Anybody still hate x86 on principal?

[commodorejohn]

I don't hate it because PowerPC was better, I'm disinterested in it because it is and has always been an uninteresting and vaguely icky design. Less so now than in the 8086 days, but still, bleah.

[commodorejohn]

Even if it has a "icky" design, who cares. I am developing software on Windows in normal life and never be confronted with assembler. Even on amiga (as long as you develop software using system routines and not directly hacking hardware) you are not confronted with the "icky" design. And users are not confronted anyway. And system programmer mostly use C (and assembler only on rare cases). So finally it is not important if "PowerPC" "could" be better because it is not.

If you don't find yourself using assembler and don't know or care what goes on under the hood, that's perfectly fine for you, but it doesn't invalidate the opinions of people who do know and care about this stuff. (It does make you less credible on the subject, though.)

When are you really confronted with the "icky" or  "horrible" design when you use a computer or program on it?

Any time I do assembler, that's when.

I think all these "Intel outside" rhetoric is past.  "Amiga" (68k, AROS, MorphOS, AmigaOS) should run on the fastest  available and affordable hardware and that is X86/X64 right now. [...] So when we want  some kind of rebirth we need it on competitive hardware.

Oy, again with the "BECOMING THE COMPETITION IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO TAKE BACK THE MARKET WE NEVER DOMINATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!" garbage...that attitude is the exact thing holding the community back.

Back in that time hardware was very important and defined what you could  do with your computer. Today all components are cheap and off the shelf  so OS and software make the difference. What hardware is underneath is  not important anymore.

Not to you, maybe.

[commodorejohn]

I never got into PowerPC & if Apple hadn't chosen and promoted it, then nobody else would have done either.

Debate the merits and demerits of PPC all you like, but that's really not true. For a while there, PPC was going to be the Next Big Thing. IBM was counting on it to help them make a comeback in the PC market that they'd lost to the clone manufacturers, and Microsoft was on-board as well with Windows NT. It never caught on, but that's not because they weren't trying.

[commodorejohn]

I don't like x86 because it's a turd that was made to fly while the 68k was discarded like a piece of trash without even trying to upgrade it properly.

This.

[commodorejohn]

But the thing I don't get is why people say the x86 architecture is "icky".

Because it's a CPU from 1978 (complete with a tiny register file, lack of orthogonality between the registers, and horribly awkward addressing scheme) that's been progressively kludged up into a modern processor, and even on the new models you can still see the surgery scars. 68k was a pleasant 32-bit architecture right from the get-go.

[commodorejohn]

And where is my view the community holding back the community? I do not understand what you mean?

The view that x86 is The Only Way Forward for the Amiga is holding the community back because many people are so shackled to this notion that a "new Amiga" has to compete with, outperform, and eventually (obviously) overthrow the PC clones that they aren't interested in anything else the Amiga hardware world has to offer.

[commodorejohn]

I don't get this ARM thing. What is it? Is it a new hole CPU like PPC is for 68k and x86? Are you saying ARM is going to take over x86 and ARM is not backward compatible to x86?

I am a little confused here in this whole thing.

...uh, no. No, ARM is not backwards-compatible with x86, because it's not even part of the same line or based on a remotely similar architecture.

Wikipedia can enlighten you, grasshopper.