All currently shipping Intel and AMD desktop microprocessors internally translate x86 instructions to much smaller instructions that are functionally similar to RISC style instructions.
Now here's a case of when life hands you lemons you make lemonade. The parent was talking about simultaneous execution, i.e. how many instructions per cycle can come out of the end of the pipeline. You're twisting it around to take that number and multiply it by the horribly long pipeline.
Let's go back to basics, every time the processor makes a mistake in guessing what's going to happen next, the pipeline has to be cleared. Every modern CPU faces this problem so you want short pipelines so your penalty is low. Intel has vastly longer pipelines and thus they pay a higher price every time predictive branching screws up.
So having a large number of instructions being simultaneously worked on is a *bad* thing unless they are also being pumped out and executed in large numbers as well. AFAIK, in the P4 they aren't.
According to Ars Technica the P4 in the real world gets 2.5 instructions per cycle done. With the new G5 getting 8 done per cycle with half the pipeline depth, performance should once again favor the Mac side of the PC wars.
Wouldn't there be a rather large overlap between the applications that run no faster on 64 bits and the applications that do not benefit from faster chips period? How fast do you need your word processor to run?
I'm betting that most of the apps that really could take advantage of more speed (graphics, video, intense mathematical calculations, large database manipulations) will also be the ones that will benefit from 64 bit goodness.
Brazil huh? Good luck on becoming a developed country! What posesses S American countries to elect such loser politicians is beyond me. If you get your act together and actually build a political class that doesn't loot and rob you at ever turn, perhaps you too might be able to afford a computer that "just works".
Actually, a nice world would be Apple holding maybe 20-25% marketshare, Wintel holding maybe 40-50% and Linux/Solaris and the rest of the Unix world holding down the rest.
If Apple continues to mature and improve OS X, I can see it getting to 20% marketshare in 10 years. And look at that, a world where there's enough heterogenous hardware out there that software and peripheral manufacturers write to standards.
And now that Apple is standardizing on TCP/IP for networking, LDAPv3 for enterprise directory services, IDE for storage, USB for keyboards/mice, and IEEE-1394 for high speed peripherals (Go Firewire-2! I can't wait for 800 mbps) and so on if Apple abandons all of that standards based goodness, how much will it really hurt to swap at that point to some other equally standard implementation? The answer is not at all and the painlessness of corporate abandoning Apple is what is going to keep them on the standards going forward. Apple, if anything, has always been consistent about wanting to make a buck.
The bottom end of Dell's line is not produced by Dell, just badged and sold by them. They can't run their regular business model that cheap. You might as well go for the $199 WalMart special running Lindows.
Of course I meant the hardware/software combination of x86/Linux v. PPC/Mac OS X. Since it is very hard to find a Mac OS X capable system without an included license for some Mac OS, it's actually not very fair to compare PPC/Linux to PPC/Mac OS X.
Nah, processor speed advantage ebbed and flowed across lines for years. It still does. I think that PPC is currently somewhat lagging and might get a nice lift in 2003 with the new IBM chip. I just thought your comparison was unfair and irrelevant since nobody's using 68k chips in desktop cpus and hasn't for several years.
Ok, look at the green box and multiply by 1.8 (the green box is a 1Ghz version). Also, this 1.8Ghz version will be coming with VMX/Altivec/Velocity Engine units so it will likely gain speed boosts depending on the code used.
Mac people have been sticking PC memory into their computers for years. Ditto with hard drives, etc. If you don't want to pay extra, you don't have to get 'genuine GM parts' for a GM car either. You save money there too even when both parts are turned out by the same factory.
Try taking a look at this PC spec page. Notice what's not there? Parallel ports are on the way out. Do you insist on 5.25 floppy drives on your machines as well?
Congratulations, you are not in the Apple demographic. Nothing they will do will ever please you. Please stop paying attention to Apple now because unless you are in charge of IT purchasing at a company in Apple's target market you won't ever get a machine from them that you'll like.
You are also probably not in the Lambourghini, GAP, butler, and countless other market demographics but chances are you aren't compelled to rant about how they are irrelevant to you. Try extending that to Macintoshes, would you?
