| |||||||||||||
Microkernels are betterMicrokernels are betterPosted Feb 27, 2013 22:07 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Microkernels are better by dlang Parent article: MINIX 3.2.1 released
Since the IMB PC became the standard, any chips that weren't PC compatible became marginal and the popularity -> money -> R&C -> speed -> popularity cycle started. Sure, but even if you have enough money you are still constrained by law of physics. With mobile devices NOT being x86 compatible, we are seeing a resurgence in competition at the architecture level again for consumer devices Sure, but will fast ring switching survive this push? I very much doubt it. Note that POWER (which actully slightly faster then x86 although more expensive) is also not all that fast with the context switches AFAICS.
(Log in to post comments)
Microkernels are better Posted Feb 27, 2013 22:41 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I am not trying to say that context switches will be fast, I was merely responding to the logic of why x86 architecture won. It isn't because it's the best, it's because it's had the most R&D effort pumped into it to work around it's problems
This includes to a large extent, being produced on the most advanced fab processes, if you took the competing designs and produced them at the same resolution that Intel uses for their x86 chips, they would be much smaller, cheaper, faster, and use significantly less power than they currently do. The fact that with all these handicaps they are competitive to Intel chips in many uses is a good indication of how bad the x86 architecture is.
|
|||||||||||||