mac or windows - Page 2

technobeast · 05-29-2003, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greffov
Programming seems to be easier for windows because there are more programs for ?!?! what a xxxxxxxx It sounds to me like you (tamarisk) think porches driver slower because you don't see them as much as mercedes's or something... I don't see the relation in that.

Since when do a programmer have to deal with an instructionset? Welcome to 2003 where 5th generation languages are a fact (not that they are useful but still). Noone writes assembler these days, not while programming a PC, Mac or Sun. It is C, C++ Objective C, Java, Native Java and it compiles with GCC...

Nice comments greffov. But allow me not to agree with you on the low level langauges usage. C and Assembler are still the most wanted langauges for drivers. You cannot just build a GUI with a high level language liek VC++ or else. You need something for the foundations. C (pure ANSI C) and Assembler are still mighty. And many people use them (trust me I'm sure about this)

orb36O · 05-30-2003, 12:05 AM

What Microsoft should do is combine all the best windows!!!

Windows CE + Windows Me + Windows NT = Windows CEMENT!!!!!

tamarisk · 05-30-2003, 12:29 AM

2.2.9.1 RISC vs CISC Design Philosophies

RISC and CISC are two CPU architectures involving how an instruction set is constructed and how it is handled by the CPU itself.

In general Intel base its CPU architectures on a CISC design while Apple base their CPUs on a RISC design.

As we will see both architectures offer advantages and disadvatages and lately some CPUs have been designed to borrow from both architectures.

CISC :

Pronounced sisk, CISC stands for Complex Instruction Set Computer.

Most PC's use CPU based on this architecture. For instance Intel and AMD CPU's are based on CISC architectures.

Typically CISC CPUs are designed to handle an instruction set that :
1. have a large amount of different instructions.
2. each instruction can be quite complex.

The philosophy behind it is that hardware is always faster than software, therefore one should make a powerful instruction set, which provides programmers with assembly instructions to do a lot with short programs.

In general CISC CPUs are relatively slow (compared to RISC CPUs) per instruction since they are more complex, but use little (less than RISC) instructions.

RISC :

Pronounced risk, RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computer.

RISC CPUs evolved around the mid-1980 as a reaction at CISC CPUs.
Apple for instance uses RISC CPUs.

Typically RISC CPUs are designed to handle an instruction set that :
1. have a small amount of instructions.
2. each instruction is simple.

The philosophy behind it is that almost no one uses complex assembly language instructions as used by CISC, and people mostly use compilers which never use complex instructions.
Therefore fewer, simpler and faster instructions would be better, than the large, complex and slower CISC instructions. However, more instructions are needed to accomplish a task.

An other advantage of RISC is that - in theory - because of the more simple instructions, RISC chips require fewer transistors, which makes them easier to design and cheaper to produce.

Finally, it's easier to write powerful optimised compilers, since fewer instructions exist.

RISC vs CISC :

There is still considerable controversy among experts about which architecture is better.

Some say that RISC is cheaper and faster and therefor the architecture of the future.

Others note that by making the hardware simpler, RISC puts a greater burden on the software. Software needs to become more complex. Software developers need to write more lines for the same tasks.

Therefore they argue that RISC is not the architecture of the future, since conventional CISC chips are becoming faster and cheaper anyway.

RISC has now existed more than 10 years and hasn't been able to kick CISC out of the market. If we forget about the embedded market and mainly look at the market for PC's, workstations and servers at least 75% of the processors are based on the CISC architecture. Most of them the x86 standard (Intel, AMD, etc.), but even in the mainframe territory CISC is dominant via the IBM/390 chip. Looks like CISC is here to stay .

Is RISC than really not better? The answer isn't quite that simple. RISC and CISC architectures are becoming more and more alike. Many of today's RISC chips support just as many instructions as yesterday's CISC chips. The PowerPC 601, for example, supports more instructions than the Pentium. Yet the 601 is considered a RISC chip, while the Pentium is definitely CISC. Further more today's CISC chips use many techniques formerly associated with RISC chips.

So simply said: RISC and CISC are growing to each other.

An important factor is also that the x86 standard, as used by for instance Intel and AMD, is based on CISC architecture. X86 is the standard for home based PC's. Windows 95 and 98 won't run at any other platform. Therefore companies like AMD an Intel will not abandoning the x86 market just overnight even if RISC was more powerful.

Changing their chips in such a way that on the outside they stay compatible with the CISC x86 standard, but use a RISC architecture inside is difficult and gives all kinds of overhead which could undo all the possible gains. Nevertheless Intel and AMD are doing this more or less with their current CPU's. Most acceleration mechanisms available to RISC CPUs are now available to the x86 CPU's as well.
Since in the x86 the competition is killing, prices are low, even lower than for most RISC CPU's. Although RISC prices are dropping also a, for instance, SUN UltraSPARC is still more expensive than an equal performing PII workstation is.

Equal that is in terms of integer performance. In the floating point-area RISC still holds the crown. However CISC's 7th generation x86 chips like the K7 will catch up with that.

The one exception to this might be the Alpha EV-6. Those machines are overall about twice as fast as the fastest x86 CPU available. However this Alpha chip costs about 20000, not something you're willing to pay for a home PC.

Maybe interesting to mention is that it's no coincidence that AMD's K7 is developed in co-operation with Alpha and is for al large part based on the same Alpha EV-6 technology.

EPIC :

The biggest threat for CISC and RISC might not be each other, but a new technology called EPIC. EPIC stands for Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing. Like the word parallel already says EPIC can do many instruction executions in parallel to one another.

EPIC is a created by Intel and is in a way a combination of both CISC and RISC. This will in theory allow the processing of Windows-based as well as UNIX-based applications by the same CPU.

It will not be until 2000 before we can see an EPIC chip. Intel is working on it under code-name Merced. Microsoft is already developing their Win64 standard for it. Like the name says, Merced will be a 64-bit chip.

If Intel's EPIC architecture is successful, it might be the biggest thread for RISC. All of the big CPU manufactures but Sun and Motorola are now selling x86-based products, and some are just waiting for Merced to come out (HP, SGI). Because of the x86 market it is not likely that CISC will die soon, but RISC may.

So the future might bring EPIC processors and more CISC processors, while the RISC processors are becoming extinct.

Conclusion

The difference between RISC and CISC chips is getting smaller and smaller. What counts is how fast a chip can execute the instructions it is given and how well it runs existing software. Today, both RISC and CISC manufacturers are doing everything to get an edge on the competition.

The future might not bring victory to one of them, but makes both extinct. EPIC might make first RISC obsolete and later CISC too.

tamarisk · 05-30-2003, 12:33 AM

This is from notes i had of my A-Level so it might be basic. here is the link

1) on architecture

http://p19m.bravepages.com/arch.doc

2) on operating systems

http://p19m.bravepages.com/operating_systems.doc

But since it's A-level it might be basic

**greffov** · 05-31-2003, 06:43 AM

Wow! That is a bunch of good info!!!

I'm aware assembler will never leave us, how to write a BIOS, driver, OS or anything else without it. But the most developers will never see such things. Think of Java, you don't even have access to your memory like in C. But the world is moving to that kind of abstraction. Use of objects all interfaced.
A developer these days doesn't need to worry about if his PC, Mac, Sun or whatelse has 1, 2 or 8 processors, the "just in time compiler" will do the job for him. The OS will take care of it. OSX's Aqua interface for example is written that way, and it uses unlike windows both processors if you have them available.

This is far away from the original poll...

ABOU · 07-10-2003, 11:31 AM

ORB would you say that windows ME was one of the best i used it for a while and found it to be very buggy, although its game support was good i cant play max payne on xp

Sockfulloflove · 07-24-2003, 01:18 PM

Windows and Linux (Mandrake 9.1) here.

Davileet531 · 07-25-2003, 07:46 PM

HAHA Macs are the nicest looking PCs but they are not compatable with hardly anything. I would buy a Mac Maybe if it weren't for the fact that they want so much money for so little.
DT

iAvalance · 08-16-2003, 04:43 AM

You probably haven't ever seen a Mac... They are more compatible than you can think of... (unless you play games I guess)

Colin-uk · 09-06-2003, 11:56 AM

i would love to have to chance to have a go at using a mac

but i dont, so i,ll have to say windows :p
ah well....

dwood · 02-07-2004, 08:53 PM

I am pc oriented (yes like in an AA meeting) Pc`s have alot more software/viruses? Threats etc etc. But also has raw ghz which is a selling point of most cpus. Giving microsoft 99% of world market share is detrimental to one thats full of holes. Linux on the other hand still struggles to have its own ideintity 30% of home users? Cant even say market share but still the hackers choice of box.
Apple is a trend setter - no floppy for yrs -firewire - firewire x 2 or firewire 800, integrated zip b4 pc ..Yes we know this..pcs are for hobbyists and we like that fact.. so if we want to get married and settle .. buy a mac.

