> you mis-state how Windows handles multiple
> threads, it doesn't use messages to do this.
Not ususally, though separate threads may have message pumps (if you *really* wanted to, but I think thats silly). As far as my statement about the long process and the UI, here is what I was trying to convey:
1. Main thread -- contains message pump and handles the UI
2. Worker thread(s) -- executes long processes, separate from main thread
Scheduling prioritites aside, if a long operation (say, blocking I/O) happens in the thread that has the message pump, the UI will become unresponsive.
> This is true, but only in complex situations
> where you need one thread to talk with or
> cooperate with another thread.
The kernel has to ensure it does not break itself (hence, the locking), which creates overhead, regardless if two user threads are being silly or not.
> more responsive
Do you think that CPU power is the major bottleneck for the average XP user?
> unable to lock the system in the event
> of an endless loop
No, it can still do this; just have the endless loop running in two threads:) Seriously, though -- one program cannot (normally) lock up the computer by placing lengthy operations in a single thread; and there really is not a point to making a thread realtime for anything other than device drivers. (It doesnt go faster, it will just receive the CPU more often; if most of it is idle [which for the average desktop user it is] no performance is gained). Sure, CPU time may be 100%, but the scheduler *does* preempt that thread and give others their fair share. Granted, that does nothing to help poorly-written programs that blow up parts of the kernel on occasion, but...
In any case, as standard desktop applications (such as word processing or e-mail) do not contain much, if any, parallel code, and while having an extra processor to redraw all those icons in the system tray sounds nifty, it gives little increase to performance. Again, how much CPU usage do you think writing a letter (at 20 WPM) produces?
SMT -- "simultaneous multi-threading" (or more commonly SMP, symmetric multi-processing) -- is achieved by having two CPUs executing different instruction streams. This is great for things like database servers (possibly handle multiple requests simultaneously), but for anyone running XP Home Edition, there would be no increase in speed.
"will likely be when Intel releases SMT-capable processors" -- yeah, like the Xeon line. In addition, most P3s and even some earlier Celerons can be placed into a dual-processor environment.
As far as "the technology has been around since Windows '95", if you're talking about SMP, no, it hasn't. SMP has been around since NT 4 (possibly 3.5, I don't know) and above (in the NT line) -- while you can have two CPUs running under '95, the kernel doesn't know what do, so one will run a whole lot cooler than the other:)
"but it does make your app more responsive" -- assuming it's written to take advantage of multithreaded operation, in which case it would [often] be more responsive than a single-threaded version. "the UI doesn't freeze during long operations", which again assumes that the long operation takes place in a separate thread, which would keep the main message pump running just as it would under a single-CPU system.
In addition, introducing another processor means that both of them have to keep from stepping on each other's toes -- the two shouldn't try to write to the same region of RAM simultaneously, for example. This extra locking makes SMP-enabled kernels slower for a single thread than non-SMP kernels.
The bottom line is that adding an extra processor won't help the average Windows XP user.
Overclocking a 2.0 GHz CPU to 2.5 doesn't mean it will beat an AMD 1.7, it just means it pushes electricity through faster, generates more heat, and so forth. Case in point: if a single MOV operation takes fifty clock cycles (which it doesn't, anywhere, ever) and a MOV on a different CPU only takes one, guess which one will perform better (doing MOVs) at 50 times slower of a clock? Clock speed does not -- and cannot -- equal performance.
Wow. 533 MHz RAM... yummy. I wonder what AMD could do with that big of a pipe.
I just think it'll be kind of funny watching AMD's 2.0 GHz CPUs with 533 MHz RAM stack up to Intel in terms of performance.
The antivirus companies have changed their stance after someone informed them that ignoring Magic Lantern was a Bad Idea.
Antivirus firms: FBI loophole is out of line:
"Antivirus software vendors said Monday they don't want to create a loophole in their security products to let the FBI or other government agencies use a virus to eavesdrop on the computer communications of suspected criminals."
Then again, if they bug the PS2 or (in most systems at least) USB ports, they could easily get mouse clicks too. While they're at it, they could monitor the VGA out...
Or they could just send someone in and beat you up. That works.
Well, there's the IPv6 network -- which is (to some extent) "incapable of connecting to the Internet".
However, as long as there is public access to this "geographically distributed Intranet", the government can and will get access. They have legal authority over the land that your cables use, the frequency ranges that wireless solutions run through, and even the upper atmosphere where you send your satellites.
With that Legal Authority (whether or not it's actually legal according to the laws), the goverment can snoop on this network. They could install monitoring systems on your major backbones. Heck, the people that lay your cables and send up your satellites can do that -- you can trust no one. If you trust no one, it's not a public network; it's a network of one.
The real trick would be getting AOL, Earthlink, or some other major ISP to start using Vipul's Razor... or, since we ALL run our own e-mail servers, we could just install it there:)
The process outlined by this chip is not evolution -- it is that of "natural selection", or in this case, un-natural selection. Selection is the process whereby survival of the fittest gradually producess the optimal population, which is logical and perfectly acceptable.
Evolution, on the other hand, is not: these chips cannot evolve new inputs to gather data from the world around them, they cannot evolve new logic cells, nor can they evolve an adaptation to survive without electricity.
Finally, one must note that unlike that primordial goop, this "evolving" system worked from four years of hardware design and carefully debugged code -- not a random assortment of silicon, copper, and plastic.
Intellisense can be used with the keyboard alone (Ctrl-space, etc.) -- I will agree that moving my hands off the keyboard takes too long, but with this, it's impossible to forget member names and parameters (shows the param list).
