The most distinctive feature of the Power PC is that it employs a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) architecture CPU, replacing the CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture used in 68000-series CPUs.

As a rule, the CPU (Central Processing Unit) is able to use only very simple instructions, and must combine huge sets of instructions in order to execute complicated tasks. However, programming vast numbers of simple instructions each time a complex task needs to be executed is horribly inefficient. A dictionary resident in CISC-based CPUs called microcode converts complex instructions into sets of simple instructions inside the processor.

1. I think you need to mention something about RISC being a replacement for or a later version of CISC. This paragraph does not establish a link between the RISC and CISC.
2. Is this the right word? Does the sentence talk about programming something or executing or processing instructions?
3. Since you already used "each time" you don"t need to say "when." This is a bit redundant.
4. This is probably okay, but I think "converting" may be a better word.

1. I think this is all right. But the Japanese original doesn't limit the title to only performance. It may also want to (later on) talk about price or other matters. So, it may be safer just to say "How do they compare?"
2. Can we be sure that POWER PC is only installed in Macintosh computer? That's probably true, but does the Japanese text say this?
3. If you mentioned Macintosh computers earlier in the sentence, you probably don't need to mention it again here.
4. Is this word necessary? What kind of CPU is not general? You may want to say "Because CPUs normally…"
5. The meaning is correct but the choice of words is a bit off. Rather than "amount" you may want to use "number" or "volume."

1. You may want to say what it is different from. Just saying it is different may be too vague.
2. Should this also be in the singular form; the rest of the sentence is written around the singular form.
3. Are RISC and CISC operational schemes? In what way should they be referred to?
   
   I think they should be referred to as designs or (instruction set) architectures. I just hated to use "architecture" twice in the same paragraph.
   
   
4. In terms of vocabulary, this is fine. The only question I have is one of logic; can a computer understand tedium? Normally, this word is used to express the human feeling of boredom.
5. Does the previous sentence express a nuance of a problem? It may be better to simply not talk about avoiding problems or such things and directly talk about what improvements were made.
6. Is this really a technique? Can a chip or processor make use of a technique?
   
   You can personify a processor, can't you?
7. Because I am not an expert, I cannot say whether or not this term is correct. I like this word, but I have not seen it before. Does the Japanese text make mention of this?
   
   Me too neither. According to a Website, the concept of microprogramming, along with microprogram and microcode, was developed by the same person, Cambridge researcher Maurice Wilkes. But with your comment above, and knowing that it was as early as 1951 for general-purpose computers, now I doubt if it is applicable to today's microprocessors as well.
   
   
8. Is "sequence" the same as "set"?
9. Is "low-level" the same as "simple"?
10. Is this set of built-in instructions the same as the dictionary? Does this sentence clearly express the process of converting one type of instruction into another type of instruction?
    
    I don't think microcode is a dictionary.

1. Does the original article say that the machine is the newest model?
2. Is it safe to say directly that the machine is a Macintosh? Does the original article mention the company"s name?
3. Is it mentioned that there are a number of advantages or does the article merely say that the RISC is a distinctive feature of the PowerPC?
4. Rather than "intensive" you may want to say "complicated" tasks.
5. This is a bit hard to understand. You need to add a preposition (of) after "perform", but you may also want to think about what you want to say. Do you want to talk about performing of instructions or execution of instructions? This isn't clear.
6. This is probably either a dictionary or converter, not an interpreter.
7. Check spelling.
8. This should probably be in the plural form.
9. This is a bit long – how about "CISC-based"?

microcodeの本質が「きわめて低レベルのプロセッサ動作定義コード」であることを考えると、「辞書」とまでは表現しない方が無難と思われます。

問題の個所は、かみ砕いた文面であるため、砕きすぎて誤認を誘っているのかなと思われます。

「そこで、 CISCのCPUの中には複雑な処理命令を単純な命令の集まりに変換するためのマイクロコードと呼ばれる辞書が内蔵されている。」の個所は、「・・・マイクロコードと呼ばれるきわめて低レベルのプロセッサ動作定義コードが内蔵されている。」とすれば、誤認の誘発はなくなります。

1. This is an incomplete sentence. It should be attached to another sentence or rewritten so it becomes a complete sentence.
2. This needs to be the plural form.
3. It's not clear what you mean to say here. Why "enforced"?
4. This parallel construction is not written correctly – it should be "…the more internal components there are…"
5. To complete the parallel construction, this should be "…the more signals are transmitted…"
6. This should have an article in front of this word.
7. You are saying something is worse, but you haven't really explained that anything was "bad."
8. A verb tense problem here. If you use the past tense earlier in this sentence, this should be "could not be..."
9. This needs an article.
10. The construction of this sentence is a bit odd. What you are trying to say doesn't quite fit into this construction. The sentence should talk about the limit in raising the clock speed being due to the limit in the CPU's ability to withstand heat.

