17 ms·

This is a relative comparison not absolute, and trying to be nontechnical about a technical topic is a minefield, but vaguely speaking for many decades ARM gene

by VLM 6y ago

This is a relative comparison not absolute, and trying to be nontechnical about a technical topic is a minefield, but vaguely speaking for many decades ARM generally didn't worry as much about backwards compatibility and backwards binary compatibility and was pretty chill about every tiny little revision having tiny little improvements such that like V8.3-A added the "famous" FJCVTZS opcode (google it, its funny). Intel in comparison likes backwards compatibility. Your new motherboard probably could boot MSDOS 1.0 if not CP/M, plus or minus the need for a floppy controller LOL. Also Intel stereotypically likes major upgrade "sets", so Intel likes to release a giant pack of new features like Streaming SIMD Extensions (aka SSE) rather than how ARM will toss out literally one new opcode in a release. Over the long term (decades) it seems the ARM strategy has been VASTLY more successful.

supernova87a 6y ago
Thanks for that really interesting summary! Regarding backwards compatibility, is this basically that certain companies developed new products so quickly that there was no point (or value) to supporting old hardware (for the company, or desired by users)? And therefore delay + overheads of waiting for compatible new CPUs was worse than the value of what they did release each time? Plus the generally worse heat/power utilizing designs?
- VLM 6y ago
  It is of course a general stereotype in that its useful for prediction but its not as solid as, say, the law of gravity, but ARM comes from a software as a project world where you write the code for a specific piece of hardware with a defined and short production life, whereas Intel desktop PC comes from a software as a product world where you expect your word processor to keep working even if you replace your motherboard or swap in a faster CPU. One has a world of permanently sealed cases and firmware thats never updated (with unfortunate security results) whereas the other at least in theory has user-serviceable parts inside a screwed together case. Ironically that sounds a lot like MAC vs PC so it makes sense that MAC would go ARM.

by VLM 6y ago

supernova87a 6y ago

Thanks for that really interesting summary! Regarding backwards compatibility, is this basically that certain companies developed new products so quickly that there was no point (or value) to supporting old hardware (for the company, or desired by users)? And therefore delay + overheads of waiting for compatible new CPUs was worse than the value of what they did release each time? Plus the generally worse heat/power utilizing designs?

VLM 6y ago
It is of course a general stereotype in that its useful for prediction but its not as solid as, say, the law of gravity, but ARM comes from a software as a project world where you write the code for a specific piece of hardware with a defined and short production life, whereas Intel desktop PC comes from a software as a product world where you expect your word processor to keep working even if you replace your motherboard or swap in a faster CPU. One has a world of permanently sealed cases and firmware thats never updated (with unfortunate security results) whereas the other at least in theory has user-serviceable parts inside a screwed together case. Ironically that sounds a lot like MAC vs PC so it makes sense that MAC would go ARM.