Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I read that and just saw Vegeta saying "it's over 8000"
Ahem, that's _9000_.
9000 in the first few English dubs. 8000 in the manga and DBZ Kai.
x86 is dead, long live x86
121–130 of 172 posts
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#122When I think about how long chips like the 6502 have still been in active use (almost 50 years now), it is hard to conceive of a world where there isn't a significant presence of x86 activity for the rest of my life. The majority of 'the market' may go elsewhere, but for a gazillion reasons, x86 will not be disappearing for quite a while. At this point it would honestly surprise me if we didn't at least have high qua…
.... until the end of the human race as we know it. I think this is the critical part. If humanity (as we know it) only lasts 10 more years, then sure x86 will still be around somewhere. If we last a million years, it will probably be gone long before that. Even in a thousand years it's probably gone a long time ago.
I'm reminded of the Vernor Vinge novel where a character hacking some fleet's automation hundreds of thousands of years in the future casually mentions that the tech stack is so old that the system time stamp is still the Unix Epoch
“And via a million million circuitous threads of inheritance, many of the oldest programs still ran in the bowels of the Qeng Ho system. Take the Traders’ method of timekeeping. The frame corrections were incredibly complex—and down at the very bottom of it was a little program that ran a counter. Second by second, the Qeng Ho counted from the instant that a human had first set foot on Old Earth’s moon. But if you looked at it still more closely…the starting instant was actually about fifteen million seconds later, the 0-second of one of Humankind’s first computer operating systems.”
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#123When I think about how long chips like the 6502 have still been in active use (almost 50 years now), it is hard to conceive of a world where there isn't a significant presence of x86 activity for the rest of my life. The majority of 'the market' may go elsewhere, but for a gazillion reasons, x86 will not be disappearing for quite a while. At this point it would honestly surprise me if we didn't at least have high qua…
.... until the end of the human race as we know it. I think this is the critical part. If humanity (as we know it) only lasts 10 more years, then sure x86 will still be around somewhere. If we last a million years, it will probably be gone long before that. Even in a thousand years it's probably gone a long time ago.
I mean a thousand years are very hard to imagine, and how many changes there are.
But the cynical operator in my head could just laugh. We as a tech community are still running MS-DOS productively. Just wait, someone will run the door controls of our first space ships on some x86 chip. Or some similar system you just need, but that never gets time to be updated properly. Just wait, the new cruise liner spaceship of the milky way republic is going to run some x86 emulator for their window control.
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dead thing is Intel (x86) and the successor is AMD (x86) as opposed to ARM in our case. Isn't it correct?
> Isn't it correct? No. Intel isn't dead. They may be behind (for now) but they're definitely catching up and have in a way on the desktop. It's not certain that Intel will die and AMD will for sure win. Competition is great.
Perhaps it would be better phrased as "'intel x86'" vs "'AMD x86-64'". Specific sets of mandatory instructions and extension parameters - But AMD's set "won" at some point in the past, roughly corresponding to the launch of Intel's "Core" microarchitecture in 2006 when they started competing in the x86 space again
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
.... until the end of the human race as we know it. I think this is the critical part. If humanity (as we know it) only lasts 10 more years, then sure x86 will still be around somewhere. If we last a million years, it will probably be gone long before that. Even in a thousand years it's probably gone a long time ago.
I'm reminded of the Vernor Vinge novel where a character hacking some fleet's automation hundreds of thousands of years in the future casually mentions that the tech stack is so old that the system time stamp is still the Unix Epoch “And via a million million circuitous threads of inheritance, many of the oldest programs still ran in the bowels of the Qeng Ho system. Take the Traders’ method of timekeeping. The frame…
Part of the "Fire Upon the Deep" series of novels (that particular reference is from the "A Deepness in the Sky").
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
A thing's future longevity can sometimes be predicted by how long it's already been around.
But not humans, regrettably.
It used to somewhat work for humans, until about the mid-19th century (in Europe, other places vary). A newborn was unlikely to reach an age of 5, a 5 year old had better chances but might still die from illness in childhood, but someone who reached an age of 20 could be expected to reach an age of 40, and if you reached 40 you might well make it to 80.
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole "click once on the app for it to wake up, click again for it to know which window you wanted" makes using Mac OS highly unpleasant on a daily basis. Yes, I'm on Mac OS, and no, I don't like it.
Use Mission Control for everything, it's great.
Except for how there's no stable sort order for windows, even if you turn off the setting that's supposed to not rearrange it all the time. Mission control was probably one of the things I liked least about the Mac when I used one for work... To the point that I ended up using hammerspoon to create shortcuts to switch between my applications directly rather than deal with it.
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dead thing is Intel (x86) and the successor is AMD (x86) as opposed to ARM in our case. Isn't it correct?
> Isn't it correct? No. Intel isn't dead. They may be behind (for now) but they're definitely catching up and have in a way on the desktop. It's not certain that Intel will die and AMD will for sure win. Competition is great.
Your point is about the factual statement (whether Intel x86 is actually dead).
But this subthread (as started by amusingimpala75), and your direct parent's question was about whether the idiomatic usage of "(old) X is dead, long live (new) X" was correct (given that the author believes AMD taking over Intel is the factual case). That is, not about whether the factual statement is correct or not, just whether it's expressed well idiomatically.
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're going to be that pedantic, we might as well just say that because Intel and AMD aren't living entities so they can't be "dead". Or we could just accept that the original meaning of the phrase has evolved and is flexible enough to be used in situations where it's not absolutely literal.
I just closed another post on HN because the top thread descended into some bullshit semantics pissing contest so I come here and see the same. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately?
>Is it just me or has anyone else noticed an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately?
Depends on what you mean by increase, arguing, and words.
Re: x86 is dead, long live x86
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just closed another post on HN because the top thread descended into some bullshit semantics pissing contest so I come here and see the same. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately?
I’ve noticed that as well. It beggars belief that people are seriously arguing about applying a centuries-old foreign metaphors about kings to modern large corporations. That’s straight over Pedantic territory into the Obnoxious Contrarian wilderness. Sigh…
Sorry, but you've just noticed it?
Wars about semantics have been standard fare on geekdom since the dawn of time, and on Hacker News since the dawn of Arc.
What appears as "Obnoxious Contrarian wilderness" is good-old hacker "well, actually" pendanticness (with some sprinkling of on-the-spectrum focus on details and semantics).