3 ms·
> ARM began in low-power embedded systems, initially facing similar performance limitations. No it didn't. ARM began on Acorn desktop computers, the Acorn Arch
by VyseofArcadia 2y ago
> ARM began in low-power embedded systems, initially facing similar performance limitations.
No it didn't. ARM began on Acorn desktop computers, the Acorn Archimedes. ARM originally stood for Acorn RISC Machine.
- bhouston 2y agoAuthor here: I was intending to refer to where ARM got first got traction in the market.
- NikkiA 2y agoEven there, they gained traction in STBs first, which weren't particularly 'low power', although they were embedded.
- f1shy 2y agoI was once in a congress, where one of the first developers of ARM was there and told the history of the company. And I perspicuously remember he saying "at the beginning was all about money, every little transistor was important, every transistor less, was a cheaper system. The same savings in money where the key to later be able to do low power processors, because is basically the same optimization" So sorry, but I have to partly disagree, they did. Edit: Interesting... sharing what the designer of the first ARM core said leads to downvoting in HN...HN is a very different place as it used to be...
- undersuit 2y agoThis is RISC versus CISC again. ARM1's 25k transistors beat the CISCy Intel 80286's 134k transistors. Transistors had a cost at micrometer lithography sizes.
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoThis is true, but it's coincidence. He didn't say they started out with the goal of a low-power processor. He's saying that they optimized for low-cost, and luckily that led to later success in low-power.
- f1shy 2y agoHe clearly said that soon the priority was power more than money.