Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

It's Over: Intel Publishes "x86-S" Specification, for 64-Bit Only x86 Architecture

posted by janrinok on Monday May 22, @11:56AM   Printer-friendly

takyon writes:

Intel Publishes "X86-S" Specification For 64-bit Only Architecture

Intel quietly released a new whitepaper and specification for their proposal on "X86-S" as a 64-bit only x86 architecture. If their plans workout, in the years ahead we could see a revised 64-bit only x86 architecture.

Entitled "Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture", Intel engineers lay the case for a 64-bit mode-only architecture. Intel is still said to be investigating the 64-bit mode-only architecture that they also refer to as "x86S". Intel is hoping to solicit industry feedback while they continue to explore a 64-bit mode only ISA.

[...] Under this proposal, those wanting to run legacy 32-bit operating systems would have to rely on virtualization. To further clarify, 32-bit x86 user-space software would continue to work on modern 64-bit operating systems with X86-S.

Also at Tom's Hardware.

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
It's Over: Intel Publishes "x86-S" Specification, for 64-Bit Only x86 Architecture | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 35 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 23, @01:39PM (3 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday May 23, @01:39PM (#1307650)

    Well, I agree with the stupid part...

    64 bit addressing already lets you address every individual byte of roughly 20,000,000 terabytes. I can't think of any reason any consumer hardware (or software) could possibly benefit from addressing that.

    I mean, *maybe* that's not enough to address Google's entire data center storage archive.... but for anything else? What, you want to be able to address every byte of every computer on the planet? There's not even any rational way to map that onto a linear address space.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 23, @01:47PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23, @01:47PM (#1307652) Journal

    There's not even any rational way to map that onto a linear address space.

    Simple solution, obvious to any Java programmer. Use an even larger address space than 64 bit. Divide it into subsets where each subset has a different organization in how all of the intergalactic information is ordered.

    --
    How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 23, @01:53PM (1 child)

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday May 23, @01:53PM (#1307655)

      Hmm... nope. I'm not seeing how you got from "rational" to "Java Programmer". };-D

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 23, @03:30PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23, @03:30PM (#1307691) Journal

        Is there some path from 'rational' to 'Java programmer' ?

        --
        How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...