How do parachutes help you during the re-entry? You can not get away from the thermal issues that a vehicle/satellite/whatever reentering the earth's atmosphere has to face with mere parachutes....
Well.... wasn't South Korea the same country that didn't want to attend the closing ceremonies of the winter olympic games this year, because one of their skaters did a dirty trick and got caught? Jeez, now that is a country that can teach us about sportmanship.
Also Korea got 6 goals against them cancelled against them in 4 games, that has NEVER happened in a world cup before. Coincidence? Also there were lots of questions about the parciality of the referees in the Italy and Spain games. Specially the Spanish game in which even the final missed penalty kick was illegal (the Korean goalie was more than 2 meters ahead of the reglamentary line). So people are wondering, how come all the games that Korea hasn't been clearly benefited by the referees they have lost them?
The thing is that Korean representatives complained that if Korea did not advance far into the finals they would lose a ton of money. And Korea has a long history of corruptions/buy outs (i.e. their summer games, there were a lot of complaints about some of the Korean medals... esp the boxing fiasco). So teams like Spain, who did not lose a game were thrown out of the competition, where as a sub standard team like Korea who had a 60% winning percentage were promoted to the final 4. Then again that is why this world cup sucked big balls....
Long embedded history with the military, Unisys... ha!
Unisys needs to be put out of its missery. It went to be a big player in the computing field, to be a marginal service provider (at best).
And this is why I do not understand companies that base their business on M$ stuff:
D|I|G|I|T|A|L|, Intergraph, Data General, and now Unisys. All these companies are either gone, or on their way out (I guess that is what the add reffers to by: "We have the way out..."
I guess you should do your homework before trying to rewrite history:
a) IBM Included ISA machines in the PS/2 lineup (8086 models). However they felt that MCA was a better alternative for a possible 32bit bus (it had both 32 and 16bit versions). ISA was the 16bit defacto. In fact MCA was the better 32bit bus around for PCs until PCI came out. The PS2 line was around until the mid 90's, and it included 486 and pentium models.
b) OS was fast! 1.0 did not take longer to boot that normal MS-DOS, yet it offered multiple sessions on a single machine.
c) OS/2 did run on non PS-2 machines. We used to have few IBM/ATs running early versions of OS/2 w/o any problem.
d) Just like many people around here you chose to speak out of your arse rather than do some actual research on your facts. You knew nothing about the subject, but lord knows that didn't stop you from opening yer mouth.
Nope... Xeons have 32bit address + 4bit segment. You are still limited to 4GB per processes, you can have several 4GB processes though. But they are not in same memory space. the 36bit is just a hack....
Hum... actually when you buy a car you have to choose which radio to put in it, most models anyway. I.e. cassete or CD, CD-charger or not, XM? etc... etc...
They already tried that. Guess what? NT was supposed to be multiplatform! And geez do you see any of the non-X86 versions out there? Nope....
In fact, NT was developed on MIPS. And M$ is in no way interested in having the CLR running on non windows based platforms. CLR is not designed to make code machine-independent, but rather location-independent. M$ still wants you to be using Windows, it just wants to have a tighter grip on you no matter where you go.
Why would anyone even think about adopting.NET is beyond me.
"... to make up for advances in technology/speed (little endian?)"
Errr, do you even know what you are talking about? Little/Big endian has no effect in the performance of the system, it is just how the processor sees the memory (i.e. Most Significant Byte to the left or right of the memory word). But I guess not knowing much about the subject did not stopped you from making a statement... eh?
As much as I hate intel, they have some of the best fab process out there, this means that they do care about advances in the technology, in fact most of the industry is usually playing catch up.
Were did you get your prices from? We just deployed a 1024 CPU cluster at my university, and the cost was slighty under $1 Million, that was including the facilities modificication, etc.
Hum... linux can run in the same HW as IRIX? I don't think so! What does it have to do the fact that a system is scalable with being ported to many architectures? IRIX is designed for MIPS and probably IA64, because those are SGI's systems. They have no intention of porting IRIX to anything else. Why would they do that?
If you want to talk about scalability... can Linux support a single system image with more than 256processors. I can give you more examples, but clearly I already made the point that you have no idea what you are talking about..... since you were comparing linux to today's most scalable version of unix, i.e. IRIX. Do your homework before posting nonsense like that.
... and the O2 had PCI from the beginning, and the Origin, and the Onyx2, and all the new SGI boxen, and.... some of these boxes have been out for a few years now. Hardly a new thing....
