DOCSLIB.ORG

What Makes a PC? Thoughts on Computing Platforms, Standards, and Compatibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Makes a PC? Thoughts on Computing Platforms, Standards, and Compatibility Think Piece What Makes a PC? Thoughts on Computing Platforms, Standards, and Compatibility James Sumner University of Manchester Editor: Nathan Ensmenger In May 2006, Apple Computer launched yet another existing entities. The hardware was assembled mostly from memorable advertising campaign. Humorous personifica- non-IBM standard parts, while an operating system, famous- tions of ‘‘a Mac’’ (home-loving, casual, straightforward) and ly, was sought from the fledgling Microsoft, which licensed ‘‘a PC’’ (deskbound, formal, rather unreliable) reflect and adapted an existing system, which in turn was heavily a perceived division in technical quality and underlying informed by the well-established CP/M. Unlike Apple, ethos. While this may seem to resemble other consumer however, IBM swiftly lost gatekeeper status over its emerging duopoly cases—Sony versus Nintendo, Pepsi versus Coke— platform, as a legion of PC ‘‘clone’’ producers emerged.2 the ‘‘PC’’ represents no one product, corporation, or interest Early microcomputing culture was characterized by a pro- group. The commercials’ comical concrete examples support liferation of other machine-oriented platforms, often aimed a surprisingly abstract argument. at home users. Contemporaneously with Apple, the estab- Until recently, Apple positioned itself as a necessary lished electronics firms Commodore and Tandy Radio Shack alternative to IBM, the commercial computing behemoth introduced formulations of the personal computer that long which released the modern PC’s technical ancestor in 1981, so endured, sustained by enthusiastic user communities and appropriating the name ‘‘personal computer’’ to itself.1 IBM vigorous software development cultures. In the UK, my has lost this defining role, and the rising generation of users is particular field of study, American producers competed with unaware of any ‘‘IBM-compatible’’ heritage. A proposed numerous small manufacturers’ independent specifications. successor term is ‘‘Wintel,’’ highlighting the surviving tangible This culture is often characterized as a Babel of incompat- identifiers, Intel-originated microprocessors, and Microsoft ible platforms that the IBM PC, offering all the advantages of Windows operating systems. Yet this is no basis for distinction. a consensus standard, rapidly swept out of existence.3 Apple’s ‘‘Get a Mac’’ campaign stresses that all its machines Certainly, however, that 1981 machine did not represent feature Intel processors and will run Windows XP or Vista a concerted push to overrun other personal-computer makers’ beside Apple’s OS X. markets—these were, after all, high-turnover, retail-oriented This apparently paradoxical strategy—simultaneous dis- markets, far from IBM’s core concerns. The platform was missal and assimilation of PC norms—is nothing new. Taking intended, probably, as a kite in the wind. It grew beyond thelongviewprovidesuswithsomevaluablein- expectation not because microcomputer buyers wanted IBM, sights into the role of systems and standards in computer but because traditional IBM buyers increasingly wanted technology, and offers direction for future research. microcomputers; thus it was never truly IBM’s to control. ‘‘Mac’’ and ‘‘PC’’ have never been standards. They are In the large-computing era, when IBM consistently held best understood as platforms: constellations of standards, over 70 percent of the US market, its competitors typically conventions, and expectations that influence the nature depended on niche adaptation, serving markets too small or and behavior of hardware, software, producers, users, and esoteric for the giant’s attention. This strategy might as easily mediators. Standards may invite stark choices between be social or geopolitical as technical: whereas Control Data acceptance or rejection, as in the iconic case of the 4 ft. 3 Corp. specialized in fast-processing machines,4 European 8.5 in. railway gauge. Computer technologies’ ‘‘universal producers such as ICL, Philips, and Olivetti capitalized on machine’’ characteristics, by contrast, offer paths of partial local knowledge and national flagship status. Similarly, assimilation, emulation, and translation. Platforms, more- following the release of the IBM PC, many manufacturers over, are partially rhetorical constructs whose boundaries sought to respond with a compatible but crucially different may be contested and redefined. machine. This only becomes obvious when we consider Apple built its tremendous early growth on the Apple II a computer as part of a user system, rather than the sum of its microcomputer platform, which appeared seemingly from processor and software specifications. The first conspicuous- nowhere in 1977. Mass-produced computer systems, of ly successful ‘‘clone,’’ specified by Compaq (1983), was no course, do not appear from nowhere. They rely on pre- clone in physical form, but a portable device inspired by pre- existing capital, parts, code concepts, production capacity, PC machines such as the Osborne-1. and distribution networks. The remarkable achievement of ‘‘Platforms’’ need not bespecified at the machinelevel, and Apple’s tiny staff was to co-ordinate all these into a viable may cut across each other. Digital Research’s CP/M operating product; to establish that product (‘‘the computer,’’ but in system provided a common software and information in- fact the platform) as deserving of attention; and to identify terchange platform for a variety of business-oriented hard- Apple as its only begetter, arbiter of its development and ware, enduring well into the 1980s. The Web, today, provides guarantor of its future validity. a common basis for development in online communication IBM’s original Personal Computer, released into a well- across many applications. Moreover, compatibility need not developed market in 1981, was likewise a constellation of continued on p. 87 88 IEEE Annals of the History of Computing Published by the IEEE Computer Society 1058-6180/07/$25.00 G 2007 IEEE continued from p. 88 The actual eclipse of these platforms in in- operate rigorously at a technical level. Microsoft’s ternational context awaits serious investigation. Basic dialect, its principal product before the IBM In Britain, affordable PC-compatibles arrived in deal, was licensed for each major platform (Com- offices (principally via the indigenous volume modore’s, Apple’s, and Radio Shack’s). The ma- electronics manufacturer Amstrad) from 1986. chines’ specifics usually made the direct transfer of Yet first-generation users around this time gener- code impossible; yet the commonalities were close allyupgradednottoPCsbuttonewplatforms enough for amateur users to make the appropriate from Commodore and Atari. My subjective translations themselves. recollection is that the convention of diverse A further lesson is the need to look beyond the competing hardware platforms did not wilt, in US. In the European markets that responded first the UK, until the arrival of cheap machines based to the microprocessor-driven computer—homes, on the 486 processor around 1993. small business, pre-university education—the What pushed the PC into the traditional niche IBM-compatibles were long understood as one areas was not standardization but economics: the among several possibilities at the high-cost end of logic of mass production drove retail prices to a broad market;5 ‘‘standardization’’ most often a level at which buying a PC made sense. Generic suggested CP/M, not IBM, into the mid-1980s. and nicheless, PCs are increasingly underdeter- Certainly, historians should pay due attention to mined in style and function, and sometimes even the defining role of Commodore, subject of in form (hence the plaintive comment of the arecentpopularaccountthatforcefullydecries Apple campaign’s PC figure: ‘‘The rest of me’s in the Apple-centric nature of much existing litera- some other boxes…’’). At the same time, white- ture.6 Though US-based, Commodore sold heavily collar norms continue to inform, for instance, into Europe, dominating in particular the exten- Microsoft Office, and the mismatch with home sive German home market at a time when Apple’s users’ priorities creates a nagging tension. ‘‘Get machines were beyond most purchasers’ means. a Mac’’ is merely the latest campaign to exploit Commodore’s opening of a home-user market the principle of compatible design, marrying the through price-cutting, it seems, was inspired by technicalities of the PC to the Mac’s established the British firm Sinclair’s success in promoting social and cultural base. limited machines on a price-point design philos- ophy.7 The unique result for Britain was a home References and notes market carved largely between Commodore and 1. Most notably through the thinly veiled totalitarian Sinclair, with some smaller niche suppliers re- references in the iconic Macintosh launch maining viable over a decade or more. advertisement (1984). More subtly, ‘‘Think Putting these insights together allows us to Different’’ (1997–2002) plays on IBM’s venerable understand the rationale behind a variety of corporate motto ‘‘THINK!’’ heterogeneous developments. In Britain, for in- 2. The legal/technical acrobatics of the reverse- stance, the Grundy NewBrain (1983) was a tiny engineering process involved are elegantly handheld device, yet ran CP/M with memory summarized in P. Ceruzzi, A History of Modern expandable to the strictly ‘‘business’’ value of two Computing, MIT Press, 2003, pp. 277-280. megabytes. Acorn’s BBC Microcomputer (1981), 3. For instance: G. Laing, Digital
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Optimizing Processor Performance for Wintel Applications: a Case Study
    Optimizing processor performance for Wintel applications: a case study Demand Technology Software 1020 Eighth Avenue South, Suite 6, Naples, FL 34102 phone: (941) 261-8945 fax: (941) 261-5456 e-mail:markf@ demandtech.com http://www.demandtech.com 1998 Demand Technology, Inc. Application tuning case study ■ The target application is a C program written to perform interval performance data collection for Windows NT ♦ It is important that this program perform well because “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” ♦ Performance Analysts use our product, and they are very demanding customers 1998 Demand Technology, Inc. Wintel application tuning: processor optimization 2 Application tuning case study ■ At a point in development where the code was reasonably mature and stable, I subjected it to performance analysis using several tools. ♦ Microsoft Visual C++ version 5 ♦ Rational Visual Quantify execution profiler ♦ Intel vTune version 2.5 optimization tool 1998 Demand Technology, Inc. Wintel application tuning: processor optimization 3 Windows NT on Intel hardware ■ In order to use vTune effectively, it helps to understand how Intel processor hardware works ♦ extensive Intel processor documentation ships on the product CD ■ Target environment: ♦ Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 ♦ Intel Pentium and Pentium Pro hardware 1998 Demand Technology, Inc. Wintel application tuning: processor optimization 4 NT performance monitoring ■ Performance SeNTrytm collection agent initialization loop until cycle end = TRUE; Win32 API calls to
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing Virtualization to the X86 Architecture with the Original Vmware Workstation
    12 Bringing Virtualization to the x86 Architecture with the Original VMware Workstation EDOUARD BUGNION, Stanford University SCOTT DEVINE, VMware Inc. MENDEL ROSENBLUM, Stanford University JEREMY SUGERMAN, Talaria Technologies, Inc. EDWARD Y. WANG, Cumulus Networks, Inc. This article describes the historical context, technical challenges, and main implementation techniques used by VMware Workstation to bring virtualization to the x86 architecture in 1999. Although virtual machine monitors (VMMs) had been around for decades, they were traditionally designed as part of monolithic, single-vendor architectures with explicit support for virtualization. In contrast, the x86 architecture lacked virtualization support, and the industry around it had disaggregated into an ecosystem, with different ven- dors controlling the computers, CPUs, peripherals, operating systems, and applications, none of them asking for virtualization. We chose to build our solution independently of these vendors. As a result, VMware Workstation had to deal with new challenges associated with (i) the lack of virtual- ization support in the x86 architecture, (ii) the daunting complexity of the architecture itself, (iii) the need to support a broad combination of peripherals, and (iv) the need to offer a simple user experience within existing environments. These new challenges led us to a novel combination of well-known virtualization techniques, techniques from other domains, and new techniques. VMware Workstation combined a hosted architecture with a VMM. The hosted architecture enabled a simple user experience and offered broad hardware compatibility. Rather than exposing I/O diversity to the virtual machines, VMware Workstation also relied on software emulation of I/O devices. The VMM combined a trap-and-emulate direct execution engine with a system-level dynamic binary translator to ef- ficiently virtualize the x86 architecture and support most commodity operating systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Apple Computer: the Iceo Seizes the Internet
    UC Irvine Globalization of I.T. Title Apple Computer: The iCEO Seizes the Internet Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sq9672p Author West, Joel Publication Date 2002-10-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Apple Computer: The iCEO Seizes the Internet October 2002 JOEL WEST Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University of California, Irvine CRITO (Center for Research on Information Technology and Organization) University of California, Irvine 3200 Berkeley Place North Irvine, California 92697-4650 949.824.6387 Tel. 949.824.8091 Fax [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________________ Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University of California, Irvine | www.crito.uci.edu Apple Computer: The iCEO Seizes the Internet Joel West <[email protected]> Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University of California, Irvine http://www.crito.uci.edu/ October 20, 2002 Contents 1. From Innovation to Crisis...................................................................................... 2 Go-it Alone Standards Strategy .....................................................................3 Failure to Respond to Windows Challenge.................................................... 3 2. Revised Business Strategy .....................................................................................4 Technology....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Based Monopolies and Near Monpolies: the Wintel Example
    Standard Based Monopolies and Near Monopolies: The WinTel Example By John F. McGowan, Ph.D. May 3, 1999 Abstract Standard-based monopolies and near monopolies are based on control of de facto industry standards. Usually the monopolist’s product or service is a component of or comprises a network whose many components must work together to produce a useful result. Standardization of the components is required for the network to function. In such situations, customers may become locked into the network that they participate in. Even if a competing network exists, there is substantial cost and practical obstacles to converting to the competing network of products, services, and associated standards. A near monopolist can charge more than its costs and earn monopoly profits due to lock-in. Control of the de facto standards is often achieved and maintained through frequent arbitrary changes to the standards, usually marketed as technological innovation. Intellectual property rights such as patents may also be exploited. Microsoft and Intel are prominent current examples of near monopolies based on control of de facto standards. Introduction A monopoly is a single seller. A monopoly can earn monopoly profits because customers must either buy the product or service at the price set by the monopoly or not buy at all. In a market with many sellers, competition drives the price of a product or service down to the cost of the seller. With a single seller, the seller can charge a higher price than costs. The seller cannot charge any price because at some point the customers will simply not buy the product or service.
    [Show full text]
  • Wintel: Cooperation Or Conflict
    #05-083 Wintel: Cooperation or Conflict Ramon Casadesus-Masanell David B. Yoffie Copyright © 2005 Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Wintel: Cooperation or Conflict∗ Ramon Casadesus-Masanell† David B. Yoffie‡ April 13, 2005 Abstract We study the incentives of complementors (producers of complementary products) to cooperate vs. compete and how these interact. In a system of complements, like the PC, the value of the final product depends on how well the different components work together. This, in turn, depends on the firms’ investment in complementary R&D. We ask whether profit maximizing complementors will fully cooperate to make the final product as valuable as possible. Contrary to the popular view that two tight complements will generally have well aligned incentives, we demonstrate that natural conflicts emerge over pricing, the timing of investments, and who captures the greatest value at different phases of product generations. Preliminary draft ∗We thank Vicente Salas Fumás, Michal Pozarzycki, Ana Sotelo, and seminar participants at IESE’s ‘Brown Bag’ series for helpful comments. †Harvard Business School and IESE Business School ‡Harvard Business School 1 1 Introduction Intel and Microsoft are perhaps the best known pair of complementary firms in the world. More than 80% of the personal computers worldwide ship with an Intel microprocessor running Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Since 1980, when IBM chose both Intel and Microsoft as the core components of the first IBM PC, Intel and Microsoft have been joined at the hip.
    [Show full text]
  • "Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations
    Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations Chapter 17 The Wintel Standards-based Platform Carliss Y. Baldwin Working Paper 20-055 Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations Chapter 17 The Wintel Standards-based Platform Carliss Y. Baldwin Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-055 Copyright © 2019 by Carliss Y. Baldwin Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Funding for this research was provided in part by Harvard Business School. © Carliss Y. Baldwin Comments welcome. Please do not circulate or quote. Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations Chapter 17 The Wintel Standards-based Platform By Carliss Y. Baldwin Note to Readers: This is a draft of Chapter 17 of Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations. It builds on prior chapters, but I believe it is possible to read this chapter on a stand-alone basis. The chapter may be cited as: Baldwin, C. Y. (2019) “The Wintel Standards-based Platform,” HBS Working Paper (November 2019). I would be most grateful for your comments on any aspect of this chapter! Thank you in advance, Carliss. Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to use the theory of bottlenecks laid out in previous chapters to better understand the dynamics of an open standards-based platform. I describe how the Wintel platform evolved from 1990 through 2000 under joint sponsorship of Intel and Microsoft. I first describe a series of technical bottlenecks that arose in the early 1990s concerning the “bus architecture” of IBM-compatible PCs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamic Capabilities View of Coopetition: the Case of Intel, Apple and Microsoft
    The Dynamic Capabilities View of Coopetition: The Case of Intel, Apple and Microsoft Chiara Di Guardo Marco Galvagno University of Cagliari University of Catania 2nd EIASM Workshop on Coopetition Strategy Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy, Sept. 14-15, 2006 Summary Research overview Research questions Lenses for investigation Conceptual Framework Narrative case study Conclusions Contribution and limitations Research overview The paradoxical relationship between cooperation and competition What we already know: Competitors can cooperate and become both more competitive Coopetitive firms have the capability to manage cooperation and competition better than peers or competitors. What we don’t know well: How such a capability develops within a firm? Would it be possible for very good partners to become competitors? Research overview (cont’d) Overarching research question Cooperation Competition ? Research overview (cont’d) Motivations Increasing importance of coopetition as a strategic device : Coopetition have a positive effect on firms’ performance Coopetition as a way to renew organizations and prevent competency traps Coopetition as a strategy to cope with turbulent environments Research questions: How do firms develop coopetitive strategies? Partially convergent interest structure [Dagnino and Padula, 2006] What drives a firm’s decision to compete against a partner? Alliance competence or capability [Kale and Singh, 1999; Anand and Khanna, 2000; Kale et al., 2002; Lambe et al., 2002] Lenses for investigation