05-30-2003, 12:05 AM	#17 (permalink)
orb36O x4841434B4552 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Strongbadia Posts: 254	What Microsoft should do is combine all the best windows!!! Windows CE + Windows Me + Windows NT = Windows CEMENT!!!!! __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:-- a--- C++++ UL++ P+ L++ E W++ N-- o-- K- w++ O- M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y PGP t+ 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D+ G e h !r z? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Decode Here Used to have a sig, but the friggin' sites don't allow remote linking...

05-30-2003, 12:29 AM	#18 (permalink)
tamarisk Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Malta (Europe) Posts: 173	2.2.9.1 RISC vs CISC Design Philosophies RISC and CISC are two CPU architectures involving how an instruction set is constructed and how it is handled by the CPU itself. In general Intel base its CPU architectures on a CISC design while Apple base their CPUs on a RISC design. As we will see both architectures offer advantages and disadvatages and lately some CPUs have been designed to borrow from both architectures. CISC : Pronounced sisk, CISC stands for Complex Instruction Set Computer. Most PC's use CPU based on this architecture. For instance Intel and AMD CPU's are based on CISC architectures. Typically CISC CPUs are designed to handle an instruction set that : 1. have a large amount of different instructions. 2. each instruction can be quite complex. The philosophy behind it is that hardware is always faster than software, therefore one should make a powerful instruction set, which provides programmers with assembly instructions to do a lot with short programs. In general CISC CPUs are relatively slow (compared to RISC CPUs) per instruction since they are more complex, but use little (less than RISC) instructions. RISC : Pronounced risk, RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computer. RISC CPUs evolved around the mid-1980 as a reaction at CISC CPUs. Apple for instance uses RISC CPUs. Typically RISC CPUs are designed to handle an instruction set that : 1. have a small amount of instructions. 2. each instruction is simple. The philosophy behind it is that almost no one uses complex assembly language instructions as used by CISC, and people mostly use compilers which never use complex instructions. Therefore fewer, simpler and faster instructions would be better, than the large, complex and slower CISC instructions. However, more instructions are needed to accomplish a task. An other advantage of RISC is that - in theory - because of the more simple instructions, RISC chips require fewer transistors, which makes them easier to design and cheaper to produce. Finally, it's easier to write powerful optimised compilers, since fewer instructions exist. RISC vs CISC : There is still considerable controversy among experts about which architecture is better. Some say that RISC is cheaper and faster and therefor the architecture of the future. Others note that by making the hardware simpler, RISC puts a greater burden on the software. Software needs to become more complex. Software developers need to write more lines for the same tasks. Therefore they argue that RISC is not the architecture of the future, since conventional CISC chips are becoming faster and cheaper anyway. RISC has now existed more than 10 years and hasn't been able to kick CISC out of the market. If we forget about the embedded market and mainly look at the market for PC's, workstations and servers at least 75% of the processors are based on the CISC architecture. Most of them the x86 standard (Intel, AMD, etc.), but even in the mainframe territory CISC is dominant via the IBM/390 chip. Looks like CISC is here to stay . Is RISC than really not better? The answer isn't quite that simple. RISC and CISC architectures are becoming more and more alike. Many of today's RISC chips support just as many instructions as yesterday's CISC chips. The PowerPC 601, for example, supports more instructions than the Pentium. Yet the 601 is considered a RISC chip, while the Pentium is definitely CISC. Further more today's CISC chips use many techniques formerly associated with RISC chips. So simply said: RISC and CISC are growing to each other. An important factor is also that the x86 standard, as used by for instance Intel and AMD, is based on CISC architecture. X86 is the standard for home based PC's. Windows 95 and 98 won't run at any other platform. Therefore companies like AMD an Intel will not abandoning the x86 market just overnight even if RISC was more powerful. Changing their chips in such a way that on the outside they stay compatible with the CISC x86 standard, but use a RISC architecture inside is difficult and gives all kinds of overhead which could undo all the possible gains. Nevertheless Intel and AMD are doing this more or less with their current CPU's. Most acceleration mechanisms available to RISC CPUs are now available to the x86 CPU's as well. Since in the x86 the competition is killing, prices are low, even lower than for most RISC CPU's. Although RISC prices are dropping also a, for instance, SUN UltraSPARC is still more expensive than an equal performing PII workstation is. Equal that is in terms of integer performance. In the floating point-area RISC still holds the crown. However CISC's 7th generation x86 chips like the K7 will catch up with that. The one exception to this might be the Alpha EV-6. Those machines are overall about twice as fast as the fastest x86 CPU available. However this Alpha chip costs about 20000, not something you're willing to pay for a home PC. Maybe interesting to mention is that it's no coincidence that AMD's K7 is developed in co-operation with Alpha and is for al large part based on the same Alpha EV-6 technology. EPIC : The biggest threat for CISC and RISC might not be each other, but a new technology called EPIC. EPIC stands for Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing. Like the word parallel already says EPIC can do many instruction executions in parallel to one another. EPIC is a created by Intel and is in a way a combination of both CISC and RISC. This will in theory allow the processing of Windows-based as well as UNIX-based applications by the same CPU. It will not be until 2000 before we can see an EPIC chip. Intel is working on it under code-name Merced. Microsoft is already developing their Win64 standard for it. Like the name says, Merced will be a 64-bit chip. If Intel's EPIC architecture is successful, it might be the biggest thread for RISC. All of the big CPU manufactures but Sun and Motorola are now selling x86-based products, and some are just waiting for Merced to come out (HP, SGI). Because of the x86 market it is not likely that CISC will die soon, but RISC may. So the future might bring EPIC processors and more CISC processors, while the RISC processors are becoming extinct. Conclusion The difference between RISC and CISC chips is getting smaller and smaller. What counts is how fast a chip can execute the instructions it is given and how well it runs existing software. Today, both RISC and CISC manufacturers are doing everything to get an edge on the competition. The future might not bring victory to one of them, but makes both extinct. EPIC might make first RISC obsolete and later CISC too. __________________ http://infonote.blogsome.com Help find a cure for Cancer and other diseases by using unused computer resources http://folding.stanford.edu/

