Non x86 based PC for everyday usage

[fastgear]

I just found this interesting article published two years ago:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2834764/ ... rains.html

[White Flame]

If you want more RAM and expandability than all-in-one ARM boards & dongles, one thing you could do is buy used server hardware on eBay. You can get some POWER based or other weird server class stuff if you're in the right place at the right time. Linux would be your best bet there, obviously, but getting it to run is left as an exercise^W^W a doctoral thesis for the user.

[GARTHWILSON]

We have a good topic on a 65xx-based PC at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39 from 2003, entitled, "Survey: A 65C02-based PC." There's another good one I wish I could remember adequate search terms to find, started by Samuel Falvo.

[Bregalad]

Ok, I admit my last comment was quick and non-constructive, so let's clarify thing out :

I do not plan to buy any non-x86 based computer myself right now, however I just wondered if I wanted to, what the possibilities were. Obviously, they are quite low.

Chromebooks : Perhaps this is the most "serious" thing, as it really looks identical to any other laptop physically. Yet I've never seen any in real life so I cannot comment. I just don't like the fact it comes from Google, even if I can just trash the original OS and use Linux instead, which makes it a non-issue. Apparently, the newer ones are going X86, so only older ones still have ARM - no issue I can buy them used or buy one of the latest ARM model which is still in sale. The price is very low, which is nice but makes me wonder about the warability of the hardware - I'm afraid this is yet another 2-year-lifetime machine, which I personally do not find acceptable.

So in summary, it might be acceptable, but it look like production of ARM-based chromebooks already stopped. I also don't like that only laptop exists - no way to get a traditional boxed PC extended by external screen/keyboard/mouse.

Old G3/G4 Mac : Although I won't go in details about my personal dislike of the company, and I could probably scrap the original OS and use Linux instead, just like I'd do for the Chromebook. So yeah it can be fine, but what about replacement parts when one of them breaks down ? Macs aren't known for their amazing expandability, and chances are that I couldn't find any - maybe on the used market but that's not even sure. Neededless to say, production stopped long before chromebook, so that's even worse. The good point is that those are traditional boxed computer, more wearable than laptops.

(By the way, what's wrong with Apple ? They betrayed MOStech to go Motorola, then betrayed Motorola to go IMB/PPC, and then finally betrayed IBM/PPC to go X86. Could they be any less faithful ? Who said backwards compatibility was the #1 reason x86 still exists ?)

Old acorn computers : I don't know squat about them, but if production ceased in the early 90s this makes it extremely difficult to find replacement parts, and probably not enough RAM to run modern free software on them. It is then about the same as an Amiga, yes, those were probably amazing back then and superior to PCs on a purely technical point of view, but oh well...

Rasberry Pi : Actually probably the most serious proposal. I'm just afraid the connectivity is a bit low, and having a large sized drive would be an issue, maybe the thing's a little underpowered, although it's not that bad since Rasberry 3. Perhaps an overclocked Rasberry with added dissipators and fans is a good idea

65c816 based computer : Amazing idea, yet it cannot support linux because gcc cannot generate code for the processor. Yet again I bet the AppleIIGS would be the best option, but I do not know how much this computer is usable today - probably none since it can only run its own OS and almost no software runs on it, and it probably only supports its own extension cards.


So, precise requirements I consider to make a computer "usable for everyday usage" are :

- Replacement parts should be available, when a hardware in the PC fails (on either the new or used market - I do not care)
- Comes with connectivity comparable to a PC - some IDE or SATA connectors for drives, many USB ports, PS/2 ports for keyboard/mouse and disc drive are nice but not required.
- Can run existing Linux distributions
- Powerful enough to run a browser and to do run software like GNU Octave (no need to be extremely fast).
- I have nothing against old or discontinued hardware, but I need to be able to replace parts

Something I wonder : Why does Debian supports 10 architectures, when people are basically limited to x86 or AMD64 hardware, and maybe ARM?

[White Flame]

Bregalad wrote:

Something I wonder : Why does Debian supports 10 architectures, when people are basically limited to x86 or AMD64 hardware, and maybe ARM?

The "limited to x86 or AMD64 hardware" is only when talking about "normal" desktop use and commodity servers. However, lots of people run Linux on devices that aren't bound to those use cases, especially embedded and legacy stuff.

Also, there's only actually 5 platform families represented there: x86, ARM, MIPS, PPC, and Z-series.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

GARTHWILSON wrote:

We have a good topic on a 65xx-based PC at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39 from 2003, entitled, "Survey: A 65C02-based PC." There's another good one I wish I could remember adequate search terms to find, started by Samuel Falvo.

That topic veered so far off-course the end post wasn't even tangentially related to the beginning. Also, it was full of extraneous back-and-forth about programming languages. A classic example of design-by-committee.

[whartung]

Bregalad wrote:

Chromebooks : Perhaps this is the most "serious" thing, as it really looks identical to any other laptop physically. Yet I've never seen any in real life so I cannot comment. I just don't like the fact it comes from Google, even if I can just trash the original OS and use Linux instead, which makes it a non-issue. Apparently, the newer ones are going X86, so only older ones still have ARM - no issue I can buy them used or buy one of the latest ARM model which is still in sale. The price is very low, which is nice but makes me wonder about the warability of the hardware - I'm afraid this is yet another 2-year-lifetime machine, which I personally do not find acceptable.

The hardware has no moving parts, save for the screen hinge -- not a lot to actually wear out here. (Well, maybe it has a fan that never turns on.)

I do not own a CB. I'm sure, like anything else, build quality is commensurate with price. While the CB has special integrations with the Google eco-system, it should run Office 365 just fine, or any other web-only environment that you're comfortable with or willing to host yourself.

Quote:

So in summary, it might be acceptable, but it look like production of ARM-based chromebooks already stopped. I also don't like that only laptop exists - no way to get a traditional boxed PC extended by external screen/keyboard/mouse.

You can also install Chromium (which is the OSS version of the Chrome Ecosystem) most any place you want (such as the Rasp Pi).

Quote:

Old G3/G4 Mac : Although I won't go in details about my personal dislike of the company, and I could probably scrap the original OS and use Linux instead, just like I'd do for the Chromebook. So yeah it can be fine, but what about replacement parts when one of them breaks down ? Macs aren't known for their amazing expandability, and chances are that I couldn't find any - maybe on the used market but that's not even sure. Neededless to say, production stopped long before chromebook, so that's even worse. The good point is that those are traditional boxed computer, more wearable than laptops.

The older Macs still run generic parts inside. Generic IDE/CD drives. USB keyboards and mice. Off the shelf memory. Only the motherboards are proprietary.

Quote:

(By the way, what's wrong with Apple ? They betrayed MOStech to go Motorola, then betrayed Motorola to go IMB/PPC, and then finally betrayed IBM/PPC to go X86. Could they be any less faithful ? Who said backwards compatibility was the #1 reason x86 still exists ?)

"Betrayed" is a strong word. PPC was a Motorola/IBM joint effort in the beginning. Apple moved on because the CPU makers were dragging their feet in the workstation and, more notably, the laptop/portable space. Could they have worked more amicably? Perhaps, but it's not as if Apple was eager to switch computing architectures 3 times. "Yea, let's do that - it'll save us lots of money!" It's a modern marvel that they were able to pull it off as seamlessly as they did.

The wind is in the air that Apple will be shoving their ARM chips in to their laptop PCs sooner rather than later. I have no doubt they have macOS up and running on the ARM architecture in house. The iPad Pro is nothing to sneeze at performance-wise, it's just a matter of Apple wrangling up the developers and pulling the trigger to bring that chip to a laptop.

Quote:

Rasberry Pi : Actually probably the most serious proposal. I'm just afraid the connectivity is a bit low, and having a large sized drive would be an issue, maybe the thing's a little underpowered, although it's not that bad since Rasberry 3. Perhaps an overclocked Rasberry with added dissipators and fans is a good idea

I don't think there's any issue whatsoever plugging a 2TB drive in to a RPis USB port and having linux see that and manage it.

Quote:

65c816 based computer : Amazing idea, yet it cannot support linux because gcc cannot generate code for the processor. Yet again I bet the AppleIIGS would be the best option, but I do not know how much this computer is usable today - probably none since it can only run its own OS and almost no software runs on it, and it probably only supports its own extension cards.

