[Info-vax] VSI licensing policy (again), was: Re: VSI has a new CEO

[John Dallman]

In article <cd94fd57-441f-4af0-8109-2b4b6d145306n at googlegroups.com>,
lawrencedo99 at gmail.com (Lawrence D_Oliveiro) wrote:

> It_s worth noting that these are not _ARM processors_ in any 
> general sense, but only a specific family of Qualcomm Snapdragon 
> chips. Remember, the ARM ecosystem is huge, with a range of 
> companies and volume of unit shipments that completely dwarf x86. 
> For example, the Raspberry Pi runs a Broadcom processor. Samsung 
> also make their own ARM chips. And of course we know about Apple's 
> ones.

My view of ARM processors is concentrated on the fast 64-bit ones for
applications, mobile and otherwise, rather than embedded or other areas.
Within that:

Qualcomm's cores have their own branding, but are based on ARM Holding
core designs. Qualcomm make a fuss about their custom work but observing
the changes in performance over a few generations, it tracks closely with
ARM's Cortex-A7x series core designs. I've recently got to use Android
devices with ARM Cortex-X1 cores, in Snapdragon 888 SoCs, and they are
surprisingly close to Apple M1 performance. 

Broadcom's chips use ARM Cortex-A cores, and they don't conceal that. 

Samsung used to design their own cores, in the Exynos family, but they
used ARM Cortex-A cores for the American and South Korean markets, and
have recently given up on Exynos. 

Apple's designs are entirely their own, of course. But lots of other SoC
manufacturers just use ARM Cortex-Ax cores. 

> The problem is that ARM lacks a standardized BIOS layer like has 
> been a traditional part of x86. Without such a system, Windows is 
> lost.

That is, indeed, a big problem. Microsoft could produce a standard, but
are rather tentative about ARM in some ways. 

John