Isn't (or at least was) DC not the place with the highest murder rate? I'm sure quite a lot of people in some DC suburbs have guns - though the sniper may frequent other suburbs.
"So you sold your gun at a gun show two years ago to a guy...."
"... without making sure that the database was updated to the new owner. That means you are either too dumb to own a gun or are knowingly selling guns to criminals."
So if this (in german) is right, "the" PowerPC has a pipeline length of 3 (Heise claims the PPC 970 has a 9 stage pipeline - which is still less than the P3's).
The cream-colored powder, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration last year, consists of purified potato starch milled into spherical particles.
Yes, there are two DPed ALUs, and page 5 of The Microarchitecture of the Pentium® 4 Processor talks about the ALUs - and no, shifts are done in the CIIU, and for small shifts several adds are actually faster.
And I do mean that multiply and shift are absolute slower on the P4 than on the (fastest) P3. Multiplies/shifts take 4/1 clock cycles to complete on the Pentium 3, and 16/4 on the P4. That is a factor of 4, and the P4 is not yet at 4 GHz - let alone 4 x 1.4 GHz (the fastest the Tualtin core goes).
The double pumped ALU for easy instructions is running at twice clock-speed. The the complex integer instruction unit, which is infact also an ALU for mult/div/shift/etc. operations, doesn't (at least you wouldn't notice, because it takes up to three times as many cycles as the ALU in the P3). IOW doing multiplies (or shifts), the P4 still isn't as fast as the P3.
There is no indication that Intel is working on x86 compatible 64-bit CPUs, while they already have existing 64-bit CPUs - which weren't stunningly fast in their first incarnation, despite having lots of registers.
Maybe because he patented it later? How much top-secret stuff do you think is patented anyway? Because patenting something always means putting it on public record. If you look at where the word "patent" comes from, it actually means "open".
No, RISC isn't inherently faster than CISC (and no, the P4 isn't a VLIW/RISC hybrid, it's a CISC processor with micro-code).
And both Intel and AMD spend much more on (x86-) processor development than IBM and Motorola and Sun and all others on their chips.
And no, x86 is not much faster. Not even at SPEC, which does not tell the whole picture.
As for AMD being faster, they basically had a stroke of luck with the Athlon design. Before that AMD wasn't known for their speedy processors (cheap yes). And if it hadn't been for the Athlon, Intel's x86 also wouldn't be that far (or not so actualy) ahead, the Itanium II would be the contender to the big RISCs, and the fastest Pentium 4 would be at 2 GHz (if that much) and would cost $1000.
So? Just because you did leave cost out of your post doesn't mean you're not wrong. Intel probably spends several times as much on improving x86 as all RISC chip developers on their chips combined. If that money was redistributed, absolute performance of the RISC chips would also go up.
Yeah, this is like having a story "Man land on Mars" on Slashdot, and people dragging up old stories where we talked about the possibility to go to Mars, and claiming a repeat.
Increase of 0.1% of all internet users. 5% more potential users. For writing a little driver. Not counting the fact that you would be the only shark in the small pond.
Just for arguments sake (and using your numbers), let's say there are 10 providers of this service, with about equal share. That means that you only have 10% of the 1% of internet users as customers. IOW you double the number of your user if you act fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't (or at least was) DC not the place with the highest murder rate? I'm sure quite a lot of people in some DC suburbs have guns - though the sniper may frequent other suburbs.
So? If you want to own a gun, own a gun. What is your beef with others knowing that you do own this gun?
"So you sold your gun at a gun show two years ago to a guy...."
"... without making sure that the database was updated to the new owner. That means you are either too dumb to own a gun or are knowingly selling guns to criminals."
Which is probably what "lweinmunson" had in mind, but doesn't go too well with what he is talking about.
So if this (in german) is right, "the" PowerPC has a pipeline length of 3 (Heise claims the PPC 970 has a 9 stage pipeline - which is still less than the P3's).
Which just means that if you buy a PC today, you will find a better deal within 48 hours.
So how much better (apart from being sterilized) is this compared to the stuff you can buy in the supermarket (whose particles are spherical to some degree)?
Hey, I tried, and "Windows XP gives me more" finds it uniquely. Quite telling that there is no webpage saying "Windows XP gives me more" of anything.
That is assuming that you use your phone for something illegal of course.
And I do mean that multiply and shift are absolute slower on the P4 than on the (fastest) P3. Multiplies/shifts take 4/1 clock cycles to complete on the Pentium 3, and 16/4 on the P4. That is a factor of 4, and the P4 is not yet at 4 GHz - let alone 4 x 1.4 GHz (the fastest the Tualtin core goes).
But since there are branches, pipeline-length and branch-prediction come into play. You were saying?
The double pumped ALU for easy instructions is running at twice clock-speed. The the complex integer instruction unit, which is infact also an ALU for mult/div/shift/etc. operations, doesn't (at least you wouldn't notice, because it takes up to three times as many cycles as the ALU in the P3). IOW doing multiplies (or shifts), the P4 still isn't as fast as the P3.
There is no indication that Intel is working on x86 compatible 64-bit CPUs, while they already have existing 64-bit CPUs - which weren't stunningly fast in their first incarnation, despite having lots of registers.
Maybe because he patented it later? How much top-secret stuff do you think is patented anyway? Because patenting something always means putting it on public record. If you look at where the word "patent" comes from, it actually means "open".
And both Intel and AMD spend much more on (x86-) processor development than IBM and Motorola and Sun and all others on their chips.
And no, x86 is not much faster. Not even at SPEC, which does not tell the whole picture.
As for AMD being faster, they basically had a stroke of luck with the Athlon design. Before that AMD wasn't known for their speedy processors (cheap yes). And if it hadn't been for the Athlon, Intel's x86 also wouldn't be that far (or not so actualy) ahead, the Itanium II would be the contender to the big RISCs, and the fastest Pentium 4 would be at 2 GHz (if that much) and would cost $1000.
So? Just because you did leave cost out of your post doesn't mean you're not wrong. Intel probably spends several times as much on improving x86 as all RISC chip developers on their chips combined. If that money was redistributed, absolute performance of the RISC chips would also go up.
So? Remove the song from your iPod. Or are you actually that tight on storage that you can't keep all your songs on your computer?
No it doesn't require you to fill out the form. At least I didn't and it still worked.
Mod the parent "+1, Healthy".
Yeah, this is like having a story "Man land on Mars" on Slashdot, and people dragging up old stories where we talked about the possibility to go to Mars, and claiming a repeat.
Just for arguments sake (and using your numbers), let's say there are 10 providers of this service, with about equal share. That means that you only have 10% of the 1% of internet users as customers. IOW you double the number of your user if you act fast.
Interesting that you chose Amazon.com to prove the insignificance of Macs: Top-Selling Desktop Computers @ Amazon
Though your answer depends on your definition of clustering.
Looking at the main MacSlash page, I see no stories about clustering. Maybe your post (and the one you answered to) were offtopic?
Sounds like Delphi from John Brunner's Shockwave Rider.