Why Do We Use x86 CPUs?

bluefoxlucid asks: "With Apple having now switched to x86 CPUs, I've been wondering for a while why we use the x86 architecture at all. The Power architecture was known for its better performance per clock; and still other RISC architectures such as the various ARM models provide very high performance per clock as well as reduced power usage, opening some potential for low-power laptops. Compilers can also deal with optimization in RISC architectures more easily, since the instruction set is smaller and the possible scheduling arrangements are thus reduced greatly. With Just-in-Time compilation, legacy x86 programs could be painlessly run on ARM/PPC by translating them dynamically at run time, similar to how CIL and Java work. So really, what do you all think about our choice of primary CPU architecture? Are x86 and x86_64 a good choice; or should we have shot for PPC64 or a 64-bit ARM solution?" The problem right now is that if we were going to try to "vote with our wallets" for computing architecture, the only vote would be x86. How long do you see Intel maintaining its dominance in the home PC market?

Comments

And the answer is:

[JamesP]

Pipoul are dumb

Really, it's been what, 5 years since AMD64 was introduced and still people don't know if it runs 32 bit software in an 64bit OS.

That and other PHB ideas (I wanna stab the next jerk who complains that their clipper application is running slow, and they've already bough a very expensive P4 to run it)

People want computers to compensate for their lack of dick size, hence PHB executives buying powerful notebooks to play solitaire and use MS Office