On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 21:25:49 -0400 "Dale R. Worley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> the memory, power control, I/O devices, BIOS, etc. Those aren't > interesting from an academic point of view, so you can't get the > universities to do the work. But with RISC-V, there's no > manufacturer with a monopoly on the CPU chips that will make enough > money with its success to sponsor/subsidize all that interface work. SPARC and ARM architectures succeeded without being owned by monopoly manufacturers. AMD, especially AMD64, succeeded *despite* the architecture being "owned" by a monopoly manufacturer. AMD64 and ARM succeeded for the same reason: they met an unmet demand. AMD64 succeeded because AMD provided a 64-bit architecture compatible with the existing 80x86 architecture where Intel were trying to foist the incompatible IA64 which nobody wanted on the world. ARM succeeded because Acorn provided designs for ultra-low power CPU architectures with reasonable performance where none such existed. Given that there are something on the order of 10 billion RISC-V cores out there in production world-wide, it's very much ready for prime time. -- \m/ (--) \m/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