Slashdot Mirror
> you mis-state how Windows handles multiple
:) Seriously, though -- one program cannot (normally) lock up the computer by placing lengthy operations in a single thread; and there really is not a point to making a thread realtime for anything other than device drivers. (It doesnt go faster, it will just receive the CPU more often; if most of it is idle [which for the average desktop user it is] no performance is gained). Sure, CPU time may be 100%, but the scheduler *does* preempt that thread and give others their fair share. Granted, that does nothing to help poorly-written programs that blow up parts of the kernel on occasion, but...
> threads, it doesn't use messages to do this.
Not ususally, though separate threads may have message pumps (if you *really* wanted to, but I think thats silly). As far as my statement about the long process and the UI, here is what I was trying to convey:
1. Main thread -- contains message pump and handles the UI
2. Worker thread(s) -- executes long processes, separate from main thread
Scheduling prioritites aside, if a long operation (say, blocking I/O) happens in the thread that has the message pump, the UI will become unresponsive.
> This is true, but only in complex situations
> where you need one thread to talk with or
> cooperate with another thread.
The kernel has to ensure it does not break itself (hence, the locking), which creates overhead, regardless if two user threads are being silly or not.
> more responsive
Do you think that CPU power is the major bottleneck for the average XP user?
> unable to lock the system in the event
> of an endless loop
No, it can still do this; just have the endless loop running in two threads
In any case, as standard desktop applications (such as word processing or e-mail) do not contain much, if any, parallel code, and while having an extra processor to redraw all those icons in the system tray sounds nifty, it gives little increase to performance. Again, how much CPU usage do you think writing a letter (at 20 WPM) produces?
SMT -- "simultaneous multi-threading" (or more commonly SMP, symmetric multi-processing) -- is achieved by having two CPUs executing different instruction streams. This is great for things like database servers (possibly handle multiple requests simultaneously), but for anyone running XP Home Edition, there would be no increase in speed.
"will likely be when Intel releases SMT-capable processors" -- yeah, like the Xeon line. In addition, most P3s and even some earlier Celerons can be placed into a dual-processor environment.
As far as "the technology has been around since Windows '95", if you're talking about SMP, no, it hasn't. SMP has been around since NT 4 (possibly 3.5, I don't know) and above (in the NT line) -- while you can have two CPUs running under '95, the kernel doesn't know what do, so one will run a whole lot cooler than the other :)
"but it does make your app more responsive" -- assuming it's written to take advantage of multithreaded operation, in which case it would [often] be more responsive than a single-threaded version. "the UI doesn't freeze during long operations", which again assumes that the long operation takes place in a separate thread, which would keep the main message pump running just as it would under a single-CPU system.
In addition, introducing another processor means that both of them have to keep from stepping on each other's toes -- the two shouldn't try to write to the same region of RAM simultaneously, for example. This extra locking makes SMP-enabled kernels slower for a single thread than non-SMP kernels.
The bottom line is that adding an extra processor won't help the average Windows XP user.
No, see, it's 100:1 in binary.
Overclocking a 2.0 GHz CPU to 2.5 doesn't mean it will beat an AMD 1.7, it just means it pushes electricity through faster, generates more heat, and so forth. Case in point: if a single MOV operation takes fifty clock cycles (which it doesn't, anywhere, ever) and a MOV on a different CPU only takes one, guess which one will perform better (doing MOVs) at 50 times slower of a clock? Clock speed does not -- and cannot -- equal performance.
Wow. 533 MHz RAM... yummy. I wonder what AMD could do with that big of a pipe.
I just think it'll be kind of funny watching AMD's 2.0 GHz CPUs with 533 MHz RAM stack up to Intel in terms of performance.
The antivirus companies have changed their stance after someone informed them that ignoring Magic Lantern was a Bad Idea.
Antivirus firms: FBI loophole is out of line:
"Antivirus software vendors said Monday they don't want to create a loophole in their security products to let the FBI or other government agencies use a virus to eavesdrop on the computer communications of suspected criminals."
Then again, if they bug the PS2 or (in most systems at least) USB ports, they could easily get mouse clicks too. While they're at it, they could monitor the VGA out...
Or they could just send someone in and beat you up. That works.
Well, there's the IPv6 network -- which is (to some extent) "incapable of connecting to the Internet".
However, as long as there is public access to this "geographically distributed Intranet", the government can and will get access. They have legal authority over the land that your cables use, the frequency ranges that wireless solutions run through, and even the upper atmosphere where you send your satellites.
With that Legal Authority (whether or not it's actually legal according to the laws), the goverment can snoop on this network. They could install monitoring systems on your major backbones. Heck, the people that lay your cables and send up your satellites can do that -- you can trust no one. If you trust no one, it's not a public network; it's a network of one.
Won't YOU be my neighbor?
I dunno... it's late.
The real trick would be getting AOL, Earthlink, or some other major ISP to start using Vipul's Razor... or, since we ALL run our own e-mail servers, we could just install it there :)
The process outlined by this chip is not evolution -- it is that of "natural selection", or in this case, un-natural selection. Selection is the process whereby survival of the fittest gradually producess the optimal population, which is logical and perfectly acceptable.
Evolution, on the other hand, is not: these chips cannot evolve new inputs to gather data from the world around them, they cannot evolve new logic cells, nor can they evolve an adaptation to survive without electricity.
Finally, one must note that unlike that primordial goop, this "evolving" system worked from four years of hardware design and carefully debugged code -- not a random assortment of silicon, copper, and plastic.
Intellisense can be used with the keyboard alone (Ctrl-space, etc.) -- I will agree that moving my hands off the keyboard takes too long, but with this, it's impossible to forget member names and parameters (shows the param list).