were, I am told,
terrible, being very basic and rather unreliable.