Anybody still hate x86 on principal?

[Heiroglyph]

I can't say I ever hated x86 "on principal." What I hated was the rise of monopolies, of which Intel was a part. As Intel (and M$) ascended, other options, like the Amiga got squeezed out. In Amiga's case, it didn't help any that Commodore had no real clue what it was they possessed, trying to sell cutting edge hardware as a commodity item. No. I'm in the "if it gets the job done" category and would have been happy with an Amiga powered by x86 as long as I could still choose.

100% agreed.  I couldn't put it better myself.

They chose 68k for the price to performance factor.  Had Arm or x86 been the best bang for the buck, we'd have been using those all this time.

The CPU doesn't matter if it's not abandoned like 68k or dare I say PPC.  It's just another off the shelf component.

[Heiroglyph]

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.

The 68000 was a CPU from 1979 but by 1996 the 68060 was effectively dead as a desktop CPU.

Just because it didn't live long enough to have kludges doesn't make it worth using for more than retro computing today.

I'll agree that the design of 68k was better, but that doesn't help me in any way today, where it actually matters.

This thread is nothing more than nostalgia vs. logic and it's degrading fast.

[Heiroglyph]

Isn't that "The Amiga Way"?

lol, what was I thinking?

[Heiroglyph]

To answer the question directly, no I don't hate Intel x86 on principle any more than I dislike Craftsman hammers or Snap-on ratchets.

It's a tool to be used when appropriate, not a sports team to rally behind.