User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Microkernels are better

Microkernels are better

Posted 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 (subscriber, #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.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds