Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Operating Systems

+ - Why do we use x86 CPUs?

Submitted by bluefoxlucid
bluefoxlucid (723572) writes "With Apple having now switched to x86 CPUs, I've been wondering for a while why we use the x86 architecture at all. The Power architecture was known for its better performance per clock; and still other RISC architectures such as the various ARM models provide very high performance per clock as well as reduced power usage, opening some potential for low-power laptops. Compilers can also deal with optimization in RISC architectures more easily, since the instruction set is smaller and the possible scheduling arrangements are thus reduced greatly. With Just-in-Time compilation, legacy x86 programs could be painlessly run on ARM/PPC by translating them dynamically at run time, similar to how CIL and Java work. So really, what do you all think about our choice of primary CPU architecture? Are x86 and x86_64 a good choice; or should we have shot for PPC64 or a 64-bit ARM solution?"
User Journal

Journal: Worst. New Year's Eve. Ever. 4

Journal by DG

No, not this one; this would be NYE 1987/1988.

This being my first New Year's after going off to MilCol, so I had been away from home for 5 months, confined in an utterly alien environment. Going from a redneck northern British Columbian logging/mining town to a French Canadian military college is a bit of a culture shock, and I was more than a little weirded out about being back home amongst my old friends during the XMas leave period.

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.

Working...