Re: TI-H: heh

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: heh
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:14:13 -0900
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
In-Reply-To: <912311507.22828.302@excite.com>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


>If you KNOW any sites that have non-biast scientific evidence that RISC is
>faster than CISC, then tell me because I'd be VERY interested in knowing.

Saying RISC is faster than CISC is like saying a bird can fly faster than
another bird.  It all depends on the TYPE OF BIRDS.

>Right now RISC might be as fast than CISC, but CISC can handle more commands
>at once, so you know...

CISC can't handle any more or less commands than RISC at once...  CISC has
more useless commands and restricts their use (most of the time) but they
both run one instruction per instruction cycle.

>thats pretty much the reason that RISC are in small
>devices, since they process small commands, and don't need to do very big
>jobs.

Yeah...  RISCs are used in small devices.  Down at your favorite video
arcade they use RISC based chips...  Alpha's are RISC based, are you saying
Alpha's are small devices?

IBM Workstations and Servers are PPC based RISC, they surely aren't toys.

But I do have to give Intel credit for keeping 30 years of technology in
the pent...  An interesting thing is that the traffic counting program bill
gates wrote on punch cards for the Intel 4000 still will run on the fastest
pent...of course, that also a probelm with intel.

You're probably not going to beleive this, but Power Macs don't run
Macintosh software...they emulate it.  Only on realy new programs are they
actually written for the processor.  Apple's emulation engine runs on DEC,
and HP workstations. So, since the MacOS boots on a DEC, PPC, and HP those
are all bad computers!  No...

Grant

References:

Re: TI-H: heh

From: "Dan" <danb@excite.com>