5 ms·
Which is fine, but the things we do with our home computers today are not the same things we did in the late 80s.
by LeoPanthera 6y ago
Which is fine, but the things we do with our home computers today are not the same things we did in the late 80s.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIf the things we do with with our home computers are crunching in kernel space instead of in userland, someone's done something wrong.
- wk_end 6y agoThe article's talking about running 32-bit applications in emulation, with a 64-bit native kernel. > Then a rewrite of RISC OS for 64-bit ARM chips would require a 32-bit emulation layer for old apps to run -- and very slowly at that, when ARM chips no longer execute 32-bit code directly. A software emulation of 32-bit ARM would be needed, with perhaps a 10x performance drop.
- Teongot 6y agoThe cost of simulating 32-bit ARM on 64-bit ARM is nothing like 10x if you try hard enough https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/56078084/pldi_16.pdf https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/56078084/...
- lproven 6y agoSo I have been informed, in some detail, over on Lobste.rs. I am glad to hear it. I like this little OS and I want to see it survive!
- wk_end 6y agoMaybe so, but I'd imagine most of the legacy 32-bit apps you'd be running in emulation here on your 64-bit RISC OS system are from the late 80s (or maybe the early-to-mid-90s), doing those late 80s things.
- pjmlp 6y agoPlenty of them actually are. A rusty Amiga 2000, with Internet connection could handle like 80% of the stuff I use my 2009 laptop for.