nexos wrote:
x86 is way overly complicated. It is a giant backwards compatibility mess.
Only if you make that so. You're writing a new operating system, you don't have to be backward compatible with anything. Not like Win had to be with MS-DOS. You don't have to support floppies, and you don't even have to support lib32 at all, because you don't have a large userbase with tons of legacy protmode apps.
nexos wrote:
ARM is faster, more power efficient, and has a lot of advantages.
ARM is actually MUCH slower than an x86, mostly because it is power efficient while x86 isn't. ARM requires about 2 or 3 times more instructions to do the same thing as an x86 (that's a RISC/CISC thing). Don't believe anybody, compare GPG on a desktop and on a RPi4 and see it for yourself.
nexos wrote:
I plan on making my OS support AArch64, as it is a promising architecture. I know I sound like Andy Tannebaum, but what is your opinion? Is ARM replacing x86?
My OS is booting on RPi3 for several years now
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
As I said elsewhere, I think Apple is likely to try to buy ARM Holdings
I don't think so. There was no Motorla nor PowerPC nor Intel acquisition either, why would there be an ARM-one? Besides, ARM is not a CPU manufacturer, just a designer, there are many many really big players interested in keeping that way (basically everybody on the market who is not Intel or AMD).
Cheers,
bzt