    [Show full text]
  • IJREISS Volume2, Issue 6(June 2012) ISSN: 2250-0588 A
    IJREISS Volume2, Issue 6(June 2012) ISSN: 2250-0588 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN MACINTOSH AND WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM Nandita Goyal Bhatnagar Department of CSE, ABES College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA Vishal Gupta Department of CSE, G. B. Pant Engineering College, Pauri, Uttarakhand, INDIA Anubha Chauhan Department of CSE, G. B. Pant Engineering College, Pauri, Uttarakhand, INDIA ABSTRACT In this paper, we're comparing Apple computers running Macintosh and computers running the Windows operating system. We also show the timeline of different releases of both types of systems. By this comparison, the usability and effectiveness of these computers are judged in different scenarios. Also, this paper contains the term PC which stands for personal computer and could apply to Macs, Windows machines and computers running other operating systems alike, we're using it in the common vernacular as shorthand for a Windows machine. Keywords- Operating System, Apple Macintosh, Windows, Security. International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences www.indusedu.org 77 IJREISS Volume2, Issue 6(June 2012) ISSN: 2250-0588 I. INTRODUCTION The Macintosh or Mac, is a series of personal computers (PCs) designed, developed, and marketed by Apple Inc. The first Macintosh was introduced by Apple's then-chairman Steve Jobs on January 24, 1984; it was the first commercially successful personal computer to feature a mouse and a graphical user interface rather than a command-line interface. The company continued to have success through the second half of the 1980s, first primarily because of the sales of the Apple II series remained strong even after the introduction of the Macintosh, only to see it dissipate in the 1990s as the personal computer market shifted toward the "Wintel" platform: IBM PC compatible machines running MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Quantitative Computing
    Numerical Algorithms Group Title: The Future of Quantitative Computing Summary: Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG) recently announced they had been collaborating with Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) to produce math libraries for AMD’s next generation microprocessor- a 64-bit high performance chip named Opteron™. This paper includes the interview between Jim Finnegan, editor of Financial Engineering News, and Dr. Ian Reid, vice president of business development at NAG to discuss the significance of this announcement. Finnegan: So tell me more about your relationship with AMD based on their recent announcements? Reid: We’ve been working with AMD to develop the basic math libraries for their new 64-bit chips generically termed AMD64. On the one hand, there is a very basic math library all compilers need and it provides the likes of trigonometric functions (sine, cosine etc). What we’ve done with AMD is to make these functions very high performance and accurate. And let me stress “accurate” in that statement, because what we’ve found that some people emphasize computational speed over accuracy. They’ll come to us and say ‘Well, you are slower than Company X on these speed benchmarks.’ But we come back and say, ‘Well yes, but we get the right answer and they don’t. So, how fast do you want the wrong answer?’ It’s the combination of speed and accuracy that defines for us the most important metric which is computational efficiency. Finnegan: So is your basic math library to be used on the new AMD chip, is this something that is part of their new chip architecture? Reid: No.
