4 ms·

What's the point to have slower mid-range machine for the same price? Do we need 16-core PIC16 Mini ATX workstation too?

• unixhero 7y ago
  Maybe you don't, but the world does.
• jchw 7y ago
  Because if we don’t have any architecture competition, innovation is limited to what can be done while remaining compatible with IBM PC DOS. There should be competition. The Intel-compatible monoculture is a bug, not a feature. >Do we need 16-core PIC16 Mini ATX workstation too? Now this is just garbage. I doubt you are really ignorant enough to believe modern ARM cores are effectively in the same class as PIC16. But honestly, unless you have a vested interest in the failure of non-Intel-based architectures, then what do you care? Why the intellectual hostility? Why are we asking “why” instead of “why not?” I like ARM. I would buy this machine.
• yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  > Do we need 16-core PIC16 Mini ATX workstation too? If it were usable for my workloads (running *nix, basically), I would absolutely love that. ...I admit, I'm struggling to think how to scale PIC up that much, and IIRC doesn't it use Harvard architecture? That'd be a struggle. But anyways, yes, if we could make it work then that would be beautiful.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • klez 7y ago
    > IIRC doesn't it use Harvard architecture? Indeed it does. PIC32, on the other hand, doesn't.