🚀 go-pugleaf

On 25/04/2018 04:43, Grant Taylor wrote:
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
ARM is to me interesting. I recently attended a talk on the history of 
the ARM by Steve Furber who was along with Sophie Wilson one of the 
co-developers of the ARM chips.

He says ARM was developed to be fast and as a consequence was not easy 
to program in assembler. Steve Furber says this makes sense because good 
compilers remove the need for programmers to understand the chip, and if 
the chip is fast the code will be fast.

I suspect many on here will not agree.

Its also interesting to note that ARM does not make CPU's. It licences 
the IP to other companies to make the CPU's

Dave