Intel X86-based Development Options

[Da_Blitz]

the pim functions (at least the teext based files and markup) you are talking about sound simmilar to the command line PIm for linux, i posted about 5-7 links about this for someone (perahps in the software section or general discussion)

[Ferret-Simpson]

A batch file version of qCalendar. XD I want to see that.

[Da_Blitz]

have a look at a program called remind, its actually a deamon that reads a text file to remind you of events

there are frontends for the tokt file if you dont want to remeber the syntax, and its command line bassed so batch files it is

[Reaper]

Well, x86-compatible PDA is very reasonable thing to develop. I still like my old IBM PC110 (486SX-33/20/2G/VGA DSTN) and the only thing I really dislike is a disability to replace its CPU - it's proprietary IBM/Ricoh BGA which isn't compatible with anything else, and the lack of FPU really hurts. If I was only able to get something like that but with C3 or Transmeta CPU, 800x600 TFT screen and at least 256 Mb of RAM... that would be a dream... Just imagine switching from Linux to DOS and playing old games...

[Da_Blitz]

true, latley i have been thinking of getting a UMPC or a ultra tiny laptop as i need thoe power and the xen stuff for the projects i am working on

the second gen of UMPCs look great so we will see what happens, i think my x86 is crappy ideas are just a figmant of my imagination, it certianlly seems fast

iat the moment i am considering this project and wether its would be better to delay it till after my "projects" are done as it will leve me with ore than enogh to finance this thing

[Ferret-Simpson]

Nono, It's not a figment of your imagination.

SPARC64 is Moooch better.

[Da_Blitz]

i was looking at the sparc VI chips the other day for a server i was spec'ing that did not have to run windows ()

i really need to benchmark it however, do you have any comparisons as to performance?

[Ragnorok]

- I have to toss out no to x86, but having done that I have to also admit it's a knee-jerk reaction to a 25 year old CPU design, and the serious backwards compatibility problems it caused over the years. Prolly all moot at this point.
- The FreeScale that was going to be used does look like a nice chip, but I haven't read specs on 'the competition' to know how it stacks up. I've pretty much assumed Da_Blitz and Ferret-Simpson have that covered.

[stampsm]

- I have to toss out no to x86, but having done that I have to also admit it's a knee-jerk reaction to a 25 year old CPU design, and the serious backwards compatibility problems it caused over the years.  Prolly all moot at this point.
- The FreeScale that was going to be used does look like a nice chip, but I haven't read specs on 'the competition' to know how it stacks up.  I've pretty much assumed Da_Blitz and Ferret-Simpson have that covered.

x86 has so much legacy backwards support built in that it is a pain to work with. the newer high end arm chips have almost the same ability and power as the x86 architecture without a bunch of extra obsolete 20 year old technology tossed in. honestly if it was not for needing backwards compatability for alot of stuff they should just toss out the current stuff and start from scratch or even use a really tweeked out ARM architecture.

[Da_Blitz]

funny thing is that x86 has had so much development to compinsate for those deficincies, take alook at the benchmaarks for gcc compilers and you tend to see that x86 code runs faster, smaller and compiles quicker. its sad but true people are just a bit to familliar with it (i balme windows , personally i would lave to see miicrosoft move into other processor markets, specifically sparc and power PC. and im not ttalking about winece)

i did look at the via chipss awhile ago but when it comes to low power x86 chips arenot your best friend, it may be nice thaat the new AMD chips idlee at 6W however a fully loaded ARM chip runs at about 1W max

i wish i new x86 asm better (and more specifically thhe amd64 extensions) as from what i can see the processor exsists in "modes" each with a compleattly new instruction set. if this is the case then i imagine the microcode would be huge (andtherefore consume alot of power)

i also connsidered power PC but in terms of power they are more for "wall connected" devices, there is a reason why nearlly all wifi cards have an arm7 processor and why nearrly all mobiles are an arm processor, they are just so light on thepower usage compared to most other chips. but then again its thier primary drive unlike the other guys who add it on as a "feature" rather than an "architecule desiign requierment"

arm is nicce but i think that x86 is starting to cllean up after itself, as i said earlier performance is secondary, they only add features if it gives a good performance boost, has few tranisitors and a low power reqquiremnt. aand even then i think they would only make it optional (ARM only sells designs not actual chips, you get the code, plugin a few varibles and it spits out a design)

i would still love to get a quad core chipset however it seems like no one is offering them except as an ASIC, now if i had the case i would get a custom built ASIC with nearlly everything on board (huge power savingss) howerver i dont have the time or money