    [Show full text]
  • 101 Ways to Save Apple by James Daly
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.06/apple_pr.html 101 Ways to Save Apple By James Daly An assessment of what can be done to fix a once-great company. Dear Apple, In the movie Independence Day, a PowerBook saves the earth from destruction. Now it's time to return the favor. Unfortunately, even devoted Mac addicts must admit that you look a little beleaguered these days: a confusing product line, little inspiration from the top, software developers fleeing. But who wants to live in a world without you? Not us. So we surveyed a cross section of hardcore Mac fans and came up with 101 ways to get you back on the path to salvation. We chose not to resort to time travel or regurgitate the same old shoulda/coulda/wouldas (you shoulda licensed your OS in 1987, for instance, or coulda upped your price/performance in 1993). We don't believe Apple is rotten to the core. Chrysler nearly went under in the late 1970s and came back to lead its industry. Here's a fresh assessment of what can be done to fix your once-great company using the material at hand. Don't wait for a miracle. You have the power to save the world - and yourself. Edited by James Daly 1. Admit it. You're out of the hardware game. Outsource your hardware production, or scrap it entirely, to compete more directly with Microsoft without the liability of manufacturing boxes. 2. License the Apple name/technology to appliance manufacturers and build GUIs for every possible device - from washing machines to telephones to WebTV.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Externalities in the Computer Operating Systems Market
    The Journal of Applied Business Research – First Quarter 2008 Volume 24, Number 1 The Effect Of Java On Network Benefits In Computer Software Markets Supriya Sarnikar, (E-mail: [email protected]), Westfield State College ABSTRACT In markets that exhibit network effects it is often believed that society gets inefficiently locked into an inferior technology. This paper utilizes data generated by a natural experiment, afforded by the introduction of the programming language Java, to test whether computer software markets are prone to inefficient lock-in. Findings from a hedonic price regression indicate that Java effectively increased the level of competition in the software applications market and lowered prices of applications software. The regression results are not consistent with the hypothesis of inefficient lock-in. INTRODUCTION n a recent antitrust action1 against Microsoft Corporation, it was argued that the large installed base of Microsoft‟s Windows operating system virtually guaranteed its continued dominance in the computer operating systems market. The market for computer software is widely believed to be characterized by Inetwork effects.2 Existing literature suggests that network effects lead to de-facto standardization and that the presence of a large installed base often leads to de-facto standardization and excess inertia in the adoption of new and superior technologies. See for eg., Farrell and Saloner(1986)3, Katz and Shapiro(1986), Arthur(1989) and, Mitchell and Skrzpacz(2006). Anecdotal and experimental evidence is provided in the literature which suggests that the technologies adopted in some markets such as typewriters (David, 1985), Video Cassette Recorders (Cusumano et.al., 1992), nuclear submarines (Cowan, 1990) etc., may have been inefficient because users were locked into inferior technologies in these markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Instruction Description Example Mov Eax,7 Mov Move Data Src -> Dst Mov Edx,[0Xf0ff] Add/Sub Add/Subtract Vals in Reg
    CS5600 - PC H/W & Assembly Overview • Hardware basics • PC Bootup Sequence • x86 basics • Intro to OS Hardware Basics • PC compatible, “Wintel" • alternatives: Amiga, PowePC, DEC Alpha, SPARC, etc. • 1981 IBM PC (compete with Apple) • 1982 Compaq IBM-compatible PC • 1985 IBM clones everywhere! • 1986 Compaq 80386-based PC • 1990s Wintel • x86, Pemtium I, II, III … • x86_64 AMD … tomorrow? Motherboard CPU I/O Memory BIOS South-Bridge • I/O between CPU, devices and MM North-Bridge • Coordinates access to MM Storage Connectors • (S)ATA Conceptually L1,+L2,+L3+ CPU(s) Cache All+devices+ compete+for+ access+to+memory North/South+ Graphics Memory Bridge Graphics+ Memory I/O I/O … I/O 16 Simplified CPU Layout Control Unit Instruction Decode ALU ALU FPU Registers Instruction Fetch Cache L1, L2, L3 System Bus Registers • Storage build into the CPU • Can hold valued or pointer • Instructions operate directly on registers • Load from memory • Load to memory Registers • Some registers are special • point to the current instruction in memory • point to top of the stack • configure low-level CPU features • … Memory Hierarchy x86_32 Registers x86 Registers • EIP • Points to currently executing instruction • EFLAGS • Think of it as scratch register, e.g., results after comparison, carry after addition. • Sometimes referred to as the machine status word register x86 instructions Instruction Description Example mov eax,7 mov Move data src -> dst mov edx,[0xF0FF] add/sub Add/subtract vals in reg. add eax,eab inc/dec Increment/decrement value in reg. inc eax
    [Show full text]