Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#31

Post by xorcist »

loeg wrote: post #2

For those truly too lazy to click through to the article, x86-S stands for "simplified," with the idea being to boot directly into 64-bit mode instead of booting into 16-bit and bootstrapping to 64-bit mode. 16-bit mode would be removed entirely. It's not clear to me if 32-bit mode would be axed as well, or if it would be retained (maybe partially).

If I had to list one hundred ways x86 could be improved, not booting in 16-bit mode wouldn't be on it. It's just an incantation. There's no fallout from it.

If we're talking firmware, the gigantic mess that used to be called ACPI, still leave users suffering every day for example.

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#32

Post by userbinator »

Do not want.

Did they not learn from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80376 or the infamous Itanic?

The almost 50 years of backwards compatibility (along with the accompanying creation of a huge amount of documentation) is one of the strongest reasons for choosing the x86/PC.

With each feature removal, they weaken that argument and push their (prospective) customers towards reconsidering all the other competitive CPUs out there like ARM, MIPS, RISC-V, etc. that are not distant in performance.

Intel has made SoCs for phones, tablets, and other miscellaneous devices, but they weren't PC-compatible. Not surprisingly, they were not well-received.

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8091290

Maybe it's time for a CISC-V...?

Edit: apparently respecting history is not a popular opinion.

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#33

Post by dathinab »

jhallenworld wrote: post #6

This makes no sense to me. Backward compatibility is a huge competitive advantage for Intel, and IMHO, it's royally messed up that vm86 mode doesn't work in 64-bit mode. One DOS application I use was hurt by this: "old DOS OrCAD". It works well in Windows-XP on a 32-bit machine, but does not work at all in 64-bit Windows. (It's actually a 32-bit DPMI program and has drivers to use Windows GDI so you don't have to mes…

16 bit code is most times braking due to Windows being itself incompatible so you need to emulate it anyway.

And if you have very old but important windows legacy software you either want to also run old hardware and windows OS anyway or run enumeration anyway.

On linux this is somewhat already the case, most distroes are by now for OS 64bit only with at most 32bit application support but not always enabled by default.

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#34

Post by PrimeMcFly »

jhallenworld wrote: post #6

This makes no sense to me. Backward compatibility is a huge competitive advantage for Intel, and IMHO, it's royally messed up that vm86 mode doesn't work in 64-bit mode. One DOS application I use was hurt by this: "old DOS OrCAD". It works well in Windows-XP on a 32-bit machine, but does not work at all in 64-bit Windows. (It's actually a 32-bit DPMI program and has drivers to use Windows GDI so you don't have to mes…

Out of curiosity why are you still using a 16bit DOS CAD application?

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#35

Post by userbinator »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #26
userbinator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially none. It's all make-work (or, since they're intent on breaking things more than fixing them, break-work.)

I wouldn’t say “none”. Real estate in CPUs is extremely expensive.

...and taken up mostly by cache and vector execution units.

An 8086 has 29000 transistors. A modern CPU has several billion. The amount needed to implement the 16-bit subset of the ISA is an absolutely tiny fraction of the total area.

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#37

Post by dathinab »

r00fus wrote: post #9
formerly_proven wrote: post #5

> Since its introduction over 20 years ago, the Intel® 64 architecture became the dominant operating mode. Okay that's a bit heavy on the retcon, don't you think?

Why? Because it's really just AMD-64?

probably

but also it's a stretch in general as for personal computers arm is the dominant platform since years (there are way more phones, tablets, etc. then x86 laptops/desktops by now, all of which fit the original definition of personal computer)

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#38

Post by AtlasBarfed »

loeg wrote: post #2

For those truly too lazy to click through to the article, x86-S stands for "simplified," with the idea being to boot directly into 64-bit mode instead of booting into 16-bit and bootstrapping to 64-bit mode. 16-bit mode would be removed entirely. It's not clear to me if 32-bit mode would be axed as well, or if it would be retained (maybe partially).

Ok, so maybe you do that in boot order or some boot motdes. But ... remove it?

There is SO MUCH silicon these days, honestly I think CPUs should start putting instruction set compatibility cores in, so you still dedicate .5% to a 16 bit compatibility core, 1% to the 32 bit mode, and maybe even an ARM mode.

Honestly, since all CPUs are basically fronted by microcode, why can't modern CPU microcode be compatible with multiple instruction sets? Or provide some sort of programmable microcode section so emulators aren't done in software?

While I'm bitching, what happened to actually running multiple OSes at once? I have like 16 cores, gigabytes of RAM, multiple display outputs ... why can't I actually run both Linux and Windows and OSX all at once without some bad virtualization container inside one overarching OS? Like, can't Intel manage that with chipset and CPU logic?

Intel (and AMD) are DESPERATE to figure out things to get people to use all their extra cores and silicon for. Well, how about making multiple OS on the same machine an actually pleasant experience? Hell, I would love to run a smartphone OS as well.

Re: Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture

#40

Post by hinkley »

IntelMiner wrote: post #22
kinghajj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`amd64` is still what Debian and Kubernetes use.

Good fun when my dyslexia misreads "arm64" as "amd64" or vice-versa when going to grab software these days :(

I still can't have a coherent conversation about EC2 arm versus Epyc instances. m6a machines are arm processors, right? Nope.
Post reply on HN