For those truly too lazy to click through to the article, x86-S stands for "simplified," with the idea being to boot directly into 64-bit mode instead of booting into 16-bit and bootstrapping to 64-bit mode. 16-bit mode would be removed entirely. It's not clear to me if 32-bit mode would be axed as well, or if it would be retained (maybe partially).
64Bit (OS) only and kicking out legacy cruft which doesn't just add complexity but also can in some edge cases can make security harder sound like a very sane idea, just maybe kinda late. I mean they probably could have started pushing this in some areas, like server and high-end CPUS, like 5-10years ago.
The only thing growing faster than the number of transistors is the number of pages in the specification. Ditching legacy is a good thing.
This makes no sense to me. Backward compatibility is a huge competitive advantage for Intel, and IMHO, it's royally messed up that vm86 mode doesn't work in 64-bit mode.
One DOS application I use was hurt by this: "old DOS OrCAD". It works well in Windows-XP on a 32-bit machine, but does not work at all in 64-bit Windows. (It's actually a 32-bit DPMI program and has drivers to use Windows GDI so you don't have to mess around with drivers).
More evidence: IBM 360 mainframe software still works in Z/OS.
It might be worth it for non-generic computing devices like cell phones, but Intel missed the boat there already.
Legacy code has still important real-life functions to drive. That is clear.
That Intel has to thread carefully to dump in-hardware 16 bit compatibility mode in 2023 is just sad.
I can also see why who does not have to deal with so much baggage on their shoulders is capable of being much more nimble and drive innovation.
Finally I can now better understand why Apple dumps an ISA every decade or so.
I said in 1994 that when Moore's Law finally stopped, we could go back and clean up all our hasty patches.
Maybe Moore's Law really is dead.
/tears for the end of Moore's Law, just shortly after that great man passed away.
> Since its introduction over 20 years ago, the IntelĀ® 64 architecture became the dominant operating mode.
Okay that's a bit heavy on the retcon, don't you think?
> Intel is currently investigating for a 64-bit mode-only architecture referred to as x86S
I wish AMD had started this instead of Intel so they could call it AE86.
I can certainly see how this is beneficial. At the same time it seems like it's a local optimum, to be eclipsed by other architectures. How much software really depends on 64-bit x86 architecture? And for how long?
A large amount of server software can be reasonably ported to a new architecture. New platforms can adopt new architectures (phone/tablet, AR/VR). General purpose software like a web browser abstracts hardware, as does very popular software (as Facebook had, and WeChat does).
Apple hasn't been tied to architectures and transitioned a number of times, always optimizing the whole rather than optimizing intermediate/stationary fixed points. If Intel is to make it to the next phase, it needs more than incremental improvements to compete. I hope that there's a path/future for AMD and Intel to evolve x86 and thrive but it won't be a given or easy.
Do not want.
Did they not learn from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80376 or the infamous Itanic?
The almost 50 years of backwards compatibility (along with the accompanying creation of a huge amount of documentation) is one of the strongest reasons for choosing the x86/PC.
With each feature removal, they weaken that argument and push their (prospective) customers towards reconsidering all the other competitive CPUs out there like ARM, MIPS, RISC-V, etc. that are not distant in performance.
Intel has made SoCs for phones, tablets, and other miscellaneous devices, but they weren't PC-compatible. Not surprisingly, they were not well-received.
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8091290
Maybe it's time for a CISC-V...?
Edit: apparently respecting history is not a popular opinion.
I wonder if Intel could open up x86s ISA. They need to transition to Foundry and there is no going back. Might as well open up x86s.
> Since its introduction over 20 years ago, the IntelĀ® 64 architecture became the dominant operating mode.
*cough*[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History