>From pratt@coraki.Stanford.EDU Sat Jan 22 15:42:26 2000
Received: from coraki.Stanford.EDU (IDENT:root@Coraki.Stanford.EDU [171.64.78.237])
by roundtable.cif.rochester.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05794
for <wearable@cif.rochester.edu>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:42:25 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pratt@coraki.Stanford.EDU)
Received: from coraki.Stanford.EDU (IDENT:pratt@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by coraki.Stanford.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10646;
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:40:36 -0800
Message-Id: <200001222040.MAA10646@coraki.Stanford.EDU>
To: "Wear hard" <wear-hard@haven.org>, wearable@cif.rochester.edu
Subject: Re: Crusoe versus StrongArm, Super H, etc.
<1263578094-3451658@a.x.l334.3332.uk.msn.org>
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@CS.Stanford.EDU>
>I would say the "initial Crusoe processors have been tuned..." The two
>processors announced have significant hardware differences (implied by
>the white paper, anyway). I see no reason to believe that future
>processors won't also have significant hardware differences.
Right, I talked about that possibility at the end of my message. But now
that I think about it, I can't decide what the next architecture for
them to take on should be. PPC? Sparc? Alpha? Which would make the
most sense financially for Transmeta?
It is quite conceivable that any effort they might put in that direction
might make them more money if spent instead on broadening and otherwise
improving their line of x86-targetted processors.
Vaughan
From Comp.sys.wearables Newsgroup Archive (CSW)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail