Because if we don’t have any architecture competition, innovation is limited to what can be done while remaining compatible with IBM PC DOS. There should be competition. The Intel-compatible monoculture is a bug, not a feature.

>Do we need 16-core PIC16 Mini ATX workstation too?

Now this is just garbage. I doubt you are really ignorant enough to believe modern ARM cores are effectively in the same class as PIC16.

But honestly, unless you have a vested interest in the failure of non-Intel-based architectures, then what do you care? Why the intellectual hostility? Why are we asking “why” instead of “why not?”

I like ARM. I would buy this machine.

> Do we need 16-core PIC16 Mini ATX workstation too?

If it were usable for my workloads (running *nix, basically), I would absolutely love that. ...I admit, I'm struggling to think how to scale PIC up that much, and IIRC doesn't it use Harvard architecture? That'd be a struggle. But anyways, yes, if we could make it work then that would be beautiful.

> IIRC doesn't it use Harvard architecture?

Indeed it does. PIC32, on the other hand, doesn't.

Maybe you don't, but the world does.