From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 12:29:49 -0000 (UTC)   
   cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > David Goodwin   wrote:   
   > >In article <10bhqe4$uqv$3@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid says...   
   >   
   > In general, arguing with Lawrence is like trying to reason with   
   > a leaking pen: it doesn't change and just gets ink all over your   
   > fingers.   
   >   
   > >> >> The MIPS version of NT didn?t last long, either.   
   > >> >   
   > >> > The MIPS version was never very popular to begin with - today the   
   > >> > hardware is flying pigs rare.   
   > >>   
   > >> I already mentioned that MIPS processors outship x86 by about 3:1,   
   > >> last I checked. You wouldn?t call x86 ?flying pigs rare?, would   
   > >> you?   
   > >   
   > >Set top boxes and routers were not the target market for Windows in   
   > >the 90s, and they are clearly not a market Microsoft is interested   
   > >in pursuing today.   
   >   
   > Moreover, 99.9% of those MIPS CPUs that are outselling x86 are   
   > embedded microcontrollers that just happen to use the MIPS   
   > instruction set.  If they run any OS at all, it's way more than   
   > likely to be some kind of RTOS.   
   >   
      
   Most likely, Lowrence is citing statistics from 15-20 years ago.   
   Right now MIPS is very close to dead. It's very unlikely that it   
   still outsells x86.   
      
   > For that matter, ARM Cortex-M0 CPUs are _incredibly_ common, in   
   > all sorts of things that many people are unaware even has a   
   > microcontroller inside of it, but Linux isn't running on them.   
   >   
      
   Is it?   
   We are pretty heavy users of ARM MCUs. Either all of theme or all but   
   one had M4 core. Zero with M0.   
   M0 is an odd bird in Cortex-M line. For example, it does not comply wih   
   ARM v.7-M ISA definitions. For me that's alone is sufficient reason to   
   never touch it.   
      
   > There are cute hacks like uCLinux designed to run on constrained   
   > systems, but I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of those   
   > CPUs are running it, and besides,   
      
   Well, that's not the same as MIPS. Running Linux on Cortex-M is   
   technically hard and mostly stupid.   
   Running Linux on something like Microchip PIC32M is technically easy.   
   It's just rarely happens to be the best solution to any particular   
   design requirements. But sometimes it is.   
      
   > it's not being used for   
   > general-purpose compute, which is what Windows targets.   
      
   Exactly. Unlike Windows CE, on wich MIPS was supported for rather long   
   time, but always played a 3rd, 4th or 5th fiddle to Arm, x86, Hitachi SH   
   and PPC.   
      
   >   
   > Bottom line: pointing to the number of MIPS CPUs shipped versus   
   > x86 as some kind of "evidence" for the non-portability of   
   > Windows is similar pointing to the number of pineapples shipped   
   > versus cars as evidence that cars don't grow on trees.   
   >   
   > 	- Dan C.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)