Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news.swapon.de!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:40:25 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <2ed14d90-af14-4488-8283-1d536d677e08@googlegroups.com> <785de081-7d1a-4d5c-baf3-ccc513f3213b@googlegroups.com> <764c46a5-60bb-444d-a5df-13f9488f199f@googlegroups.com> <5dc77c69-b5cc-40ae-a3dd-d6f1575da5fd@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: i+Urkql2cL38hhKqzSWEjg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:34564 On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 04:06:42 -0500, JUERGEN wrote: > On Saturday, November 22, 2014 3:24:41 AM UTC, rickman wrote: >> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman wrote: >> >> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't >> >> this be cool" factor rather than any market. So it addresses *no* >> >> market. >> > >> > The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM, >> > when it really only needs one .... So, what does the >> > market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for? >> >> That's a silly way to look at it. The market will use whichever product >> it sees as best. I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but >> certainly there can be room for improvement. The only question is >> whether the lowRISC will be able to be better or even as good. >> >> As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will never >> be a desktop computer replacement. Anyone who can't see that should >> just give up and go home. >> > > ... I am just imagining my washing mschine with Embedded Pentium ... > There are loads of other architectures - and for a good reason - > optimized for certain applications > No, that's too expensive a solution. It's cheaper to connect your washer to the internet and use an x86 processor in a server farm somewhere, or the "cloud", e.g., 56K dial-up modem connected to your home broadband via VOIP. That way, the washer only needs enough hardware to follow the commands sent to it and send settings to the internet. I bet you think I'm joking ... Rod Pemberton