Apple's claims are nothing but ridiculous, since they are doing pseudo-FP with their velocity engine. These are 8-bit FP Ops that apple uses for their MFLOPS. SGI is using DP-64bit FP Ops for their MFLOPS rating, so theoretically you should divide appple's number by 8 to get the same FP numbers. So apple's G4 is more like a 0.9GFLOP machine. Theoretically then, the R18K is 3x the speed of a G4 at 1GHz at a slower clock speed. So much for Job's Mhz myth! That is why Apple's claims are nothing but a source of good laugh's when they label their systems as "supers", ooohh look 8-bit FP!
Also a Vpro V12 has a) more color depth per pixel, b) siginificantly larger texture memory, c) Most of the OGL pipeline in HW, d) Does geometry processing on chip... and on and on....
Actually Rambus acts in the opposite way, it has very little latency but a smaller data width per transfer (narrower). So the P4 should spect small pieces of data very fast, whereas the athlon will spect large pieces of data in a slower fashion. But this is pointless because claiming that the P4 is designed with RAMBUS in mind is nonsense...
"(and please - don't bring up SGI. NT never ran on SGI's MIPS boxes. SGI had no interest/desire in that)"
Actually there were inhouse ports of NT running on Indigos. SGI was an important partner in the ARC consortium, since they were in bed with MIPS. NT was supposed to be the OS for the ARC consortium, so originally SGI had A LOT of interest in NT.
What most people fail to remember is that NT was actually developed on MIPS chips not intel's.
Well... It turns out that NT was actually developed on MIPS, not x86. The x86 is an actual port from the original MIPS R4000 kernel. The reference platform for NT was supposed to be RISC and the x86 machines were relegated to Win16 OSs. When NT was developed in the early 90s it was supposed to be the OS for the ARC consortium, that was going to make PCs based on EISA and MIPS to fight IBM and Intel respectively.
No. PowerPC isa and POWER isa are not 100% compatible. For example, code compiled for POWER2 platforms will not run in PPC 604 platforms, since it lacks many of the instructions. AIX then emulates some of the lacking instructions to allow the code to run, so there is some level of soft emulation.
"This is not true, first was Acorn with its ARM..."
Nope. IBM's ROMP predates them all, it was the first commercial RISC implementation. Appeared on the RT commercially but it was in production internally in IBM in the early 80's (descendant of the 801 research chip). MIPS had working silicon in 84 but it was still part of Stanford. And the Fairchild Clipper also came on the same year as ARM. All these chips came out in 86 anyways... so besides few weeks/months all could be considered contemporary.
PA-RISC itself has a very large instruction set, that is because it is a descendant of other HP processor line, the FOCUS (world's 1st 32bit microprocessor) which was CISC.
Nope, you can run Linux on the PCI PowerPC RS/6000
. PowerPC has some elements of the POWER architecture, it is like a subset of it, but not 100% compatible. The Linux version running on the POWER4 is a custom port by IBM, not the plain linuxPPC. Just as a clarification.....
There are 2 lines of RS/6000 one is POWER based and the other is powerPC. Althought most of the newer models are POWER based, IBM seems to regard the PowerPC arch for embedded systems....
"...than a measure to try and slow down the US, because Europe cannot keep up with us, because Socialism DOESN'T WORK!! "
Yet another dim-wit who does not even know what "socialism" is... I guess a "democracy" with 2 parties really works, eh? Or the fact that the guy with fewer votes is "selected" president also means that your country is really working. If you need to have some of the highest rates of illiteracy and infant mortality in the western world in order for your savage capitalism to work. Frankly I rather have my broken "socialism" (btw it is a political movement not a form of government but I guess that doesn't make a difference to you... I doubt you have any background on philosphy or political thought/history)). God forbid we do not allow you to pollute the rest of the planet, since it is your god given... "right."
America these days is pretty much like Microsoft, they do not like competition. Better get used to it from now on....
bzzzt. You should not correct people when you do not know what you are talking about.
MIPS R4000 was the first 64bit commercial RISC processor, predating Alpha by the way. The whole MIPS-4/5/7/8/10/000 family is fully 64bit. The R-2/3/6/000 is 32bit like most of the MIPS32 embedded cores. Early R4000s had some bugs for certain 64 bit ops, and the R4(0,4,6)00/R5000 were used mostly in machines that used 32bit addressing. However the machines were fully capable of 64bit arithmetic.
Incidentally, Windows NT was actually developed on MIPS machines, the Magnums. That were also based on a Microsoft design. It seems that at some point Microsoft also created their own Reference platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
How do parachutes help you during the re-entry? You can not get away from the thermal issues that a vehicle/satellite/whatever reentering the earth's atmosphere has to face with mere parachutes....
