Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:37:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 May 2008 07:09:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<t8sl24dnv1gga7v38sormu0bvc6dd1eg3d@xxxxxxx>:

Dvorak has vague inklings as to what's going on:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2129596,00.asp
Not really, first the 4 TB is full with HD recordings in a day or so.
Look up HD editing
'Clean disks?" whats he running windows?
You tube streaming o na separate core?
What a waste of a super fast powerful core.
Webcam? Even less bandwidth.

Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that.
The man is an idiot.

WHOAAAAAA!
And that Intel guy is a salesman.
Now that they are faster then AMD all of the sudden speed is important.

I have to admit that I was more pessimistic about Intel, but hey, maybe I will
be proven right once they have 80 cores with 70 idle..

So you and Mr Brown agree that computing has already reached its
pinnacle of perfection, and the trillion-transistor chips with
hundreds of CPU's will always run Windows, and the individual CPU's
will always multitask, because that's efficient.

I don't know why you think I am a Windows fan. We are for the time being stuck with a situation where backwards compatibility with old Intel x86 code and Doze (and before that with 8080 code) has determined the future because the alternatives were generally too painful to contemplate.

The desktop PC industry is stuck in that legacy straight jacket. Games machines and home entertainment devices are less constrained.

The Z8000 sank without trace despite Olivetti adopting it. TIs 99k had a similar fate (I think) or did military usage keep it in production?

Computing hardware is now pretty good. Would that software design and development processes were anything like as robust as hardware ones.

I would like to see thread level hardware support appear in CPUs, but I see no reason why the 4 ring process privilege structure that served the VAX so well is inadequate for the humble desktop PC. A multitasking OS can be robust if it is designed correctly with that objective.

Well, since absolutely nothing in technology has changed in the last
20 years, I suppose it's safe to assume nothing will change in the
next 20 either.

Your attempt at irony falls flat.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mobo D975XBX2KR
    ... Windows Movie Maker blurb is up). ... which is the same as that in the Intel motherboard. ... However, in installing the Core 2 Duo's, we followed the advice of updating ...
    (comp.sys.intel)
  • Re: Running Access on Virtual PC 7.0.2
    ... There are many other hardware components to be integrated ... >Windows working with the Apple hardware, so you won't simply be able to ... >be stopping the other way around: running Mac OS on any old Intel PC). ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc)
  • Re: Has anybody made installing OSX on generic Intel any easier in recent months?
    ... OSX on Intel hardware, it was incredibly complex, much more so than my ... Grit your teeth and live with Windows. ... to live with Windows even though i MUCH prefer Mac. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Has anybody made installing OSX on generic Intel any easier in recent months?
    ... OSX on Intel hardware, it was incredibly complex, much more so than my ... hardware features you talk about are CHEAP in the Windows world. ... when added to the cost a cheap Intel notebook will come even ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... and becoming an Intel OEM. ... >> Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea ... >> that they are no longer going to be making proprietary hardware? ... > Phil Shiller said Macs would run Windows or words to that effect. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading