So outside of backwards compatibility, why shouldn't we switch to ARM? Its faster, and has a reduced instruction set so reverse engineering proprietary software will be easier. If we can get a decent compatibility layer for x86 programs, I see no reason why we shouldn't switch
>Its faster
[citation needed]
>has a reduced instruction set so reverse engineering proprietary software will be easier
[citation needed]
>If we can get a decent compatibility layer for x86 programs
such things already exist
Looked it up, and I was wrong about the speed. Still, fewer instructions mean that you have to memorize less assembly commands to reverse engineer programs. The x86 instruction set is convoluted as hell because back in the 90s "muh new commands" were the big selling point, along with speed.
the 90's were all about muh RISC, actually
also x86 isn't really internally CISC anymore, hasn't been for a long time
idk how useful risc is for reverse engineering, i doubt it helps much if at all
...have you ever even programmed before, let alone studied architecture? sacrificing direct human readability in order to gain ease in implementation and compilation is practically the keystone of the RISC philosophy. RISC instruction sets are not easier to understand or program in directly.
You have no idea how risk averse the corporate world is. Even when intel CPUs were literally unavailable to fricking anyone conglomerates I consulted with refused to even entertain the idea of switching to AMD because of a bad experience they had a decade and a half ago with an early version of esxi and p2v. Imagine how unwilling they are to move to a platform without the entire world acting as a marker of stability.
There are leaders and there are followers. Seems your client fell into the second category. Such people will hurt themselves before making any progress.
Because the normies are moronic as frick, and accidentally created the only successful relatively open platform in form of the ibm pc compatibles
And if you kill it, no more open platforms
yea, the last thing we want is for desktop computers to end up like phones (again)
because if we switch to arm ill lose access to pretty much all of my games and then ill have nothing to do
Going to take a long time before it's adopted. You're talking about complete overhauls that will cost hundreds of millions. My doctors office is still running Windows xp machines.
i think it's funny how kids bring up arm for replacing x86 like it's some new thing
the first x86 pc was from 1981, and the first arm-based desktop was from... 1987
it's also not even an open platform, literally what would we really gain from this? one old proprietary platform to another old proprietary platform
>no reason why we shouldn't switch
because your reasoning is moronic theres also
>no reason why we should switch
so theres your answer
You said the same thing twice. What did you really mean?
>So outside of backwards compatibility, why shouldn't we switch to ARM?
Intel is 1970's tech patched up beyond belief. The architecture is horrific.
ARM is 1980's tech, some patched up beyond hope, others restarted but still somewhat beholden to old tech.
The real answer is to declare a flag day and make a architecture that is not beholden to any legacy at all. It will be painful bu it will work.
>Its faster,
No
>and has a reduced instruction set so reverse engineering proprietary software will be easier.
Not relevant, RE is done by software these days, and Ghidra even supports 6502.
>If we can get a decent compatibility layer for x86 programs,
Emulation exists already-
>I see no reason why we shouldn't switch
Sure, but not to ARM.
Sure, a 20 year old architecture that is patched up MIPS from the 90's. Way to live in the past.
Apple decided they should switch from x86, it worked out beautifully because they make the CPU in house and cook it to match the software perfectly. Intel and AMD can't' dream of such things. They have to support thousands of different hardware configurations and different drivers. Performance will be all over the place. Every Android phone and tablet runs ARM64, are they fast? The CPU architecture is maybe 5% of the whole story. There are many other things that affect performance.
>So outside of backwards compatibility
backward compatibility is important, and this is why arm chips fail. every arm chip is slightly different, some with heavily customized cores where instructions are removed, added or improved upon.
>Its faster
it's not
>so reverse engineering proprietary software will be easier.
it's as complicated as any other cpu.
>If we can get a decent compatibility layer for x86 programs,
apple already invented one and it's garbage. arm chips simply aren't capable of emulating all of x86's features - not even apple have been able to achieve it.
you're a dumb fricking moron, op. possibly the dumbest motherfricker this universe has ever vomited up.
>Its faster
It's not
>Its faster
no
>has a reduced instruction set so reverse engineering proprietary software will be easier.
as a person who does RE, no