CISC vs. RISC pseudodebate

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Hank_Reardon, Jun 8, 2005.

  1. Hank_Reardon macrumors newbie

    Apr 25, 2005
    I have no doubt these forums have addressed this issue in one form or another, but I would like to forward you all to a particularly illuminating article I came across in the Arstechnica archives. I have no delusions of being a hardware or software engineer; however, I do try to stay apprised of the state of the industry. I cannot in any way envision a scenario in which the PowerPC to x86 (or x86-64) migration will prove to be a net negative. In particular, I have seen a number of articles written by a number of "industry specialists" concerning the merits of the PowerPC's RISC architecture. The simple truth of the matter, regardless of what anyone says, is that the CISC vs. RISC debate is today a non-issue, in so much as it is impossible to define ANY processor available today in such a dichotic, black or white way. At one time CISC and RISC were two very different design philosophies, but both have been corrupted beyond recognition. Moreover, despite x86's humble beginnings, Intel and the forces at play in the x86 universe have quite simply out-engineered all other solutions. To deny this and cling to what "could have been" is to live in a fantasy. Apple, as a company built around a seemingly undefinable "cool" factor, often deals in the abstract; however, their decision to migrate to Intel is based on the cold, hard reality. Today, more than ever, the x86 world offers the better solution (just look at Intel's own inability to fight x86 with their Itanium offerings). Please read: before flaming me.

    --Hank Reardon

Share This Page