"Dave Sherman" <dcsherman at qwest.net> writes: > According to the folks at Ars Technica (www.arstechnica.com), this debate > is dead, because there is no such thing as a pure RISC or pure CISC chip > any longer -- both technologies have converged, taken the best of each > design philosophy, to the point where the differences are so slight that > they are far outweighted by the similarities. That's been true for a while too. RISC was a paradigm shift based on changes in the relative speed of processor, RAM, and ROM. It started to make more sense in the early 80's. And over the years things have continued to change, and people have refined and improved architectures to do what they think is important at the time. I still find them somewhat useful categories, not to say a chip is one or the other, but to say that ideas or aspects of a design are one or the other. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd-b at dd-b.net SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/