1. Is the sentence referring to a "mechanism"? Or maybe a process? I'm not sure about "mechanism." I think the sentence may be talking about a process that facilitates programming.
2. This should be in the plural form.
3. It's probably the same thing, but why refer to heat release rather than heat generation?
4. I think the question here is which comes first; the release of heat or the generation of heat? And which is probably the focus of the sentence? The creation of heat by the higher clock speed or the release of heat that has been generated?
5. This sounds like it is intentional that the speed is not faster. A different phrase may express this idea better. You want to say something about the heat barrier holding down the clock speed.

1. See earlier note about this word.
2. This should probably be "…needs to be accessed…"
3. Do you think this should clearly state what kind of instruction you mean? Are you talking about all instructions or only complex instructions?
4. Does this circuit only verify or does it also supervise?
   
   My understanding is that one of the purposes of using variable-length instructions is to limit the amount of wasted space. Variable-length instructions use special decoding circuits that count the number of bytes of each instruction and frame it (the instruction) according to its byte length. So I see no implication of checking, verifying, supervising, validating, etc., though the author uses 監視 to explain this process.
   
   
5. Do you mean that the circuit verifies or checks only variable-length instructions? Has the article established whether or not there are both uniform and variable-length instructions?
   
   CISC architecture handles variable-length instructions; RISC uses fixed-length instructions.
   
   
6. I think it may be a good idea to logically decide what order heat is handled. Is heat generated first and then this heat is dissipated? Does this sentence primarily wish to express the generation of heat or the actual dissipation of heat. I think either one will probably work, but logically I feel that it is the generation of heat that causes problems, not the dissipation of it.
7. Is the dissipation of heat a barrier to higher clock speeds? Does this sound logical?
8. Is this usually referred to as higher clock speeds or higher clock frequencies?
   
   Either way. The higher the clock frequency, the faster the clock speed.

1. Is this a mechanism? A device? A component? What is it?
2. What kind of instruction are you referring to? Any kind of instruction or for each complex instruction?
3. I think the original Japanese only says "circuit" not "additional circuit."
4. Is the circuit there to look for whether or not there is a difference in length?
5. I think "is not" fits better here.
6. Check into the difference between "resisting heat" and "withstanding heat."
7. Why did you choose "finally" here?

1. This segment is probably not necessary.
2. I don't think the sentence is talking about "pre-determined" length, but rather "uniform length."
3. This should be in the plural form or use an article.
4. I am not an expert, so I don't know if this is the right term, but it sounds a bit odd to me.
5. This is probably not necessary.
6. I would probably leave this out.

1. Is there a reason that engineers are specifically mentioned? Are engineers the only people who wish to speed up the clock speed? And did the engineers SELECT these instructions?
2. It might be a good idea to mention that these 100 instructions are for RISC. This is not mentioned in the sentence.
3. This term is in capital letters. Is this the official name for this unit?
4. The preposition should probably be "for."
5. The article should be "the" here.
6. The article should be "a" here.
7. Since I am not an expert in this field, I cannot say whether or not this is correct, but is this a recognized term?
8. By saying "drastic", you are implying that this was not a good thing. Usually, this word is used to describe something that had a negative effect. I think you want to emphasize that the reduction of instructions was a good thing.

1. I am not too clear on this. Are you saying that RISC instructions replace microcode or do the dedicated circuits replace microcode?
   
   RISC architecture eliminates the level of microcode so that machine instructions directly control the processor.
   
   
2. See earlier note about the word "verification"
3. This sentence construction might give the impression that higher integration must wait for further advanced technology.
4. Is a compiler a development tool or utility? Which of these devices does a compiler belong to? I wonder if it would make for a better sentence if we understood more clearly which category the compiler belonged to.
   
   In software development, programs called tools and utilities are used. The development tools include compilers, assemblers and debuggers. Utility programs perform very specific tasks, usually related to managing system resources including memory and disk space.
   

1. Is this really a problem or just an issue or matter?
2. Change the word order to “100 frequently-used instructions.”
3. It's not clear what you mean by "legacy" here.
4. To what? What does this refer to?
5. Are there RISC instructions that have varied lengths?
6. Is there a reason for using "code length"? Is it the same as "instruction length"?
7. Does this refer to packing higher densities?
8. I think a better word is "greater burden."

1. Is this a computer term? This is probably correct; I am not familiar with it.

1. Are these trademark names of these components? If not, these can be left in small letters. Capital letters would used if these were actual product names.

1. I am not an expert, but is "arithmetic" necessary here?

common people

一般人（名も位もない unsophisticated で rough な感じ）。

ordinary people

（平）凡人で、多少ネガティブな感じ。

average person

普通の人。

general public

一般大衆。

public people は redundant。