05-30-2003, 12:33 AM	#19 (permalink)
tamarisk Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Malta (Europe) Posts: 173	This is from notes i had of my A-Level so it might be basic. here is the link 1) on architecture http://p19m.bravepages.com/arch.doc 2) on operating systems http://p19m.bravepages.com/operating_systems.doc But since it's A-level it might be basic __________________ http://infonote.blogsome.com Help find a cure for Cancer and other diseases by using unused computer resources http://folding.stanford.edu/

05-31-2003, 06:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
greffov Da House Nerd Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: One CPU Lane Posts: 3,512	Wow! That is a bunch of good info!!! I'm aware assembler will never leave us, how to write a BIOS, driver, OS or anything else without it. But the most developers will never see such things. Think of Java, you don't even have access to your memory like in C. But the world is moving to that kind of abstraction. Use of objects all interfaced. A developer these days doesn't need to worry about if his PC, Mac, Sun or whatelse has 1, 2 or 8 processors, the "just in time compiler" will do the job for him. The OS will take care of it. OSX's Aqua interface for example is written that way, and it uses unlike windows both processors if you have them available. This is far away from the original poll... __________________ Linux virusscanner detected a virus: Windows 95 ... delete [Y/n] y ~ ~ :wq

07-24-2003, 01:18 PM	#22 (permalink)
Sockfulloflove I am awesome. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: On the computer. Posts: 328	Windows and Linux (Mandrake 9.1) here. __________________ hm...ah...yes.

07-10-2003, 11:31 AM	#21 (permalink)
ABOU Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NORTHERN IRELAND Posts: 460	ORB would you say that windows ME was one of the best i used it for a while and found it to be very buggy, although its game support was good i cant play max payne on xp

07-25-2003, 07:46 PM	#23 (permalink)
Davileet531 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 15	HAHA Macs are the nicest looking PCs but they are not compatable with hardly anything. I would buy a Mac Maybe if it weren't for the fact that they want so much money for so little. DT

08-16-2003, 04:43 AM	#24 (permalink)
iAvalance Lost Forever Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spilniks Posts: 276	You probably haven't ever seen a Mac... They are more compatible than you can think of... (unless you play games I guess) __________________ "A computer program does what you told it to do, not what you want it to do" - Greer (English translation)

09-06-2003, 11:56 AM	#25 (permalink)
Colin-uk Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: UK Posts: 928	i would love to have to chance to have a go at using a mac but i dont, so i,ll have to say windows :p ah well....

02-07-2004, 08:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
dwood Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 24	I am pc oriented (yes like in an AA meeting) Pc`s have alot more software/viruses? Threats etc etc. But also has raw ghz which is a selling point of most cpus. Giving microsoft 99% of world market share is detrimental to one thats full of holes. Linux on the other hand still struggles to have its own ideintity 30% of home users? Cant even say market share but still the hackers choice of box. Apple is a trend setter - no floppy for yrs -firewire - firewire x 2 or firewire 800, integrated zip b4 pc ..Yes we know this..pcs are for hobbyists and we like that fact.. so if we want to get married and settle .. buy a mac. __________________ salted_t

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode