ARM-based desktop computer ? (Hybrid computers ?: Low + High performance ;))
|
Prev: 2 new instructions for marker scanning for Skybuck's Universal Code 6.
Next: ARM-based desktop computer ? (Hybrid computers ?: Low + High performance ;))
From: MooseFET on 8 Jun 2010 22:25 On Jun 8, 6:30 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > One problem which I see people mention is: > > x86 software does not work on ARM... > > A solution for this problem is the following (Not my idea, but some crazy > noob ?): > > An x86 compiler which compiles x86 to ARM code. Such programs already exist. It is a clever trick that is used to make fast simulations of the ARM on a PC. Doing it the other way also can be done. It wouldn't be super fast but if you weren't trying to run a complete Windows OS, it could be fast enough to be used. Since the ARM can be had as a part of a FPGA, you could add extra stuff to the standard ARM to make the process go a little faster.
From: Andrew Reilly on 9 Jun 2010 01:48 On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:25:33 -0700, MooseFET wrote: > On Jun 8, 6:30 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> One problem which I see people mention is: >> >> x86 software does not work on ARM... >> >> A solution for this problem is the following (Not my idea, but some >> crazy noob ?): >> >> An x86 compiler which compiles x86 to ARM code. > > Such programs already exist. It is a clever trick that is used to make > fast simulations of the ARM on a PC. Doing it the other way also can be > done. It wouldn't be super fast but if you weren't trying to run a > complete Windows OS, it could be fast enough to be used. Back in '87 or so I had an Acorn RISC "PC", which had an ARM-2, and a "PC emulator". It simulated an 8088 and the PC's basic hardware well enough that I was able to use it to run a "scientific" word processor to write my undergraduate thesis. The "feel" was about as fast as an original 4.77MHz PC, but I didn't run any benchmarks. I'm fairly sure that it would have been a straight interpreter: the machine didn't really have enough RAM to be mucking about with JIT compilation. This on a chip with no cache, no 16-bit memory operations, and which ran the processor clock at 4MHz or 8MHz depending on whether the DRAM-fetch in progress at the time was in-page or doing a row access... I thought it was quite a spectacular achievement. Cheers, -- Andrew
From: Skybuck Flying on 9 Jun 2010 03:34 > Check out http://www.silentpcreview.com/ -- those guys are serious about > quiet computing. Hmm... that's mosterd after the meal... Computer hardware needs to be designed from the start for low heat/low noise and so forth... :) > But seriously, yes, Apple's execution has been impressive -- and while I > don't think that much of the man personally, one has to give credit that a > large part of it is directly linked to Jobs. He has gained some respect from me... he seems a more honest guy than I had expected him to be... at least in his presentations. However if the world turns into one big cancer infected place because of all the mobile phones and wifi's and gsm's and so forth than nope :) May he rott in hell then forever as well ;) :) >> I do wonder what happened to Steve Jobs though... he so thin ?!? Did all >> that WIFI give him cancer or so ?!? > > No, but he had a liver transplant last year. Takes the wind out of most > everyone for awhile... What was wrong with his ex-liver ? Cancer from the wifi ? ;) :) What did he do with his ex-liver ? Bottle it for memories ? :P*** Ain't he afraid of getting cancer from all that wifi ? Bye, Skybuck.
From: Joel Koltner on 9 Jun 2010 12:51 "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFuture(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f127b$4c0f43ef$54190f09$23767(a)cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > However if the world turns into one big cancer infected place because of all > the mobile phones and wifi's and gsm's and so forth than nope :) I guarantee you that, whatever the potential health hazards posed by WiFi, GSM, etc. may be, there are orders of magnitudes more lives saved by wireless technology than lost due to it.
From: Robert Myers on 9 Jun 2010 14:06
On Jun 9, 12:51 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f127b$4c0f43ef$54190f09$23767(a)cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > > > However if the world turns into one big cancer infected place because of all > > the mobile phones and wifi's and gsm's and so forth than nope :) > > I guarantee you that, whatever the potential health hazards posed by WiFi, > GSM, etc. may be, there are orders of magnitudes more lives saved by wireless > technology than lost due to it. I don't know. How often do you drive around people who drive will using a wireless gadget? I think I'd want to do some research before making any guarantees. Robert. |