Vaughan R. Pratt wrote: > > In article <6vp8rc$r8p$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, > Mark Willey <willey@keymaster.etla.net> wrote: > >Ken <landau@ymail.yu.edu> wrote: > >: I agree that StrongARM is going nowhere. Intel bought it and will > >: basically kill it. > > > >I am going more lukewarm on my "Intel will starve StrongArm" prediction. > >Intel thinks StrongArm will hedge their bets in the sub-500 PC. So they > >have to give it some room to grow. But I am aware of the "protect the x86 > >PC" mentality that goes on there. Reason I am downgrading my prediciton is > >that the SA-1101 companion chip has got a USB host controller in it. That > >makes it a much more viable machine, IMHO. > > The x86 doesn't need Intel to protect it. It is very well protected by > 20 years of evolution of x86-based software, hardware, and culture. > That's a substantial head start for any competing architecture to catch > up with. Other platforms with a nontrivial cultural head start include > Sparc and to a lesser extent MIPS. > > The StrongArm's supposed advantage is a better performance-to-power > ratio. If that advantage is intrinsic to its architecture then it may > eventually overcome its competitors' big head starts (but when?). The > more likely scenario is that equally low-powered high-performance x86, > Sparc, and MIPS chips will start appearing and the StrongArm community > won't grow large and fast enough to create a comparably rich culture > because the vast majority will be content with the low-powered versions > of what they've been using all along. But there is already sufficient support to install linux on the StrongArm CPU, along with all its applications. You can buy the Corel netwinder loaded with servers, web browsers, email clients, development tools, etc. and its seamlessly compatible with all the other x86 linux, windows, mac, sunos, solaris machines (okay, seamless is an exaggeration, but very compatible). The Intel chips have a long, long way to go to reach the performance/power consumption of the StrongArm, even with the VRT technology used in the portable intel x86s the StrongArm chip is an order of magnitude lower power. > And the coup de grace will be > that the StrongArm architecture, whether owned by Intel or anyone else > making rational choices about how to deploy their development dollars, > won't command the resources needed to keep pace with the market-driven > plummeting power requirements of the more entrenched platforms. Eventually, the performance advantages, etc. of RISC, and other alternative architectures will be too great for Intel's x86 architecture to compete and the industry will shift to a new architecture. It's inevitable. -Paul -- R. Paul McCarty / DARS Coordinator / rpmc@troi.cc.rochester.edu / x52059 317 Lattimore Hall, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627 Computers don't make errors; what they do, they do on purpose.-Dale/KOTH
From Comp.sys.wearables Newsgroup Archive (CSW)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail