Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

World with out x86

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 12, 2001 2:39:23 PM

Well no one mac cuz everyone would see that. so what would the PC world look like no Intel, AMD, cyrix, Microsoft ? . Any idea's or where we would be.

The only nice Intel guy.

More about : world x86

May 12, 2001 2:49:54 PM

Oh the horror!

We'd still be using stone tools and living in caves and afraid of fire and stuff.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>
May 12, 2001 2:53:50 PM

I know image IBM as the only PC maker.

The only nice Intel guy.
Related resources
May 12, 2001 3:20:34 PM

"Imagine the world with no x86"

"No Intel, AMD or Cyrix"

Well than if there was no x86 than there wouldnt be any IBM either, correct?!?!?!?!?
This world would be run by Mac's......AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

-MeTaL RoCkEr

Burn MF, BURN!!!
May 12, 2001 3:22:52 PM

Nope, IBM would be the only one left. Remember ibm make there own processors. I think they have 2ghz powerPC processors coming out.

The only nice Intel guy.
May 12, 2001 4:05:03 PM

I think we would be better off. Just think if there were two companies warring with each other with a full RISC processor. Like the G4 vs Alpha in a Mhz and price war like we have with Intel and AMD. Those chips would kick the crap outta any Pentium or Athlon offerings we have today.

If you take a truth and follow it blindly, it will become a Falsehood and you a Fanatic.
May 12, 2001 11:18:26 PM

Whores, were whores? Nothing wrong with whores...

<b>Geforce3, its better then sex!!!!!</b> Well maybe not that good... :wink:
May 12, 2001 11:27:27 PM

Whores? who called you a whore?

If you wanna be a whore, well... we'll just keep out of your way.

<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>
May 12, 2001 11:32:51 PM

We'd be paying out the nose for Macs or for SPARC hardware. Macs would be even more expensive because they wouldn't have to compete with x86--and Apple would go crazy sticking price-point features in the things, like still keeping the Macs all-SCSI. And believe me, SPARC's proprietary hardware will ream you so bad you'll beg for mercy.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2001 12:00:50 AM

but maybe macs wouldn't be so fruity and stupid now... maybe all things out for the pc now woud be out for the mac, hmmm...
May 13, 2001 6:22:17 AM

well, i agree.
we would be better off, with no intel, no microsoft. if there were no intel, what would microsoft write windows for?

and with no wintel machines, we would be using macs or other processors. i read somewhere that ibm was about to choose motorola chips for their first personal computer back in 1978-79, when somebody pushed in the 8086.

there is all the reason to believe had ibm done this we would be living with motorola architecture, that ibm would have kept it open as it did with the pc. then we wouldnt be emtying our pockets for macs and alphas and sparcs.

and then *intel*, amd and cyrix would have been making motorola compatible chips.

without the x86, there would be 68x reigning. and both the names are exact reverse of each other... coincidence?

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
May 13, 2001 7:56:39 AM

Hey lay off the SPARC, it has been 64bit for years now and provides a lot of the power for all those porn sites you spend so much time at!

<font color=blue> The Revolution starts here... as soon as I finish my coffee </font color=blue> :eek: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2001 6:16:05 PM

thinking back to the old days of 8086 reminded me of my first computer - Z80B 2MHz, 32K RAM.
i upgraded to 64K, with a 360K 3.5" FDD and overclocked it to 4.2MHz. it was truely a beast capable of whipping the pants off any thing else available at the time.

back then all chips were 8 bit, the 8086 was pseudo 16 bit (eg 8 bits in parallel followed by another 8 bits)

my guess is that we would all be running the 6/7/8 th generation Z80, maybe it would be called a ZZ-DDR 8064, most likely it would be a RISC cpu, with a bus system along the lines of alpha EV6.

funny, but my gut feeling is that we would all have been better off!!!


however, we all start at the end and finish at the begining
May 13, 2001 9:56:44 PM

I don't think that x86 is the real point, as soon as they worked out how to make silicon transistors the world was changed forever. The yearning for more power would have caused some company to become 'Intel-like', just like Ford took the Motorcar to a new level, Intel & the X86 took CPU's to a new level (and the masses in both cases).

I think now we need to see that we are reaching another huge leap. The 64bit CPU on a 0.13u process whether it be Itanium, Hammer or SPARC is an unprecedented amount of processing power. Already PIXAR can render entire new worlds, DNA treatments will be created from this technology, it is this type of power that will let man teraform mars.

x86 has been a vehicle for getting us here good or bad, fast or slow, we still have arrived. The challenge now is to do something more than play Quake or Unreal.

'Use the force Luke... it's in your hands'

<font color=blue> The Revolution starts here... as soon as I finish my coffee </font color=blue> :eek: 
May 13, 2001 10:01:01 PM

smart man...

is this reality... i thought it would more realistic.
May 14, 2001 9:12:15 AM

I agree. The microprocessor has changed the world forever.

But it would be amusing to imagine if there were no x86 processors around, what kind of computers would we all be using?

Would the world on 15th May 2001 be the same as it is now?

Considereing the huge impact the x86 machines have had on the development and proliferation of personal computers, what else could have done it? Or would have not?

As I wrote in my last post, the main reason for the x86 to flourish was its selection for the IBM PC. And I think that was the turning point. Had they not used x86, it would be some other one, most probably the Motorola 68x. Would that have been accepted, admired, developed, loved, hated the same way as the x86?

x86 and 68x, would it be a different world had it been 68x?

Would we be typing out these posts on the thg if there were no x86?

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2001 2:10:27 PM

mutman wrote:
"back then all chips were 8 bit, the 8086 was pseudo 16 bit (eg 8 bits in parallel followed by another 8 bits)"

I'm not 100% sure, but i belive the 8086 was a 16-bit processor, multiplexing data and address lines.
The 8088 was a "pseudo" 16-bit processor having a 8 bit
data bus (also multiplexed with address lines), but internally operating with 16 bit.

On the thread subject, i belive motorola would have been in intels position if IBM had not choosen intels solution. The 68k coming just a few months to late.

Skrue
May 14, 2001 3:09:00 PM

while you lot thnk back fondly of the 68x i think back in horror! only last week i was programing in assembly for it (on a pc using a cross compiller and a simulater (the people who make the software say is not an emulator)) and man was it hard. i had to do it for my principals of computers module at uni and is something i NEVER wish to do again. but also thank god they chose that cpu just think of doing it for the p4!!! some poor sod has to and boy do i pitty them.
but in a world where the x86 was turned down would i have programed on the x86 using my 68x? (and yes its very odd the wat they reverce maby this is evidence of a mirror univerce???)
May 14, 2001 6:19:08 PM

"I think we would be better off. Just think if there were two companies warring with each other with a full RISC processor."

The G4 is hardly a RISC Processor... Just as the P3/Athlon aren't true CISC anymore. They have each borrowed features from one-another, and thus RISC and CISC are both pretty much dead. The new CPUs are Hybrids, leaning closer to one approach, or the other.

--Fltsimbuff
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 1:12:00 AM

ummmm, i forgot about that! it really was a long time ago, and as someone further up just said, what about assembly lang. programming what a bastard and yet i still look back fondly. HEHEHE i am so old, you are all puppies.

however, we all start at the end and finish at the begining
May 16, 2001 1:56:40 PM

well, that could be one reason. I thought of putting it in my earlier post but it seemed too technical.

well, my experience with 68x assembly is not very kind, while x86 was too good to tweak, the registers were just right and it was fun doing those little hand optimisations to get the code perform. it wont have been this possible on 68x I guess.

it was easy to program, and the architechture was just fit for a Personal Computer. had it been the 68x I dont think people would have worked for it as much they did for the x86, and we might have been, still in just-later-than-stone age. who knows...

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
!