This is exactly the reason why I said computer science in 2023 is utterly depressing: because we know x86 is a very narrow-minded architecture brought with itself, but who cares? Just let's go on buying it because it's so crazy cheap.
This is some kind of bizarre ideological crusade, there is no valid technical reason to have such a strong view on computer architecture. No ordinary person cares how a computer works under the hood and even most technical people only care in so far as they need to know in order to successfully develop software.
All that really matters is Cost, performance, reliability, and compatibility with the software you want to run and support of any peripherals you want to use, these latter two points being the most important. There's a reason x86 absolutely dominates every area of computing except for mobile where low power consumption is paramount and closed ecosystems eliminate the need to worry about compatibility.
You sound angry.
Sure, so let's still design CPUs that ensure CP/M compatibility, it will take us to Mars
Does it sound stupid? ridiculous? Well, Professor Andrew Tanenbaum pointed out more than 20 years ago, that's precisely what Intel has been doing for decades since the compatibility you're talking about is with 8085.
Even on YouTube, there is a dude fighting with GPUs and other "made with PC in mind" peripherals since he would like to use them with his RPI-CM4, and ... they just don't work.
Nobody - not even engineers at AMD (at least, those who are allowed to speak) - knows why
but if you look at comments, there is always someone - "hey, ok? why are you doing so? that GPU perfectly works in my PeeeeCeeee, and my PeeeeeCeeeee costs a quarter of effort and money of your setup" -
You sound angry.
Even on YouTube, there is a dude fighting with GPUs and other "made with PC in mind" peripherals since he would like to use them with his RPI-CM4, and ... they just don't work.
Nobody - not even engineers at AMD (at least, those who are allowed to speak) - knows why
but if you look at comments, there is always someone - "hey, ok? why are you doing so? that GPU perfectly works in my PeeeeCeeee, and my PeeeeeCeeeee costs a quarter of effort and money of your setup" -
I understand your concern, but it's hard to blame companies for making stuff that actually sells and makes money. And sure they almost all make shortcuts regarding full compliance with standards, just barely making it for the markets they target. That most of the designers of said hardware don't even know why it doesn't work outside of what's been targeted is no surprise either, you can't battle on all fronts. I find that frustrating too, but I don't really know how that could be otherwise.
(Why Intel x86 will DIE sooner than you think!)
Nobody cares what the CPU architecture is provided it does the job and runs the software they want to run.
Forget consumers for a moment because most of them already ARE using ARM CPUs in their smartphones and tablets, and look at professionals. Solidworks which my friend's business uses requires Windows on x86. Photoshop now supports M1 but until Apple switched it required x86. Altium Designer, requires Windows on x86, If you want to develop for FPGAs you have Vivado, ISE, Quartus, and whatever the Lattice toolset is called, requires x86. These are just a few examples but they are defacto industry standards that are in use all over, and if you want to sell workstations they have to support this stuff.
These days, unless you're writing an OS, the ISA doesn't matter much as far as porting software goes.
These days, unless you're writing an OS, the ISA doesn't matter much as far as porting software goes.
Intel CPU On-chip Management Engine Runs on MINIX
by btarunr Nov 6th, 2017
With the transition to multi-core processors, and multi-core processors with integrated core-logic (chipset), the need arose for a low-level SoC embedded into the processor with just enough compute power to make sure all the components you pay for start-up and function as advertised. Enter the Intel ME (management engine). This is a full-fledged computer within your Intel processor, which isn't exposed to you. It runs on its very own tiny x86 CPU core that isn't exposed, and its software is driven on an infinitesimally small ROM and RAM. Since you can't have software without some sort of operating-system, Intel chose MINIX for the job.
MINIX is a Unix-like OS with an extremely small memory footprint. The OS was designed by Andrew Tanenbaum, originally as an educational tool to demonstrate that machines can still be built with extremely tiny code. If you're familiar with the "ring-level" system of hardware-access privilege by software, ring 0 would designate the "highest" level of access. A software with ring 0 access can erase your disk, flash your system BIOS, and even make your CPU run at any C-state. The OS kernel needs these privileges, and hence is a ring 0 software. Most user software, like the web-browser you're reading this on, runs at ring 3 (with the browser's own sandbox, the user-level, and API level forming inner levels). Intel ME runs at ring -3 (negative 3), and your OS has no power over it. Most system BIOS updates for Intel motherboards include a ROM update for ME. ME governs the functioning of the rest of the processor, its start-up, and booting. It also governs silicon-level security and management features that can't be compromised by malware.
These days, unless you're writing an OS, the ISA doesn't matter much as far as porting software goes.
don't forget "my-c". Currently, it only targets MIPS5++
I totally agree. And yet you insist that architecture should be x86.
That's weird. Just a few hours ago I was reading messages where you took the exact opposite point of view, that the number of professionals using such tools (or in that case IIRC it was about assembly language and debuggers) is so small that they are irrelevant and they can use whatever they want but it doesn't affect the real computer market.
I don't think you are arguing honestly, but just a troll.
Also, point of order, your honour:
"Photoshop now supports M1 but until Apple switched it required x86."
Photoshop has been around for 36 years and I was using it myself in the 1980s. It was running on x86 Macs for only 15 of those years.
In fact less, as CS3 with Intel Mac compatibility was released only in April 2007, 15 months after the first mass-production Intel Macs, and almost two years after the Apple Developer Transition Kit (with a Pentium 4) was made available to all registered developers in June 2005 (Adobe probably could get them quite a bit earlier).
Prior to x86, Photoshop of course for the first seven years ran only on the M68k, and then for a dozen years on PowerPC. It was ported to PowerPC (Mac) and x86 (Windows) at around the same time in 1993-1994.
Adobe got Photoshop for Arm Macs out in March 2021, only four months after the first machines went on sale -- a much better effort from them.