Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications
>NT sucks. MacOS sucks. BeOS sucks. AmigaOS sucks.
>Unix sucks. Less.
>Perhaps Jon has to do some work on an NT-based program that won't run
>under Wine, and he's not willing to deal with FreeBSD's latest "can't
>write floppies" problem, or the sloth that it Solaris. Granted, the
>floppy problem has a fix, but I had to vent.
>Linux can do all the things that NT can, only better. That's why one
>would choose it over NT.
>Finally, CISC has to interpret and breakdown variable-size microcode in
>order to run, while RISC avoids that step, using fewer instructions of
>the same length. As a result, RISC lends itself better to
>multi-pipeline CPU designs. Finally, you cannot compare RISC and CISC
>based on clock speed, because the programs are compiled based on the CPU
>itself. The PIC may use a limited instruction set, but unless it uses
>no microcode, it's not RISC. To prove a point, Intel x86 designs have
>been moving toward RISC since the 486, further blurring the distinction
>between the two camps.
>Oh, and you can't compare bogomips across platforms. I saw a Libretto
>100CT get a higher bogomips rating than an Alpha 300+ MHz machine. It's
>all in the loop optimization.
So what. Makes good numbers. :)
RISC CPUs based on instruction cycle are faster...
References: