Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Jan 2010 20:21 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems And yet another item on the iPad? Are we serious? Yes, we are, since this one is about something that even geeks who aren't interested in the iPad itself should find intriguing. Steve Jobs said yesterday that the iPad is powered by an Apple A4 processor, but contrary to what many seem to think - it wasn't designed in-house at all.
Permalink for comment 406996
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: ARM
by lemur2 on Sun 31st Jan 2010 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ARM"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

You were using an arbitrary definition of RISC, and I was just simply letting you know that the "reduced" in RISC does not refer to the number of instructions in a specific ISA/microarchitecture.

I wasn't refuting the gist of your point, I was simply making a small correction. Reading and comprehension and all that jazz...


I understand completely that a "Reduced Instruction Set Computer" involves instructions that "do less", as opposed to a lesser number of instructions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_Instruction_Set_Computer
The acronym RISC (pronounced as risk), for reduced instruction set computer, represents a CPU design strategy emphasizing the insight that simplified instructions that "do less" may still provide for higher performance if this simplicity can be utilized to make instructions execute very quickly.


Hence the need to have additional macro-instructions (that is, more-complex instructions built up from a short sequence of simpler instructions) in the Loongson CPU in order to better emulate a Complex Instruction Set Computer (CISC) which is an x86 machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_Instruction_Set_Computer

So? What did I say that was in any way counter-indicative of this, that caused you to interject your know-all post?

None of this in any way, one way or another, has any bearing whatsoever on the point of discussion ... which was that Windows on ARM makes no sense because the attraction of Windows lies only in the large corpus of existing binary-only x86 programs for Windows that people want to run.

People still won't be able to run x86 binary applications on an ARM machine, even if they were duped into buying a "Windows on ARM" OS machine.

Edited 2010-01-31 02:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2