GCC is not the only, nor even the primary, thing holding back a 65c816 linux machine...

Quote:

So, precise requirements I consider to make a computer "usable for everyday usage" are :

- Replacement parts should be available, when a hardware in the PC fails (on either the new or used market - I do not care)
- Comes with connectivity comparable to a PC - some IDE or SATA connectors for drives, many USB ports, PS/2 ports for keyboard/mouse and disc drive are nice but not required.
- Can run existing Linux distributions
- Powerful enough to run a browser and to do run software like GNU Octave (no need to be extremely fast).
- I have nothing against old or discontinued hardware, but I need to be able to replace parts

Old Macs and old Sun Workstations (SPARC) fill these bills quite well.

Biggest problem with old hardware today is simply memory density. Getting the GBs on to the motherboards that folks are used to today.

Quote:

Something I wonder : Why does Debian supports 10 architectures, when people are basically limited to x86 or AMD64 hardware, and maybe ARM?

Most of this is server work.

[Tor]

For the Raspberry Pi there's this of course: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13896

For desktop use, and if you have no cost concerns, there's also this upcoming one (PPC based): https://www.raptorengineering.com/TALOS/prerelease.php

-Tor

[Bregalad]

whartung wrote:

The hardware has no moving parts, save for the screen hinge -- not a lot to actually wear out here. (Well, maybe it has a fan that never turns on.)

Unfortunately hardware do not need moving parts in order to be ****ty/not wearable. I have already been a CCS victim numerous times (cheap Chinese ****). For real life examples, I had a USB hub breaking down after only 3 years of use, a SSD breaking down after barely more than 1 year of use, and a MIDI<->USB adapter that broke down after 2 years of use. Numerous power supplies, too. None of them had any moving parts. Today's electronics prices are extremely low, but quality (in sense of wearability) has been dropping just as much, probably on purpose to people continue to buy new stuff constantly.

That is why I suspect $250 is not expensive enough for a Laptop, with such a low price tag, I expect to have problems in the next couple of years because of CCS hardware.

Quote:

I do not own a CB. I'm sure, like anything else, build quality is commensurate with price. While the CB has special integrations with the Google eco-system, it should run Office 365 just fine, or any other web-only environment that you're comfortable with or willing to host yourself.

Yes, quality is often (not always !) commensurate with price, which in this particular case is rather bad news.

Is it a requirement to boot on a web-only environment ? If so this rules it out immediately. I want to stock and backup my data privately, I do not want it to be stored in clear in obscure servers owned by some company.

Quote:

The older Macs still run generic parts inside. Generic IDE/CD drives. USB keyboards and mice. Off the shelf memory. Only the motherboards are proprietary.

That's rather great news. So, I guess this make macs Gx series good candidates for generic non-x86 based personal computers, despite their age.

Quote:

"Betrayed" is a strong word.

Indeed, on purpose. MOSTEC went bankrupt when apple stopped to use their chips (although I am not sure which caused which), and leaving the Power PC architecture definitely brought major problem to IBM.

Quote:

PPC was a Motorola/IBM joint effort in the beginning.

Oh, thanks for clarifying I wasn't aware.

Quote:

I don't think there's any issue whatsoever plugging a 2TB drive in to a RPis USB port and having linux see that and manage it.

Yes, but it probably requires an external USB hub, as you already have to use both USB ports for keyboard and mouse. It's also probably going to be slow, which is a non-issue since the system can be stored on a fast SD card and the large data on the slow external drive.

Quote:

For the Raspberry Pi there's this of course: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13896

For desktop use, and if you have no cost concerns, there's also this upcoming one (PPC based): https://www.raptorengineering.com/TALOS/prerelease.php

Both looks amazing ! The 2nd one looks very expensive though, but I can deal with that if the wearability follows. (i.e. I'd rather pay $2000 for 20 years than $200 for 2 years).

@BigDumbDinosaur : Since you're here, is there any specific non-x86 solution you're wishing to suggest?

