I downloaded the Itanium manuals to check it out; I was extremely unimpressed. It's too complex, in my opinion, with too many limiting restrictions (such as the 4 register source limitation for 22- or 64-bit adding). I also can't imagine why anyone would think using a 128-bit opcode that represents up to three instructions is a good idea.
I am designing a 64-bit CPU based loosely on the 68000 (the instruction set is completely incompatible with anything currently in existence, but is very simple, yet very powerful). The advantage is that my CPU's bit width can be expanded all the way out to 262144 (256k-bit) without making any changes to the instruction set. When the bit width is expanded, simply activating the currently dormant bit size selectors is all that needs to be done. Opcodes are 64-bit, and represent only a single instruction; the instruction decoder should be very simple. It also uses sensible security concepts, without relying on anything like Intel's horrible segments. Obviously, my design will not make current industry leaders happy, but at least backward compatibility would be easier without sacrificing security.
To plagiarize and misquote two of my favorite TV series, (Red Dwarf, then M*A*S*H):
An excellent plan sir, with just two minor drawbacks. That would be efficient and it would make sense.
>Actually, I don't think it does, as I stated in the other post. You're proposing a protectionist system, and historically those don't work well. My proposal is to lower the cost of labor such that manufacturers choose to stay here and can remain in business.
You're stating THAT they historically don't work well - but not considering WHY that is. Do the same issues that led to past failures still apply today ? Can we change them ? These are questions one needs to ask - you cannot learn from history without being able to view it in the context of the present.
>Thing is, you're effectively ensuring that there WILL be less work by artificially raising the cost of labor; therefore businesses will attempt to minimize it. It's economic law.
One of the issues with this type of proposal (that is raising the cost of labor, such as through "Minimum Wage" laws) is the worth of some labor will always be low; a job that requires few skills, for example, is not worth as much as a job that requires a master's degree. Forcing employers to pay their employees an artificially high wage for low skill labor causes that employer to look for people who are worth the pay (people who are reliable, efficient, etc).
Eliminating a minimum wage, however, provides employers much greater latitude in hiring decisions. They can hire more people to perform the same low skilled labors, and promote those who show they have good work habits. Artificially raising wages does not increase the amount of capital available to distribute to employees, and that is one important reason your type of proposal inevitably fails. Would you rather pay seven eager teenagers 3.00 an hour, with the flexibility to replace them as needed, or three desperate, college graduates 7.25 an hour for the same labor?
Why are you so angry because I pay a little more, for convenience, by buying an Apple product?
There are generally only a few possible answers to this: The person is A) a shill, B) jealous, C) someone who had a bad experience with Apple and now blames them and can't see how anyone else could possibly like them or possibly C) an idiot who has heard bad things about Apple, but can't be bothered to research their side of the story.
I personally can't see any reason to spend the extra money it costs to purchase any of Microsoft's software because I've been repeatedly burned by their poor quality, which is why I'm writing this on a Mac, and only use Windows in a VM so I can use a Windows only application that has no direct equivalent on either Mac or Linux (my other machine runs Ubuntu). I was willing to pay a little extra for my Mac because of the convenience, though, so I am supporting your view.
Now look at Apple, everything (well, maybe not the Apple TV) they drop into the market is gobbled up like it's the best thing ever.
That's not quite the way I'd put it. While Apple's merchandise generally makes a big impression on the market, from what I've seen, they are more willing to admit failure and adjust accordingly when a product does poorly than Microsoft does (I won't bother with any examples, since I'm sure most can think of several).
Vista pretty much was just designed for the visuals, more lock-down for idiots, "touchscreen", and generally just to make the life of smarter people worse by about 1.2 times than it usually was.
Immediately after Microsoft announced they would be calling their new OS "Vista," I began telling people that its name would describe it perfectly; it would simply be a new view, and little more. It's nice to see someone reinforce my opinion on that matter.
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad