4 ms·
> There's a lot of code out there which already compiles to multiple architectures so that's one less objection Yeah and there's a lot of code out there which
by taspeotis 13y ago
> There's a lot of code out there which already compiles to multiple architectures so that's one less objection
Yeah and there's a lot of code out there which has already been compiled to x86, the vendor has gone out of business, and isn't getting compiled again.
- k4st 13y agoAnd that's what emulation and binary translation are for! :-P
- deeviant 13y agoAnd there goes the power efficiency...
- tormeh 13y agoLike what? Games? Contrary to enthusiast opinion, games have a pretty short life for most people. Doubt that will be a problem. What kind of enterprise is going to run software without a maintainer? I can't come up with anything else than games for which this is a relevant scenario.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- megablast 13y agoYou are kidding right? There are loads of old systems that have not been updated, running on MS-Dos or Windows 3.1 systems, stuck in some cupboard in a factory, necessary for continued operation. Stuff that 100 people have ever heard of before.
- tormeh 13y agoYeah, I know about those. There are industrial control computers that still run on Intel 386 (the original). But once those guys run out of spare parts they won't just upgrade the processor.
- userbinator 13y agoIntersil still makes an 8088, and it's quite expensive too: http://www.intersil.com/content/intersil/en/products/space-and-harsh-environment/-883/microprocessors-and-peripherals/80C88-883.html http://www.intersil.com/content/intersil/en/products/space-a... As the URL suggests, there are applications where an existing, well-characterised CPU is highly preferred over a relatively new one where some previously unknown errata could have catastrophic results.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Someone 13y agoIt doesn't even have to be errata. That timing loop someone wrote decades ago might run too fast now. Even if it determines its loop counter at startup, it may fail because it assumes 16 bits is enough for the counter. Conversely, some instructions may have gotten slower over time. For example, I doubt intel worries much about the performance of the original 8087 floating point operations anymore, so they could move them into microcode or even make them illegal instructions, to be emulated in software (I don't they do at the moment because the overhead of decoding the original 8086 instructions is low, but if x86 stays around for a few decades, at some time, I think they will consider doing the latter)
- listic 13y ago"Completely Static CMOS Design" - you can run this down to 0 Hz.
- valarauca1 13y ago8080, or 8086. They use older processors because the wider process has a lower chance of a bit soft changing. Which you really care about in say PLC's.
- sjwright 13y agoTrue, but that code isn't exactly a driver of new hardware sales.
- ithkuil 13y agoNever underestimate one powerful and common optimization: buying new hardware.
- dspillett 13y agoYes, but if you are still using such binaries they themselves are a serious risk to your business in other ways. Backwards compatibility is good for transitions, but when you are using it to mitigate risks due to dead companies you are using a technical solution to fix something that is inherently a business/people problem.