On 10/29/24 04:49, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:43 AM Christian Schulte <cs@schulte.it> wrote:
> ...
>> I would really like to understand why this architecture stood the test
>> of time. Just because it boots in 8 bit CPU mode from the 70ties not
>> even capable of beating a 6502?
> <...>
>
> Building a base of users with computers capable of running a more
> powerful ISA/OS/whatever (while it still supports their existing
> applications), so that application writers believe that there will be
> sufficient user base with that capability to use software written to
> use that power, which drives more people to get those more capable
> computers, has been a huge driver of not just the evolution of x86 but
> of the computer industry as a whole. x86 made those steps easy for a
> line of ISA evolution; Apple went a different direction and put the
> backwards/forwards compat into their build tools so you could build on
> one arch/OS-version and move to a different one and did that so well
> that they managed to move user bases from m68k to powerpc to x86 to
> arm64 with compat across each transition. You _do_ understand that
> the set of people who can rebuild all the software they directly use
> is *tiny* and the subset of those for whom doing so is a net positive
> use of the limited time they have between birth is death is
> insubstantial, yes?
This justifies this tiny group of people to enforce everyone to use
technology outdated for more than 4 decades? Just because their
knowledge would become useless and outdated? Deal with it. Learning
about that architecture is exactly about that kind of wasting time you
are talking about. There is no value in forcing anyone to learn about
how PCs in the late 70s or early 80s used to boot the CPU in what
insanity mode whatsoever. Get over it. Want to run DOS or CP/M. Even
your smartphone is capable of doing so. Advocating i368 or AMD64 as
being the most brilliant invention mankind ever has produced is just
insane. It really is full of design flaws. Even an Intel engineer would
agree to this privately.
--
Christian
No comments:
Post a Comment