From: MooseFET on
On Jun 8, 6:30 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> One problem which I see people mention is:
>
> x86 software does not work on ARM...
>
> A solution for this problem is the following (Not my idea, but some crazy
> noob ?):
>
> An x86 compiler which compiles x86 to ARM code.

Such programs already exist. It is a clever trick that is used to
make
fast simulations of the ARM on a PC. Doing it the other way also can
be done. It wouldn't be super fast but if you weren't trying to run
a complete Windows OS, it could be fast enough to be used.

Since the ARM can be had as a part of a FPGA, you could add extra
stuff to the standard ARM to make the process go a little faster.

From: Andrew Reilly on
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:25:33 -0700, MooseFET wrote:

> On Jun 8, 6:30 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> One problem which I see people mention is:
>>
>> x86 software does not work on ARM...
>>
>> A solution for this problem is the following (Not my idea, but some
>> crazy noob ?):
>>
>> An x86 compiler which compiles x86 to ARM code.
>
> Such programs already exist. It is a clever trick that is used to make
> fast simulations of the ARM on a PC. Doing it the other way also can be
> done. It wouldn't be super fast but if you weren't trying to run a
> complete Windows OS, it could be fast enough to be used.

Back in '87 or so I had an Acorn RISC "PC", which had an ARM-2, and a "PC
emulator". It simulated an 8088 and the PC's basic hardware well enough
that I was able to use it to run a "scientific" word processor to write
my undergraduate thesis. The "feel" was about as fast as an original
4.77MHz PC, but I didn't run any benchmarks. I'm fairly sure that it
would have been a straight interpreter: the machine didn't really have
enough RAM to be mucking about with JIT compilation. This on a chip with
no cache, no 16-bit memory operations, and which ran the processor clock
at 4MHz or 8MHz depending on whether the DRAM-fetch in progress at the
time was in-page or doing a row access...

I thought it was quite a spectacular achievement.

Cheers,

--
Andrew
From: Skybuck Flying on
> Check out http://www.silentpcreview.com/ -- those guys are serious about
> quiet computing.

Hmm... that's mosterd after the meal...

Computer hardware needs to be designed from the start for low heat/low noise
and so forth... :)

> But seriously, yes, Apple's execution has been impressive -- and while I
> don't think that much of the man personally, one has to give credit that a
> large part of it is directly linked to Jobs.

He has gained some respect from me... he seems a more honest guy than I had
expected him to be... at least in his presentations.

However if the world turns into one big cancer infected place because of all
the mobile phones and wifi's and gsm's and so forth than nope :)

May he rott in hell then forever as well ;) :)

>> I do wonder what happened to Steve Jobs though... he so thin ?!? Did all
>> that WIFI give him cancer or so ?!?
>
> No, but he had a liver transplant last year. Takes the wind out of most
> everyone for awhile...

What was wrong with his ex-liver ? Cancer from the wifi ? ;) :) What did he
do with his ex-liver ? Bottle it for memories ? :P***

Ain't he afraid of getting cancer from all that wifi ?

Bye,
Skybuck.


From: Joel Koltner on
"Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFuture(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f127b$4c0f43ef$54190f09$23767(a)cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> However if the world turns into one big cancer infected place because of all
> the mobile phones and wifi's and gsm's and so forth than nope :)

I guarantee you that, whatever the potential health hazards posed by WiFi,
GSM, etc. may be, there are orders of magnitudes more lives saved by wireless
technology than lost due to it.


From: Robert Myers on
On Jun 9, 12:51 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f127b$4c0f43ef$54190f09$23767(a)cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>
> > However if the world turns into one big cancer infected place because of all
> > the mobile phones and wifi's and gsm's and so forth than nope :)
>
> I guarantee you that, whatever the potential health hazards posed by WiFi,
> GSM, etc. may be, there are orders of magnitudes more lives saved by wireless
> technology than lost due to it.

I don't know. How often do you drive around people who drive will
using a wireless gadget? I think I'd want to do some research before
making any guarantees.

Robert.