EDIT : I'm now playing with a raspberry pi, it's amazing, but quite slow. (I know it's not its fault but rather bloatware's, but heh...)

[BigEd]

It's a tall order to ask for something which uses recent technology, has a long life span, is in desktop format, and isn't an x86!

I realise that I have some prejudice of my own, and some inconsistency too - I don't much like Intel, or Apple, as companies, but I'm very happy to run an x86-based Apple laptop (with no moving parts, except the fan which is almost always off.) Not a cheap solution, and probably limited lifespan too. I tend to buy refurb, to get a slightly cheaper deal.

I think part of ARM's trouble in this space is getting beyond 4G of RAM, which shouldn't be necessary of course but we all know about RAM bloat. And I bet Intel has applied lots of pressure and assistance to get their chips designed in.

Just for the record, I see 4 models of ARM-based Chromebook today, from Acer and Asus.
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/s_action/ ... 29662.html
I like a light machine, which means a smaller one. I'd go for 4G not 2G of RAM.

[sark02]

I wonder what people's motivations are for wanting a general purpose computer that's non-x86 based. If you want USB, SATA, decent graphics, enough RAM and CPU power to run applications... and indeed the ability to _find_ applications for your choice of platform, then the x86 is a perfect choice. I find it an ugly architecture, but the power and economics of the end product, coupled its huge software and peripheral hardware market are hard to beat. Much of the power of an x86 system comes from its huge caches and wide memory/fast memory subsystem. The less you need to leave the chip, the better... but if you do, you won't be gone long. Then comes the established Windows OS and its driver stack, which lets you go out and buy PCIE cards and USB devices that "just work". Love or hate Windows, it's a working platform (personal anecdotes notwithstanding). Linux has a fair amount of device support, but it's not in the same league as Windows. I'm not and never have been a Windows programmer. I'm a UNIX guy through and through, but I appreciate Windows as the OS that runs the tools that I use to do my work and my play.

If you do settle for something of a lower specification, just to "stick it to the man", then you may find that what you've bought yourself is a _client_ computer - running little more than a browser. You're still using an x86... but it's someone else's... out there in the the cloud. The web server that served you this web page no doubt runs on an x86.

Why do Linux distributions support different architectures? Consumer-wise, there are phones and gadgets running Linux on all sorts of hardware. Embedded systems, Ethernet switches, routers, set-top boxes, printers, network-attached thermostats... control boxes for all sorts of unexpected uses. Linux on non-x86 hardware is everywhere... it's just that as a desktop replacement it's... well... not really appropriate in my opinion.

The ARMv8 architecture pushes ARM into the 64-bit realm, along with support for big memory, DDR3 interfaces, etc. Even then, ARMv8 implementations will need huge caches for performance for the same reason x86 needs them. Worse, perhaps, the RISC nature of ARM instructions means that you need more bytes of ARM cache to hold an algorithm than you'd need with x86. Don't sweat the instruction decoder or rehash the RISC vs. CISC debate. Intel know how to efficiently decode their ISA... that's not a performance point. Cache occupancy is.

I work in embedded systems, and my particular product group use Linux on MIPS32, for reasons some of which aren't technical. Other product groups historically used other architectures, such as PowerPC, for embedded management of their products, but have in recent years transitioned over to x86... which now hit the size, power and thermal targets whilst delivering much more horsepower and, to cap it all, bring along the x86 ecosystem.


If you'd like to try a non-x86 computer for day-to-day activity then my suggestion would be a Raspberry Pi 3. It runs Linux, has USB for keyboard/mouse, HDMI video out, and Ethernet. I have a Pi B that I use (if you can believe it) as a webserver off a microSD card. Yes.. really. Why? Because why not?

R-Pis are silly-cheap. Grab one and try it. If you find you don't like it, just give it away... but you may find it's kind of neat.

[Tor]

Hmm.. in my experience Linux has much better integrated device support than Windows. Except for some very closed, low-quality stuff like R*tek and B*com, stay away at all costs. But, anyway.
Today I was reading through an industrial electronics magazine we get at work, and there was an ad from a manufacturer where they announced various ARM-based computers/motherboards in various standard ATX|ITX form factors (all five of those pictured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_form_factor).
With SATA and everything you would expect from a PC, with the only exception of max physical memory, bailing out at 4GB from my cursory glance. Fix that, and I wouldn't need anything else.

