The original slashdot article said state it: "is based on the RISC structure, a totally another standard. Therefore, it will not fall into the intellectual property right trap."
Besides it wouldn't make sense for them to design a new chip and try to duplicate the bizarre/baroque details of the antiquated CISC x86 instruction set. Better to start with something clean and simple. A new RISC instruction set. And that way they get all the economic benefits of giving a head start for Chinese companies to implement its supporting chips and motherboard rather than having to compete with outside suppliers of existing x86 support chips.
"I can't help but wonder what the potential things that could go wrong with designing a CPU are, such as software incompatibilities etc."
Software Incompatibilities? What?? It's a NEW chip therefore it has a NEW instruction set. There is no question of software incompatibilities since it isn't trying to be compatible with any existing processor. No existing compiled software will run on it.
None of the experimental 3D interfaces I've seen show any promise of being truly useful. The Desktop Metaphor is a good metaphor. Most of us organize our work on a real desk top (even those who don't use computers). So its a metaphor we are all comfortable with. Problem is there are many aspects of IMPLEMENTATION of the common implementation of the desktop GUI that were only implemented to get around a limitation of the machine or OS when the GUIs of today were first formed at Apple. Many of these are talked about on The Interface Hall of Shame.
When Microsoft and Unix copied the Macintosh GUI, they copied the superficial APPEARANCE of the GUI and missed some of the more important aspect of the interface like:
"Documents" need to have a TYPE that is independent of the user assigned name for the document.
"Files" need to have a position in the 2D space of the desktop. We all organize our work across the 2D space of our real desk. And most of us go ballistic whenever anyone rearranges all the stuff on our real desk. So why is it OK to have our stuff on our virtual desk rearrange its position whenever new pieces are added or removed?
All the parts of an "Application" (which the user views as a tool) need to come in one "bundle" to make it easy for the user to organize their tools however they wish and still have them work.
"Things" in the real world have an appearance, actions don't. Translated: Icons are for things, not actions. A toolbar full of icons for actions is confusing. Icons should be reserved for "things".
And many more...
The Interface Hall of Fame talks about many other problems with the common desktop GUI (as first formed into solidity at Apple and copied with all its warts by others). For example:
File "Open" and "Save" dialogs shouldn't exist. They were created to get around the problem on the original Macintosh that the user couldn't use the Finder AND another application at the same time.
File "Quit" shouldn't exist. It was invented because the original Macintosh could only run one program at once and it took awhile to start/restart any program.
The need to periodically save a document shouldn't exist. The system should ensure that it keeps everything "saved".
Copying a document from one volume to another should ensure that that document can be opened/viewed/printed on another computer on which that volume my be opened (this means transparently copying fonts and a "viewer" for each document type invisibly in the background).
I hope one day to have a computer system with a desktop GUI with the following properties:
All documents I have can be opened/viewed/printed without ever having to worry weather I have a copy of the "tool" that allowed someone to create that document. If I have a copy of the tool that allows editing that document type then I should be able to edit it as well.
I can organize my documents on a 2D desktop with "folders" just like I organize real documents on a 2D desktop with folders on my real desk top.
I never have to worry about "saving" periodically.
The system automatically uses spare storage to keep past versions of documents that I edit. The system automatically deletes the oldest versions of documents when I need the space. This occurs transparently. This means I reliably have multiple-level Undo/Redo when editing any document and can "Revert" back several versions if I wish. The first version of the Macintosh file system and OS had the concept of document "versions" built in but I've never seen them used and they've since dropped into oblivion.
I never have to be concerned with "Quitting" an application. Whether or not the system needs an application in RAM or not is a detail the operating system should deal with in concert with the application. The user should not have to deal with it.
The "Display" allows direct manipulation of the interface via a stylus.
The system is small and flat like a book and light enough so I can carry it around and use it wherever I want.
The system interface supports handwriting recognition and voice recognition as first class input methods. Because this is the way people in the real world communicate.
And a bunch more but it's too late for me to remember them.
I've spent a good chunk of the last ten years designing and implementing parts of the above.
I had a Cube... I took it back for a G4 tower.
on
Apple Dumps the Cube
·
· Score: 3
I had a Cube for several days. I took it back. Why? The system may be fanless quiet but the hard drive wasn't and the sound of the drive meant I couldn't keep the unit on my desktop. With the new quieter drives Apple is using this year that wouldn't have been a problem.
But because of the length of the USB speaker cable, I couldn't have the unit on the floor and still have the speakers on my desktop. Besides it really is supposed to sit on the desktop.
I would have kept it (most Mac users don't put expansion cards or 2nd drives in their Mac anyway) if only the drive was quiet enough to sit on the desktop. A beautiful machine but some practical aspects just didn't quite mesh.
Slashdot Mirror
The original slashdot article said state it: "is based on the RISC structure, a totally another standard. Therefore, it will not fall into the intellectual property right trap."
Besides it wouldn't make sense for them to design a new chip and try to duplicate the bizarre/baroque details of the antiquated CISC x86 instruction set. Better to start with something clean and simple. A new RISC instruction set. And that way they get all the economic benefits of giving a head start for Chinese companies to implement its supporting chips and motherboard rather than having to compete with outside suppliers of existing x86 support chips.
"I can't help but wonder what the potential things that could go wrong with designing a CPU are, such as software incompatibilities etc."
Software Incompatibilities? What?? It's a NEW chip therefore it has a NEW instruction set. There is no question of software incompatibilities since it isn't trying to be compatible with any existing processor. No existing compiled software will run on it.
When Microsoft and Unix copied the Macintosh GUI, they copied the superficial APPEARANCE of the GUI and missed some of the more important aspect of the interface like:
The Interface Hall of Fame talks about many other problems with the common desktop GUI (as first formed into solidity at Apple and copied with all its warts by others). For example:
I hope one day to have a computer system with a desktop GUI with the following properties:
I've spent a good chunk of the last ten years designing and implementing parts of the above.
I had a Cube for several days. I took it back. Why? The system may be fanless quiet but the hard drive wasn't and the sound of the drive meant I couldn't keep the unit on my desktop. With the new quieter drives Apple is using this year that wouldn't have been a problem.
But because of the length of the USB speaker cable, I couldn't have the unit on the floor and still have the speakers on my desktop. Besides it really is supposed to sit on the desktop.
I would have kept it (most Mac users don't put expansion cards or 2nd drives in their Mac anyway) if only the drive was quiet enough to sit on the desktop. A beautiful machine but some practical aspects just didn't quite mesh.