Installed user base and backwards compatibility. That's the only reason people put up with the arcane PC/X86 architecture. Other industries that are not a bound by these concerns, often see the X86 as overpriced, inefficient and power hungry. You won't find many cable set-top boxes with an X86 processor. (Just as you wont find may running a Micro$oft OS)
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jon D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [uug] Industry standards processor I just read this good article "Will the real chip standard please stand up?" [1] In a nutshell it states that Intel would have everyone believe that x86 is /the/ industry standards chip, but the author argues that, while it's the pervasive commodity, it's quite proprietary. He goes on to say that the Sparc architecture is a free standard according to IEEE (IEEE 1754-1994). There are 32 bit and 64 bit standards available. My favorite line: "Theoretically, you could download any of the specs, build a chip, put it in a box, and sell it as a system without paying anyone a dime." This begs the question, why aren't there more chip makers building off this excellent standard? Any other thoughts in the uug about this topic? -Jon D. [1] http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2911230,00.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://phantom.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://phantom.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
