| 1 |
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:44:09 -0800 |
| 2 |
Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > But this is an old, old, old argument. People predicted the demise |
| 5 |
> > of> mainframes for years when x86 started becoming a quite powerful |
| 6 |
> > of> cpu.> The current truth is that IBM sell more mainframes year |
| 7 |
> > of> on year, growth> is more than mere inflation can account for, |
| 8 |
> > of> and mainframes are just> getting stronger. So x86 didn't kill |
| 9 |
> > of> the mainframe, instead x86 played> a huge role in making both |
| 10 |
> > of> stronger. I see no reason to believe the> same story won't play |
| 11 |
> > of> out exactly the same all over again between x86> and ARM.This |
| 12 |
> > of> is really interesting. "all over again" is exactly what I |
| 13 |
> > of> expect to happen, but I didn't realize it happened as you say. |
| 14 |
> > of> A friend of mine was really into SPARC in the 90's and |
| 15 |
> > of> complained loudly when x86 grabbed its market share. At least |
| 16 |
> > of> that was how I understood it. I imagine the same thing |
| 17 |
> > of> happening with ARM and x86, but maybe I'm jumping to |
| 18 |
> > of> conclusions? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
x86 and SPARC is not the same thing as x86 and ARM. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
SPARC was a RISC processor but in it's heyday was comparable to x86 in |
| 23 |
terms of computing power. It had one sponsor (Sun) and one user (Sun) |
| 24 |
and one OS (Solaris, or maybe it was called SunOS back then). x86 had |
| 25 |
far greater mindshare in general plus it had the killer "feature" - the |
| 26 |
bean counter was already using it in his desktop and knew SPARC and x86 |
| 27 |
were quite comparable in some significant ways. He also knew the price |
| 28 |
difference.... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It's a classic case of a smaller player trying to take on a bigger |
| 31 |
player directly on it's own turf. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
x86 vs ARM is not that game at all. ARM is an embedded processor that, |
| 34 |
whilst it could replace x86 on low-end desktops, really shines in |
| 35 |
embedded. It won't displace x86 (nor is it trying to), it will carve |
| 36 |
out new niches for itself, almost exactly like x86 did when mainframes |
| 37 |
and minis ruled. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Where ARM does replace x86, I reckon it will be because x86 was not |
| 40 |
really a good solution there. For example, Atom vs ARM (that is a valid |
| 41 |
comparison). I don't think Atom will last much longer - the form factor |
| 42 |
that really used it - netbooks - is much better served by tablets. The |
| 43 |
tablet trumps the netbook, and Atom dies when the netbook dies. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 47 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives