>>78
>These architectures were displaced by PC because they are just tiny incompatible domains with "approved" hardware(just like Macs) while PC is an open standard.
WHAT?
Most of those CPUs have fully open specs if you plan to develop on them, you can download the documentation freely from the manufacturers website (and other support sites), just like you can do for Intel CPUs. And in a lot of cases, these CPUs are available for those wanting to design their own platforms/devices or code for a specific platform.
Some specific platforms, such as consoles/handhelds may have specific libraries which are not available except under a NDA, and you may need a debug device to actually write code for that platform, but the
actual CPU specs and usage tends to be as open as it gets. Take this in another way: let's say you have private OS(ex. modified version of Windows) for which you're given no documentation which runs on your console(ex. Xbox), however the console's CPU and hardware are known(slightly modifed x86 P3). The same logic could be aplied to the DS or PS3 and other consoles/devices, as the actual CPUs which are used in those platforms are incredibly well documented( think thousands of pages of freely available documentation ).
Oh and Macs are x86 and you can run the software on a standard PC as long as the Mac has drivers for whatever peripherals you have.
Why the fuck am I even bothering answering to your posts, you've repeatedly proven incapable of understanding such simple concepts.
RAEG IHBT