Why did intel give up on NVRAM?
>>106515302Why did you jerk off to tranny porn?
>>106515320Nta but I've been jerking off to futa for practically as long as I could jerk off, within a year at least.
>>106515320post nose
>>106515413>>106515404can we plz stay on topic? why did intel give up on NVRAM anons wasnt it the next big thing?
>>106515441Stop jerking off to trannys. Sick freak.
>>106515302Could you repeat the question please ?
>>106515441Not sure about Intel but NVRAM is alive and well on MacOS. It stores everything from whether to enable the boot chime, to your language, keyboard layout, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi pairings so that it sets up your locale, and autoconnects your peripherals and the network in recovery mode.
>>106515523isnt NVRAM on macs like so small that its used for like volune, display resolution and other meaningless system related tasks i could give a fuck about.Intel was working on making NVRAM in hopes of replacing DRAM as main memory but ended up giving up on project in 2022. There's no one in field actually gunning for NVRAM as a sub to DRAM currently.
>>106515302NVRAM lets a computer shut off and continue without rebooting. Intel is tied to the main OS on their chips, Windows. And that's the OS that would benefit the least from a technology that doesn't need reboots.
>>106515523PCs store UEFI settings in either battery backed RAM or flash, same as Macs do. Mac just calls it NVRAM since battery backed RAM is a type of NVRAM, just not the type being discussed here. They've also called it PRAM in the past. PCs mostly call it CMOS, after the technology the little static RAM chip it was once stored in was made with.The discussion here is about other types of memory that read and write individual bytes fast and in unlimited cycles like RAM, but retain data when powered off like flash. Idea being if you used that instead of RAM, the machine could power off completely and then the OS could pick back up where it left off, as if it was suspended instead. And if you also replaced the disk with more of the same, you could have everything in one big address space and never have to wait for a file to load into RAM.
>>106517128why are reboots bad for windows?>>106517178It seems like intel ended up giving up on it though they had billions of dollars going towards finding a successful candidate that would work but stopped suddenly in 2022 with no explicit reason?
>>106517201My point was that if your platform's main OS requires frequent reboots because of how the software is designed, a hardware technology for avoiding reboots is less useful. Meanwhile if you had an OS that can run stably for years and apply patches to the running kernel and libraries in RAM, and most reboots happened because of power failures or random bit flips in RAM, a more reliable memory technology that retains data without power would be very useful.