According to Apple the only performa 640 was one of those hybrid dos machines. The spec is still on the Apple site. This was the era of selling crippled chips without math coprocessors. The 486DX66 that came in the box was paired with a 68LC040, thus we have an x86 chip with math coprocessor compared with a 68k Motorola chip without one. Oh yess, a *very* fair comparison.
Since no major PC computing platform uses the 68k line anymore for their CPUs why should we care about this anyway?
A great deal of those chinese factory workers *are* slave labor, but I guess that isn't a "condition" of their labor.
I guess that the party commissar system that runs in those factories to keep the workers in line has some analogue in the US (not likely) and that since those factory based party commissars enforce the 1 child policy (among other enforcers to be sure) that isn't relevant to the conditions of their labor.
Pre-union labor in the US was tough, in every industrializing nation, the process has been tough but in the free world, they flocked to those jobs because rural life was tougher and earned less money. In the PRC, the same income increase and less brutal conditions prevail (marking the only valid likeness) but the machinery of repression makes the resulting system qualitatively different in terms of toughness and brutality.
Yes, and if you were around the last time a story on this subject came out, you would have already read the back and forth, complete with references to the space elevator folks who say that they're going to make sure that in case of cut that the cable will largely disintigrate on the way down.
In other words, it's a real issue that is being studied and they already have real world solutions to make it happen which makes the scary scenarios non-issues.
Ummm... wrong. Terrorists, including the theoretical terrorists who are going to down this yet to be built space elevator, generally come from middle class backgrounds and are well educated in rapidly modernizing countries. They've lifted themselves out of the crap in their own societies and in college reallize just how far down the totem pole they truly are and are ashamed. They lash out at their betters in order to pull them down to their own level.
Slashdot Mirror
All currently shipping Intel and AMD desktop microprocessors internally translate x86 instructions to much smaller instructions that are functionally similar to RISC style instructions.
Now here's a case of when life hands you lemons you make lemonade. The parent was talking about simultaneous execution, i.e. how many instructions per cycle can come out of the end of the pipeline. You're twisting it around to take that number and multiply it by the horribly long pipeline.
Let's go back to basics, every time the processor makes a mistake in guessing what's going to happen next, the pipeline has to be cleared. Every modern CPU faces this problem so you want short pipelines so your penalty is low. Intel has vastly longer pipelines and thus they pay a higher price every time predictive branching screws up.
So having a large number of instructions being simultaneously worked on is a *bad* thing unless they are also being pumped out and executed in large numbers as well. AFAIK, in the P4 they aren't.
According to Ars Technica the P4 in the real world gets 2.5 instructions per cycle done. With the new G5 getting 8 done per cycle with half the pipeline depth, performance should once again favor the Mac side of the PC wars.
Don't worry, by the time the G6 is released, I'm sure the G5 will have a power/heat profile that will be just fine for a laptop.
Funny, my 5 button, wheeled kensington mouse-in-a-box pro seems to work just fine on my iMac...
Oh, you were being sarcastic!
ya got me.
Wouldn't there be a rather large overlap between the applications that run no faster on 64 bits and the applications that do not benefit from faster chips period? How fast do you need your word processor to run?
I'm betting that most of the apps that really could take advantage of more speed (graphics, video, intense mathematical calculations, large database manipulations) will also be the ones that will benefit from 64 bit goodness.
Brazil huh? Good luck on becoming a developed country! What posesses S American countries to elect such loser politicians is beyond me. If you get your act together and actually build a political class that doesn't loot and rob you at ever turn, perhaps you too might be able to afford a computer that "just works".
Actually, a nice world would be Apple holding maybe 20-25% marketshare, Wintel holding maybe 40-50% and Linux/Solaris and the rest of the Unix world holding down the rest.
If Apple continues to mature and improve OS X, I can see it getting to 20% marketshare in 10 years. And look at that, a world where there's enough heterogenous hardware out there that software and peripheral manufacturers write to standards.
And now that Apple is standardizing on TCP/IP for networking, LDAPv3 for enterprise directory services, IDE for storage, USB for keyboards/mice, and IEEE-1394 for high speed peripherals (Go Firewire-2! I can't wait for 800 mbps) and so on if Apple abandons all of that standards based goodness, how much will it really hurt to swap at that point to some other equally standard implementation? The answer is not at all and the painlessness of corporate abandoning Apple is what is going to keep them on the standards going forward. Apple, if anything, has always been consistent about wanting to make a buck.
