26 May
2007
26 May
'07
4:05 p.m.
From: "Ensor" <classiccmp at
memory-alpha.org.uk>
---snip---
I'd like to think that if the 68k had been chosen we'd have had far more
advanced PCs far quicker (I'm thinking back to the many 68k implementations
of UNIX amongst other things). But I do take your point about the
availability of software, let's face it, the *ONLY* reason I switched from
my Atari ST to the PC was software.
Although....if we'd had 68k/UNIX based boxes on our desktops instead of
8086/DOS who's to say that there wouldn't have been a similar explosion of
software?
Hi
I think most software people would agree but that hard fact is that
main memory is way behind processor speeds. This means that the
more compact the instruction stream is, the faster the processor can
run. We are quickly reaching the limits of clever caching, even for
CISC processors like the X86 machines.
I'm not saying that RISC machines are dead, just the opposite. Every
X86 machine today has a RISC engine inside.
I expect that the next generation processor will be even more
CISC like and less RISC like to the external software.
Memory bandwidth will dominate choices.
Just my thoughts
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_mig…