Those lines were actually from South Park, not that minor fact like this would stop you from trying to impress us with your lack of knowledge.
Well.... wasn't South Korea the same country that didn't want to attend the closing ceremonies of the winter olympic games this year, because one of their skaters did a dirty trick and got caught?
Jeez, now that is a country that can teach us about sportmanship.
Also Korea got 6 goals against them cancelled against them in 4 games, that has NEVER happened in a world cup before. Coincidence? Also there were lots of questions about the parciality of the referees in the Italy and Spain games. Specially the Spanish game in which even the final missed penalty kick was illegal (the Korean goalie was more than 2 meters ahead of the reglamentary line). So people are wondering, how come all the games that Korea hasn't been clearly benefited by the referees they have lost them?
The thing is that Korean representatives complained that if Korea did not advance far into the finals they would lose a ton of money. And Korea has a long history of corruptions/buy outs (i.e. their summer games, there were a lot of complaints about some of the Korean medals... esp the boxing fiasco). So teams like Spain, who did not lose a game were thrown out of the competition, where as a sub standard team like Korea who had a 60% winning percentage were promoted to the final 4. Then again that is why this world cup sucked big balls....
Oh well... money talks I guess.
NO! The T3s never used mips EVER! You are thinking of the origins 2K's that SGI relabeled as CRAY.
Long embedded history with the military, Unisys... ha! Unisys needs to be put out of its missery. It went to be a big player in the computing field, to be a marginal service provider (at best). And this is why I do not understand companies that base their business on M$ stuff: D|I|G|I|T|A|L|, Intergraph, Data General, and now Unisys. All these companies are either gone, or on their way out (I guess that is what the add reffers to by: "We have the way out..."
I guess you should do your homework before trying to rewrite history:
a) IBM Included ISA machines in the PS/2 lineup (8086 models). However they felt that MCA was a better alternative for a possible 32bit bus (it had both 32 and 16bit versions). ISA was the 16bit defacto. In fact MCA was the better 32bit bus around for PCs until PCI came out. The PS2 line was around until the mid 90's, and it included 486 and pentium models.
b) OS was fast! 1.0 did not take longer to boot that normal MS-DOS, yet it offered multiple sessions on a single machine.
c) OS/2 did run on non PS-2 machines. We used to have few IBM/ATs running early versions of OS/2 w/o any problem.
d) Just like many people around here you chose to speak out of your arse rather than do some actual research on your facts. You knew nothing about the subject, but lord knows that didn't stop you from opening yer mouth.
What was the size of your spice file? We did the same test, and intel is faster for small device files. For large design files it just chokes...
Nope... Xeons have 32bit address + 4bit segment. You are still limited to 4GB per processes, you can have several 4GB processes though. But they are not in same memory space. the 36bit is just a hack....
Hum... actually when you buy a car you have to choose which radio to put in it, most models anyway. I.e. cassete or CD, CD-charger or not, XM? etc... etc...
So your point is?
They already tried that. Guess what? NT was supposed to be multiplatform! And geez do you see any of the non-X86 versions out there? Nope....
.NET is beyond me.
In fact, NT was developed on MIPS. And M$ is in no way interested in having the CLR running on non windows based platforms. CLR is not designed to make code machine-independent, but rather location-independent. M$ still wants you to be using Windows, it just wants to have a tighter grip on you no matter where you go.
Why would anyone even think about adopting
"... to make up for advances in technology/speed (little endian?)" Errr, do you even know what you are talking about? Little/Big endian has no effect in the performance of the system, it is just how the processor sees the memory (i.e. Most Significant Byte to the left or right of the memory word). But I guess not knowing much about the subject did not stopped you from making a statement... eh? As much as I hate intel, they have some of the best fab process out there, this means that they do care about advances in the technology, in fact most of the industry is usually playing catch up.
Were did you get your prices from? We just deployed a 1024 CPU cluster at my university, and the cost was slighty under $1 Million, that was including the facilities modificication, etc.
Hum... linux can run in the same HW as IRIX? I don't think so! What does it have to do the fact that a system is scalable with being ported to many architectures? IRIX is designed for MIPS and probably IA64, because those are SGI's systems. They have no intention of porting IRIX to anything else. Why would they do that? If you want to talk about scalability... can Linux support a single system image with more than 256processors. I can give you more examples, but clearly I already made the point that you have no idea what you are talking about..... since you were comparing linux to today's most scalable version of unix, i.e. IRIX. Do your homework before posting nonsense like that.
... and the O2 had PCI from the beginning, and the Origin, and the Onyx2, and all the new SGI boxen, and.... some of these boxes have been out for a few years now. Hardly a new thing....
