PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I've been noticing a trend among a few serious programmers and game programmers lately. And I think it's a good idea, myself.
There's a lot of debate these days whether to have a computer with ARM or x86, with most people choosing x86.
Most desktop and laptop computers are considered x86 by the definition I'm using. If it was ARM, you'd probably know. x86 is the standard in most laptops and desktops. It's the default or status quo, usually.
An example of an ARM PC is the Raspberry Pi, but the best ARM PCs are more expensive and made by NVIDIA, and now there's one by Apple. ARM doesn't have as much program or game support as x86, but it consumes significantly less power, and doesn't require lots of space or electricity or massive cooling solutions, even in cases where the chips have a lot of performance - even in some cases, such as the most expensive ones, outperforming some x86 desktops, including low-end gaming desktops with dedicated graphics hardware.
But a trend I'm starting to notice is some programmers owning both an x86 machine for certain things, maybe even playing a few games on it in their leisure, and owning an ARM PC as well, like one of the ones from NVIDIA.
Now here's the cool thing. There is no requirement their x86 machine be faster than their ARM PC, even if they link them up to exchange information back and forth to each other via USB. Let's say they are using a $200 Pentium x86 PC, and pairing it with a little $699 Xavier AGX supercomputer that is ARM.
The Pentium x86 can still do things the ARM which is much faster can't, as part of being x86, such as make OS boot usbs which are used for installing OSes. As an example.
And the ARM PC can do a lot of other tasks. Just not necessarily the most administrative, system level ones.
When people follow this concept, they often call the x86 PC the Host Machine, and the ARM PC the "dev kit". Even in cases where a lot of game/app development happens on the ARM PC, as it in some cases should. This is the way I understand it.
I just think it's a great idea. It's an idea I may have come up with myself eventually, but other people saved me the trouble.
I'll provide an analogy to show such an idea in action-
"Snow White could have bought $1500 in PC parts and built a x86 PC herself, for development. Instead, she bought a $200 x86 used desktop for system / OS tasks, and bought a $699 ARM supercomputer to power her development, making the game or app mostly on the supercomputer, and also testing it on there. Her tools are versatile enough that she can make the game or app run on either an x86 or an ARM machine, but with her setup, she has to use the ARM setup which is more powerful, to play the game at full graphics settings."
This is just one way of doing things, but really, it has its benefits for me.
Of course, still other programmers may find other creative ways, in which they do similar things, but disagree that this exact approach is how things should be done.
In conclusion:
I find that I may be getting pretty good at art. I gave up development/programming awhile back. One of the main reasons why was that I was into making games, yet I gave up, because I couldn't make really, really good 2D art. I've allowed myself time to get a bit better at art. So I may pick up programming again. Even if I've found I've recently fell much more in love with art.
Some of the concepts I talked about in this thread may be really, really difficult for the audience here to understand. Not everyone has the background knowledge in programming and computers. But the fact some do understand, and there are a few other programmers on this forum.... maybe my thoughts would be useful, as another way of looking at things.
Or maybe I'm just talking to myself
- in which case, this is just another Journal post, lol.
There's a lot of debate these days whether to have a computer with ARM or x86, with most people choosing x86.
Most desktop and laptop computers are considered x86 by the definition I'm using. If it was ARM, you'd probably know. x86 is the standard in most laptops and desktops. It's the default or status quo, usually.
An example of an ARM PC is the Raspberry Pi, but the best ARM PCs are more expensive and made by NVIDIA, and now there's one by Apple. ARM doesn't have as much program or game support as x86, but it consumes significantly less power, and doesn't require lots of space or electricity or massive cooling solutions, even in cases where the chips have a lot of performance - even in some cases, such as the most expensive ones, outperforming some x86 desktops, including low-end gaming desktops with dedicated graphics hardware.
But a trend I'm starting to notice is some programmers owning both an x86 machine for certain things, maybe even playing a few games on it in their leisure, and owning an ARM PC as well, like one of the ones from NVIDIA.
Now here's the cool thing. There is no requirement their x86 machine be faster than their ARM PC, even if they link them up to exchange information back and forth to each other via USB. Let's say they are using a $200 Pentium x86 PC, and pairing it with a little $699 Xavier AGX supercomputer that is ARM.
The Pentium x86 can still do things the ARM which is much faster can't, as part of being x86, such as make OS boot usbs which are used for installing OSes. As an example.
And the ARM PC can do a lot of other tasks. Just not necessarily the most administrative, system level ones.
When people follow this concept, they often call the x86 PC the Host Machine, and the ARM PC the "dev kit". Even in cases where a lot of game/app development happens on the ARM PC, as it in some cases should. This is the way I understand it.
I just think it's a great idea. It's an idea I may have come up with myself eventually, but other people saved me the trouble.
I'll provide an analogy to show such an idea in action-
"Snow White could have bought $1500 in PC parts and built a x86 PC herself, for development. Instead, she bought a $200 x86 used desktop for system / OS tasks, and bought a $699 ARM supercomputer to power her development, making the game or app mostly on the supercomputer, and also testing it on there. Her tools are versatile enough that she can make the game or app run on either an x86 or an ARM machine, but with her setup, she has to use the ARM setup which is more powerful, to play the game at full graphics settings."
This is just one way of doing things, but really, it has its benefits for me.
Of course, still other programmers may find other creative ways, in which they do similar things, but disagree that this exact approach is how things should be done.
In conclusion:
I find that I may be getting pretty good at art. I gave up development/programming awhile back. One of the main reasons why was that I was into making games, yet I gave up, because I couldn't make really, really good 2D art. I've allowed myself time to get a bit better at art. So I may pick up programming again. Even if I've found I've recently fell much more in love with art.
Some of the concepts I talked about in this thread may be really, really difficult for the audience here to understand. Not everyone has the background knowledge in programming and computers. But the fact some do understand, and there are a few other programmers on this forum.... maybe my thoughts would be useful, as another way of looking at things.
Or maybe I'm just talking to myself
- in which case, this is just another Journal post, lol.