http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<1CxVb.13543$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038

Interesting article, I honestly don't think they're way to far off
base... I wouldn't be surprised to see the vast majority of diversity
in CPU architecture disappear over the next few years.

Carlo

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:11:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038

So now we have Sun, post-Ed (Zander that is). This could kill them off....
or?? I guess they could always buy up Gateway.<guffaw>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038

Oh Yousuf, THANK you for that link. This is all just to funny. I mean,
tooooo funny. Allow me please, to quote the 3rd paragraph:

[start quote]
In 1981 IBM announced the 5150 PC. It was the machine set to
revolutionise business computing but it had a major design flaw. For
some inexplicable reason IBM chose to use the 8088 processor in that
first PC. It was a choice that bordered on the bizarre. The 8088 was the
bottom of the line of the 8086 series of processors from Intel and most
experts agreed it was one of the worst processor designs on the market.
Its memory management has been described as "brain damaged" and register
allocation for data was like a game of Russian roulette.
[End Quote]

I feel like I'm having a major case of Deja Vu! Way back in 1983, I was
working at Zilog in Cupertino, California, and I remember the head of
the Engineering department saying almost exactly the same thing (can't
remember his name). I mean, this is almost word-for-word (the part
about "brain damaged" memory management and register allocation =
Russian roulette)! The reason I remember this is that I was SO struck
by his comments (he was x-Intel) and that I couldn't believe he actually
confided in me, a fresh out-of-college puke.

Man, what a trip down memory lane to read this article. As I said,
tooooooo funny!

Best regards,

Jack

--
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

"Carlo Razzeto" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:<1CxVb.13543$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038
>
> Interesting article, I honestly don't think they're way to far off
> base... I wouldn't be surprised to see the vast majority of diversity
> in CPU architecture disappear over the next few years.

I can't fault them for any flaws in logic either. It makes sense that x86
descendents will take over the world, especially as they get expanded and
cleaned up, through the natural evolutionary processes. They've taken the
time to explain what the remaining advantages were in proprietary
architectures over x86, and how they are now mostly disappearing too.

I think one of the main driving influences behind trying to prevent x86 from
taking over was that Intel would have too much control over the standard.
But as has now been demonstrated, alternative companies like AMD, can also
drive standards in the x86 field, so there is room for evolution without
being locked into a single vendor.

If Intel and AMD and the rest of the x86 field are smart, they will setup a
consortium or a committee to drive x86 development, much like Sparc
International does for Sparc, MIPS International does for MIPS, or Arm
Holdings does for ARM. The time is right to turn x86 from a defacto standard
to a true dejure standard.

Yousuf Khan

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:11:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038
>
> So now we have Sun, post-Ed (Zander that is). This could kill them
off....
> or?? I guess they could always buy up Gateway.<guffaw>

What do you mean? I thought Sun is claiming Opteron to be their saviour?

Yousuf Khan

"jack" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c07m1j$14dtt2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I feel like I'm having a major case of Deja Vu! Way back in 1983, I was
> working at Zilog in Cupertino, California, and I remember the head of
> the Engineering department saying almost exactly the same thing (can't
> remember his name). I mean, this is almost word-for-word (the part
> about "brain damaged" memory management and register allocation =
> Russian roulette)! The reason I remember this is that I was SO struck
> by his comments (he was x-Intel) and that I couldn't believe he actually
> confided in me, a fresh out-of-college puke.
>
> Man, what a trip down memory lane to read this article. As I said,
> tooooooo funny!

Well, I'm sure everyone was saying the same things about the 8086 memory
management scheme back then, it was a common sentiment.

However, Intel did make the segment mechanism completely useful when they
introduced the Protected Mode of operation.

However, here's another quote from the article:

<quote>
Now it might seem that 8086 series had nothing going for it at all. Here was
a 16bit processor that was little more than a kludged up 8bit processor and
so bad that almost nobody loved it. But that turned out to be an advantage.
Where programmers on competing processors were happy to use assembly
language, getting anywhere with an 8086 meant a decent compiler was
essential. Compiler technology came on in leaps and bounds.
</quote>

I don't know if I agree with this. I don't think there were necessarily any
more assembly language programmers for other architectures than there were
for 8086 at the time. I think the general transition towards compilers was
ongoing anyways, whether x86 spurred it or not. In fact, I'd hazard a guess
that there were more x86 assembly programmers than for any other
architecture simply because of the numbers of x86 hardware sold.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:11:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038
>>
>>So now we have Sun, post-Ed (Zander that is). This could kill them
>
> off....
>
>>or?? I guess they could always buy up Gateway.<guffaw>
>
>
> What do you mean? I thought Sun is claiming Opteron to be their saviour?
>

No. Sun is merely seeing 10K Opteron server sales per quarter -
and growing - and they have decided that they want to be part of
that market. Sun is a big enough company that even if they had had
*all* of that market it wouldn't have saved them from bleeding
red ink.

"Rob Stow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> No. Sun is merely seeing 10K Opteron server sales per quarter -
> and growing - and they have decided that they want to be part of
> that market. Sun is a big enough company that even if they had had
> *all* of that market it wouldn't have saved them from bleeding
> red ink.

I don't know, the real money is in selling support contracts to customers,
which is an ongoing revenue stream. The initial cost of the servers is not
where the profits are at.

Yousuf Khan

In article <1CxVb.13543$(E-Mail Removed)
>, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14038

"At least there will be less fundamental change in the industry a decade
from now, the x86-128 will be much less of an upset."

Aaaaarrrghhh! -- already talking of x86-128..

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?