I agree, the 'Intel Architecture' is not the same old architecture. It is the same old architecture with bolt-ons. It has been enhanced through evolution.
In many ways IBM has done the same to the IBM 360 instruction set, that has been bolted on-to and changed the same way since the early 1960's when it came out through today with the Z-series processors. As an aside: There was a micro-processor out that ran the IBM 360 instruction set years ago... never caught on in 'popular computing' cultures though. They sold machines and were a minor competitor to DEC and Data General at the time. My issue is, because the 'Intel Architecture' is 'the 800 lb gorilla' in the market, that much innovation that comes with revolutionary change is stifled because folks just want to be 'compatible'. Being non-compatible comes with a cost (Apple moving from Moto to Intel in the last few years as an example). The embedded or controller market seems to be much more flexible, and when a product (processor) comes to market it seems to stay a LONG time in comparison to the desktop/server/laptop style processors. The Intel 8051 architecture (and siblings), the Moto 6800 and spin-offs, PICs of various flavors, ARMs, AMTEL (makes processor for the Arduino), and various others, but not forgetting the bit slice processors, and even the graphics processors that are put in PCs that are often more powerful than the main processor in the same machine! I guess I am bemoaning there not being sufficient competition in the market place, and the lack of competition stifling creativity and growth in the intellectual properties that comes with options and choices being able to be made by the users (whether they are the companies, engineers, designers, or end consumers). Just a grumpy old man I guess :) ><> ... Jack Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart... Colossians 3:23 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Richard Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/10/2010 4:44 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> The Intel processor is getting a bit long in the tooth, but no one has >> been able to come up >> with a different architecture for mass market use that catches on in >> quite a while. >> > > Though, to be fair, it's not really factual to say that what Intel is > producing is "Intel architecture" anymore. Sure, it's backwards compatible > but it's had so many enhancements and bolt-ons that it's an almost entirely > different beast. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "NLUG" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
