🚀 go-pugleaf

On 04/24/2018 01:43 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> The Tahoe architecture and the DEC Alpha architecture both are much 
> nicer on the assembly level than the x86 architecture.  Not many here 
> would disagree with that. Why does Intel *not* produce modern versions 
> of those architectures and PC makers use those???

I'm not familiar with Tahoe and can't comment.

Alpha was developed by DEC, purchased by Compaq and subsequently HP. 
Thus HP owns the Intellectual Property of the Alpha CPUs.  —  At least 
the portion that did not get sold off to other companies.  —  I would be 
somewhat surprised if there aren't pieces of Alpha architecture deep in 
the bowels of other CPU architectures.

I'm not a programmer myself, much less an assembly programmer, so I 
can't say with confidence.  But it is my understanding that the PDP / 
VAX were meant to be nice to the assembly programmers.  x86, not so much so.

IMHO, x86 is the Ethernet of CPU architectures, cheap, easy, (made to 
be) fast, prolific.  None of those things mean that they are superior. 
(Speed is debatable.)

Intel does not own the Intellectual Property nor are they likely to 
license it.

Also, what would a modern version of the aforementioned CPUs be.  I 
suspect the x86 architecture is quite a bit different now compared to 
what it was in the mid '90s.

All of the systems I ever saw that used the other architectures were at 
least one order of magnitude more expensive than the x86 machine, if not 
multiples there of.  So why would PC manufacturers who habitually target 
SOHO users that won't pay for more expensive systems want to try to 
peddle more expensive systems?

Especially when web scale companies have proven that thousands of lower 
end architectures (compared to the aforementioned alternatives) can 
scale and be quite economical for massive computation.

> Most of modern software can be re-compiled for the new instruction sets.

Recompiling is a possibility.  But it's not a likely path.

> Tell me why Intel should *not* adopt these architectures; not really why 
> Intel does not...

Because Intel can't do it legally.  Not without buying / licensing 
intellectual property.

There is another CPU architecture that is actually similar to the 
aforementioned architectures that is in fact revolutionizing the 
industry.  ARM.<CPU drop>



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die