The bottom end of Dell's line is not produced by Dell, just badged and sold by them. They can't run their regular business model that cheap. You might as well go for the $199 WalMart special running Lindows.
Actually, in this case, it would be an Appleseed cluster.
Imagine clustering for anybody.
Of course I meant the hardware/software combination of x86/Linux v. PPC/Mac OS X. Since it is very hard to find a Mac OS X capable system without an included license for some Mac OS, it's actually not very fair to compare PPC/Linux to PPC/Mac OS X.
But then again, you knew that.
http://www.bb-elec.com/convert_serial_port/usb.asp
From what these people are saying you should be able to attach this to a USB computer(mac or pc) and get a parallel port out the other end.
Cheers.
Nah, processor speed advantage ebbed and flowed across lines for years. It still does. I think that PPC is currently somewhat lagging and might get a nice lift in 2003 with the new IBM chip. I just thought your comparison was unfair and irrelevant since nobody's using 68k chips in desktop cpus and hasn't for several years.
We're also talking about Power4 chips without VMX. The floating point numbers should rise significantly if VMX is used for the fp tests.
Ok, look at the green box and multiply by 1.8 (the green box is a 1Ghz version). Also, this 1.8Ghz version will be coming with VMX/Altivec/Velocity Engine units so it will likely gain speed boosts depending on the code used.
Mac people have been sticking PC memory into their computers for years. Ditto with hard drives, etc. If you don't want to pay extra, you don't have to get 'genuine GM parts' for a GM car either. You save money there too even when both parts are turned out by the same factory.
OK, create a workgroup server running Windows, web serving, file and print, and a database for 100 people. Now do the same using a mac.
The mac is hands down cheaper because the software on Windows is so much more expensive.
Apple makes the whole widget.
OK, now Linux beats mac out on price, no doubt. But can it even come close on ease of use?
Try taking a look at this PC spec page. Notice what's not there? Parallel ports are on the way out. Do you insist on 5.25 floppy drives on your machines as well?
Congratulations, you are not in the Apple demographic. Nothing they will do will ever please you. Please stop paying attention to Apple now because unless you are in charge of IT purchasing at a company in Apple's target market you won't ever get a machine from them that you'll like.
You are also probably not in the Lambourghini, GAP, butler, and countless other market demographics but chances are you aren't compelled to rant about how they are irrelevant to you. Try extending that to Macintoshes, would you?
According to Apple the only performa 640 was one of those hybrid dos machines. The spec is still on the Apple site. This was the era of selling crippled chips without math coprocessors. The 486DX66 that came in the box was paired with a 68LC040, thus we have an x86 chip with math coprocessor compared with a 68k Motorola chip without one. Oh yess, a *very* fair comparison.
Since no major PC computing platform uses the 68k line anymore for their CPUs why should we care about this anyway?
A great deal of those chinese factory workers *are* slave labor, but I guess that isn't a "condition" of their labor.
I guess that the party commissar system that runs in those factories to keep the workers in line has some analogue in the US (not likely) and that since those factory based party commissars enforce the 1 child policy (among other enforcers to be sure) that isn't relevant to the conditions of their labor.
Pre-union labor in the US was tough, in every industrializing nation, the process has been tough but in the free world, they flocked to those jobs because rural life was tougher and earned less money. In the PRC, the same income increase and less brutal conditions prevail (marking the only valid likeness) but the machinery of repression makes the resulting system qualitatively different in terms of toughness and brutality.
Yes, and if you were around the last time a story on this subject came out, you would have already read the back and forth, complete with references to the space elevator folks who say that they're going to make sure that in case of cut that the cable will largely disintigrate on the way down.
In other words, it's a real issue that is being studied and they already have real world solutions to make it happen which makes the scary scenarios non-issues.
The governor generally appoints replacement senators. In this case the gov. is a Dem so... nope.
Here's one link
Ummm... wrong. Terrorists, including the theoretical terrorists who are going to down this yet to be built space elevator, generally come from middle class backgrounds and are well educated in rapidly modernizing countries. They've lifted themselves out of the crap in their own societies and in college reallize just how far down the totem pole they truly are and are ashamed. They lash out at their betters in order to pull them down to their own level.