4 ms·
You could argue the same for 16 bit CPUs. If the vast majority of CPUs sold are 64 bits, we will to a point (we are already halfway there) where 64 bit CPUs cou
by diegocg 6y ago
You could argue the same for 16 bit CPUs. If the vast majority of CPUs sold are 64 bits, we will to a point (we are already halfway there) where 64 bit CPUs could be cheaper (more competence and variety) and even more energy efficient.
- pantalaimon 6y agolinux never ran on 16 bit CPUs. that being said, CPUs like the 8051 are still very much alive today.
- cesarb 6y ago> linux never ran on 16 bit CPUs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeddable_Linux_Kernel_Subset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeddable_Linux_Kernel_Subset
- ohazi 6y agoThis was a toy project that was never mainlined
- usr1106 6y agoIt doesn't need to mainlained in the same Linux upstream to be serious. I am not familiar with it to say whether it really wasn't that useful for inherent reasons or whether vendors in that space were just more lucky to defend their proprietary solutions than the (mainline) Linux competitors.
- usr1106 6y agoWhile 16 bit CPUs are good for many purposes, these are not the same purposes where you have run Linux ever and where 32 bit is currently being replaced by 64 bit. So the analogy is not helpful. Maybe 64 bit CPUs can get more resource efficient than older 32 bit models. But that's a misdirected use of resources if you use such technolgy to make 32 bit CPUs obsolete. With the same technology 32 bit will always use less resource-demanding than 64 bit. And the claim was that 32 bit has so many use cases (basically all phones and many PCs) that economics of scale are possible. Of course the nonsense model that you don't pay for Internet services directly, but use Javascript and a lot of other bloat software to run advertisements on your phone to pay via a massive detour is not an energy-efficient approach.