[White Flame]

I agree with Tor, in that if your device isn't brand spanking new, chances are the Windows drivers won't work anymore with newer OS versions. Linux maintains compatibility much better, and "plug and play" acts much more like its namesake in Linux than Windows.

[Bregalad]

sark02 wrote:

I wonder what people's motivations are for wanting a general purpose computer that's non-x86 based.

Ask this to BigDumbDinosaur. His signature combined with my curiousity is the only reason. Added with the fact that I always see packages available for a s**tload of various architectures and I always pick the same, "i686" no matter on which machine I work. (Raspberry pi being the only exeption so far).

Quote:

The less you need to leave the chip, the better... but if you do, you won't be gone long.
[...]
Even then, ARMv8 implementations will need huge caches for performance for the same reason x86 needs them.
[...]
Don't sweat the instruction decoder or rehash the RISC vs. CISC debate. Intel know how to efficiently decode their ISA... that's not a performance point. Cache occupancy is.

ARM also have a "thumb" mode where instructions are 16-bit making code much smaller. Apparently, I wasn't able to get any Thumb to compile with my Raspberry though, perhaps the CPU doesn't support it?

On the Game Boy Advance platform, it's common for games to be written ~98% in Thumb and only tight optimized programs to be written in ARM (since the ROM has a 16-bit port anyway, executing ARM code needs 2 cycles per instructions, which is uneffective - so only code loaded in RAM is potentially worth being written in ARM).

Quote:

Then comes the established Windows OS and its driver stack, which lets you go out and buy PCIE cards and USB devices that "just wor". Love or hate Windows, it's a working platform (personal anecdotes notwithstanding).

I love the old Windows, but I hate the new ones. Windows 7 is mediocre, but is the last decent one of the bunch. The newer ones are complete and utter ****, and it doesn't sound Microsoft is ever going to release a decent operating system ever again. I can still run Win7 on modern machines, but it's compatibility with 16-bit DOS programs is half-assed (probably much more than half - I have to use DOSBox to run anything old), and it doesn't support fullscreen DOS programs, period. The 64-bit variant of the OS doesn't even supports 16-bit programs at all, which I find a scandal.

Most modern software I use are GNU programs that I stay up to date, and I can have the exact same on Linux. The only reason I still use Windows is that I have a large pool of extremely old software that I cannot or do not want to part with. But eventually I will have to part with it because even if I want to use a recent Windows, it won't be compatible - so that day I will have no reason to use Windows any more, especially not with ****ty graphical interfaces and MS spying issues. Thus, no reason to use x86 or PC-compatible machines.

Quote:

Why do Linux distributions support different architectures? Consumer-wise, there are phones and gadgets running Linux on all sorts of hardware.

99% of them being ARM architecture. Yet, Linux supports many architectures which are neither x86 nor ARM.

Quote:

Other product groups historically used other architectures, such as PowerPC, [...] but have in recent years transitioned over to x86... which now hit the size, power and thermal targets whilst delivering much more horsepower and, to cap it all, bring along the x86 ecosystem.

Sounds very similar to Apple.

Quote:

If you'd like to try a non-x86 computer for day-to-day activity then my suggestion would be a Raspberry Pi 3. It runs Linux, has USB for keyboard/mouse, HDMI video out, and Ethernet. I have a Pi B that I use (if you can believe it) as a webserver off a microSD card. Yes.. really. Why? Because why not?

R-Pis are silly-cheap. Grab one and try it. If you find you don't like it, just give it away... but you may find it's kind of neat.

That's exactly what I am doing right now I love it, but it is a bit slow. I have the first model by the way, not a 3.

[BigEd]

It very much depends on what you think of as general purpose computing. BDD develops microprocessor systems and does other engineering consulting. Probably he's not running Steam or Photoshop.

For the later ARM chips, you need Thumb2 rather than Thumb - line up the right compiler or assembler options, and be sure you have a Pi 2 or Pi 3. I think the original Pi lacks Thumb entirely - no, I take that back.