You are comparing apples to potatoes.
Apple's claims are nothing but ridiculous, since they are doing pseudo-FP with their velocity engine. These are 8-bit FP Ops that apple uses for their MFLOPS. SGI is using DP-64bit FP Ops for their MFLOPS rating, so theoretically you should divide appple's number by 8 to get the same FP numbers. So apple's G4 is more like a 0.9GFLOP machine. Theoretically then, the R18K is 3x the speed of a G4 at 1GHz at a slower clock speed. So much for Job's Mhz myth! That is why Apple's claims are nothing but a source of good laugh's when they label their systems as "supers", ooohh look 8-bit FP!
Also a Vpro V12 has a) more color depth per pixel, b) siginificantly larger texture memory, c) Most of the OGL pipeline in HW, d) Does geometry processing on chip... and on and on....
Actually Rambus acts in the opposite way, it has very little latency but a smaller data width per transfer (narrower). So the P4 should spect small pieces of data very fast, whereas the athlon will spect large pieces of data in a slower fashion. But this is pointless because claiming that the P4 is designed with RAMBUS in mind is nonsense...
"(and please - don't bring up SGI. NT never ran on SGI's MIPS boxes. SGI had no interest/desire in that)" Actually there were inhouse ports of NT running on Indigos. SGI was an important partner in the ARC consortium, since they were in bed with MIPS. NT was supposed to be the OS for the ARC consortium, so originally SGI had A LOT of interest in NT. What most people fail to remember is that NT was actually developed on MIPS chips not intel's.
Well... It turns out that NT was actually developed on MIPS, not x86. The x86 is an actual port from the original MIPS R4000 kernel. The reference platform for NT was supposed to be RISC and the x86 machines were relegated to Win16 OSs. When NT was developed in the early 90s it was supposed to be the OS for the ARC consortium, that was going to make PCs based on EISA and MIPS to fight IBM and Intel respectively.
This is why no HW vendor should ever trust M$.
No. PowerPC isa and POWER isa are not 100% compatible. For example, code compiled for POWER2 platforms will not run in PPC 604 platforms, since it lacks many of the instructions. AIX then emulates some of the lacking instructions to allow the code to run, so there is some level of soft emulation.
"This is not true, first was Acorn with its ARM..." Nope. IBM's ROMP predates them all, it was the first commercial RISC implementation. Appeared on the RT commercially but it was in production internally in IBM in the early 80's (descendant of the 801 research chip). MIPS had working silicon in 84 but it was still part of Stanford. And the Fairchild Clipper also came on the same year as ARM. All these chips came out in 86 anyways... so besides few weeks/months all could be considered contemporary. PA-RISC itself has a very large instruction set, that is because it is a descendant of other HP processor line, the FOCUS (world's 1st 32bit microprocessor) which was CISC.
Nope, you can run Linux on the PCI PowerPC RS/6000
. PowerPC has some elements of the POWER architecture, it is like a subset of it, but not 100% compatible. The Linux version running on the POWER4 is a custom port by IBM, not the plain linuxPPC. Just as a clarification.....
There are 2 lines of RS/6000 one is POWER based and the other is powerPC. Althought most of the newer models are POWER based, IBM seems to regard the PowerPC arch for embedded systems....
"...than a measure to try and slow down the US, because Europe cannot keep up with us, because Socialism DOESN'T WORK!! "
Yet another dim-wit who does not even know what "socialism" is... I guess a "democracy" with 2 parties really works, eh? Or the fact that the guy with fewer votes is "selected" president also means that your country is really working. If you need to have some of the highest rates of illiteracy and infant mortality in the western world in order for your savage capitalism to work. Frankly I rather have my broken "socialism" (btw it is a political movement not a form of government but I guess that doesn't make a difference to you... I doubt you have any background on philosphy or political thought/history)). God forbid we do not allow you to pollute the rest of the planet, since it is your god given... "right."
America these days is pretty much like Microsoft, they do not like competition. Better get used to it from now on....
bzzzt. You should not correct people when you do not know what you are talking about.
MIPS R4000 was the first 64bit commercial RISC processor, predating Alpha by the way. The whole MIPS-4/5/7/8/10/000 family is fully 64bit. The R-2/3/6/000 is 32bit like most of the MIPS32 embedded cores. Early R4000s had some bugs for certain 64 bit ops, and the R4(0,4,6)00/R5000 were used mostly in machines that used 32bit addressing. However the machines were fully capable of 64bit arithmetic.
Incidentally, Windows NT was actually developed on MIPS machines, the Magnums. That were also based on a Microsoft design. It seems that at some point Microsoft also created their own Reference platforms.