ARM instruction set has not changed very much at all since then and is in many chips in nearly every device. More are made than any other design.
She is also trans and transitioned in 1990s. Being a cis woman in technology can be frustrating even today. She was a trans woman in UK tech in 1990s.
This is a innovator in technology. Not Jobs, not Musk, not Gates. Wilson created the CPU design which is cheap, simple, efficient, strong, and has become universal today.
All new modern CISC designs are actually trans(decoded) RISC designs. This is what the feminists want to do to men.
True, it's more complicated than that, everything is. But I wanted to make a CISC/cis pun.
This is mostly true for the powerful systems like computers and mobiles, but x86 is not a feasible architecture for very weak embedded system. This is my area of work, and there are significant differences which still matter between RISC and CISC in this space because we do not have the option to simply throw more resources at problems. There are applications for both, but Thumb makes ARM hard to beat and the number of conditional instructions is very helpful for tight code. It is a very suitable instruction set to small, simple processors.
I do not agree that the memory model are on par however, but I really hate the x86 memory model and I think it has too many crutches that lead to bad code which is only discovered when attempting to port.
It does this using micro operations which essentially make it a RISC-ish processor with a CISC interface. All of the CISC features are baggage. We do not like instructions which operate on memory especially, as memory is not synchronized with the processor since 6502 days.
True CISC designs can be tightly pipelined, but there are severe limitations, and such designs were abandoned in 1990s.
To add onto that, x86 is the 'classic' computer chip, in that most computers and servers run it, and have since like the 80's. x86 has a larger set of instructions, and so is more 'powerful' than ARM. However, having more instructions also means its more complicated. It is usually faster, but needing more electricity, and generating more heat. That's why phones and small electronics have used ARM for years; its more power efficient.
However, with computers getting faster and faster, and drawing more and more power, we're realizing ARM is actually functionally faster in a lot of situations; that's why Apple just switch all of their main computing line from the 'classic' x86 to ARM. Although the chips are, in a sense, slower, since they produce less heat, you can push them faster, ending up with laptops that are, for the user, faster with lower power draw. However, you have to rewrite all the software to work well on ARM; you can emulate x86 to run older Mac programs on the new ARM macs, but the end result is slower and buggier, so it'll be a bit of a messy transition until all the software is natively written for ARM.
There's some other stuff that's a little beyond me about the finer points, like with ARM having fewer instructions, its slower because it can need to use 5 instructions to do something x86 only needs one to do, but if you write a program to take full advantage of ARM, and optimize it to do all of the important stuff with only a few instructions, ARM can be faster, as the chips are smaller, and you can fit more into a given space.
(correct me if I'm wrong here btw, as I have a fairly layman's understanding of the differences)
Mostly correct. Having a larger set of instructions do not make a CPU faster however. The same operation is being done in each case whether there are 5 or 1 instructions being sent. The instruction just takes multiple cycles on the CISC design. There is a disadvantage to this though, as the 5 instructions could be reordered by the CPU to be more efficient. In modern processors this does not matter though as there are not true CISC processors outside of very slow embedded systems any more, and the modern x86 CPU turns the 1 instruction into 5 internally.
If you have an older wireless router, a PS1, PS2, PSP, or N64, it used MIPS, which is an architecture with declining popularity
Does this explain why N64 emulation is so difficult?
Cool but what is it with British people and writing things on napkins?
Writing things on napkins was, like, the engineering standard back before '00.
My dad was an O&G engineer back in the 80s, and joked about building entire chemical plants on napkins.
I'm baffled, because I assumed such an individual would be a 30-year-old billionaire who spends all her time on Twitter.
The dirty secret behind Silicon Valley billionaires like Musk, Gates, and Bezos is that they've successfully tricked passionate engineers into providing them the labor/tech needed to produce billions of USD in value. These people are not scientists or engineers; they're rent-seekers who had the foresight to get in on the ground floor and could tell which direction the market was going.
Genius is 1% inspiration and 199% perspiration.
The extra 100% is all other people's work
Gates was undeniably talented though, at least in his early career. Can't say the same about Musk and Bezos. Makes me sad that many people never got to realise their full potential because they weren't born as privileged as Gates.
Gates was undeniably talented at buying other people's shit and ruthlessly exploiting his early workforce
Go read about when he brought Ballmer on board. There's a reason dude was the successor despite being >10 years late to the party
Unironically very cool and good.
Based :cat-trans: :trans-heart: :transshork-happy:
