And yet cost/processing power is in favor of x86. It takes weeks to do image rendering on current ARM processors that would take a few hours on my Athlon64.
But, is the Intel architecture really worth maintaining? The only reason I can see keeping the current IA32 around is that there's such a huge code base, and realistically if we cut the cord now, it wouldn't be too long before we could just use emulation for the old non-portable code.
I'm really not sure that it's a good idea to keep it around just because. A more or less fresh start with more modern assumptions isn't really a bad idea. Both technology as well as usage patterns have changed drastically over the decades.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Intel should be cut out, but more that keeping processors just because isn't a great idea.
If we could realistically cut the cord? The fact that the x86 ISA has persisted for so long is precisely due to the fact that we can't realistically cut the cord! Many architectures have tried for the mainstream (SPARC, PPC, Alpha, PA-RISC [were they ever mainstream?], Itanium, etc.). And now they're all dead or shoved into servers. Only PowerPC processors have been as successful as x86 chips at being placed in low-end, high-end computing applications and everything in between. Even so, with Apple out of the picture, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone selling new PowerPC-based computers geared for the general public.
Also, ISAs aren't kept "just because." If you think x86 is bad, consider that the most modern IBM Power Systems are still binary compatible with code written for machines 40 years ago!
What I find interesting is that Intel tried this thing before, but it was called the iAPX 432 back in the '80s. It failed miserably back then, but is only somewhat more successful now.
Also, I think it was HP that approached Intel to make Itanium, not the other way around.
Right. As long as there's a compiler, the user can always compile almost anything that's not shipped such as an mp3 player or gnash (gnu's flash player which I think can play youtube videos now).
I'm glad the computer I'm using is not affected. I think it's funny how every few years the media picks up and runs with the new malware of the day. Remember that one that flashes the computer's BIOS? The one named after some famous artist?
No kidding. No wonder games with such a production budget needs to sell a million copies to break even. On the other hand, I picked up Chicken Shoot for the Wii a few months back. It's not exactly the best game out there, but I can guarantee that the production budget for that game was way less than $25 million (I'd peg it at $50k at most) and the game certainly doesn't need to sell a million copies to break even.
Not sure, but you could say the same about other OSes and other environments. Mac OS X, if you don't load aqua, has a really small memory footprint but then balloons once aqua is loaded. Same with KDE and GNOME.
Linux runs fine tough on such "low-memory" (I had harddisks smaller than that, like 20Meg!) machines.
It's a little disingenuous to say that "Linux" (aside from the fact that Linux is just a kernel and that the term "Linux" is now being used in the mainstream for almost any Unix-like OS; but that's another argument altogether) will run in low memory. While this is true, most people wouldn't use it like that. My WRT54g with 16 MB of RAM is running OpenWRT. I had a 386 that only had 12 MB of RAM and I had X running with twm, and it ran only slightly faster than Windows 95, which had a much better looking UI.
So yes, you can run "Linux" on a low memory computer, but you're sure as hell not going to be running KDE or GNOME or some other good-looking interface with it.
Yes, and then you'll list about 90 OSes that most people haven't heard of or don't care about. The 10 that the article has listed (actually 9 since X Window isn't an OS) most computing people have heard of and know about in passing at least.
Uh, that's the whole point of experimenting. It's easy to say in hindsight that this was the result. But what if the result had gone the other way? Would you still be saying that it obviously would have worked?
If you ask me, some things never go out of style.;-)
No, it just means you are aesthetically-challenged. twm is just plain ugly. If I were going to use something with minimal footprint, I'd at least want something good to look at such as wm2, ratpoison, or blackbox/fluxbox/openbox
What I found annoying is how the article states that only 1% of the people knew how much the Earth's surface is covered with fresh water.
No, it says 47% know, here's the quote: "Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.(*)"
"(*) The approximately correct answer range for this question was defined as anything between 65% and 75%. Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%."
Falcon
You apaprently didn't read very far:
Knowledge about some key scientific issues is also low. Despite the fact that access to fresh water is likely to be one of the most pressing environmental issues over the coming years, less than 1% of U.S. adults know what percent of the planet's water is fresh (the correct answer is 3%). Nearly half didn't even hazard a guess. Additionally, 40% of U.S. adults say they are "not at all knowledgeable" about sustainability.
No kidding. Plus, compared with putting money in Citigroup stock, this is a better investment. At least it will have at least half its value next year!
What I found annoying is how the article states that only 1% of the people knew how much the Earth's surface is covered with fresh water. Well, that means 99% of people don't know the answer; and that would presumably include highly intelligent people such as scientists...
Linux for PS2 and Linux for PS3 are just Sony's feeble attempts at saying 'We support open source'.
I always thought it was an attempt to bypass some European import law(s) by saying "Hey look! It runs Linux so it's really a computer and not a game console!"
The PS3's specs might be a problem for a Windows box that demands half a gig for OS overhead, but Linux isn't supposed to have those problems.
Well, actually you can try running Windows 2k in qemu on the PS3 and I think you'd have more than enough ram to spare still. As I recall, I loaded Windows 2k on a old Pentium laptop with 128 MB of RAM and it still ran pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's not ARM, but this thing's also not x86 - a MIPS-based mini-notebook: Alpha 400 MIPS netbook.
They're pretty inexpensive too. I might pick one up just to play around with it.
And yet cost/processing power is in favor of x86. It takes weeks to do image rendering on current ARM processors that would take a few hours on my Athlon64.
But, is the Intel architecture really worth maintaining? The only reason I can see keeping the current IA32 around is that there's such a huge code base, and realistically if we cut the cord now, it wouldn't be too long before we could just use emulation for the old non-portable code.
I'm really not sure that it's a good idea to keep it around just because. A more or less fresh start with more modern assumptions isn't really a bad idea. Both technology as well as usage patterns have changed drastically over the decades.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Intel should be cut out, but more that keeping processors just because isn't a great idea.
If we could realistically cut the cord? The fact that the x86 ISA has persisted for so long is precisely due to the fact that we can't realistically cut the cord! Many architectures have tried for the mainstream (SPARC, PPC, Alpha, PA-RISC [were they ever mainstream?], Itanium, etc.). And now they're all dead or shoved into servers. Only PowerPC processors have been as successful as x86 chips at being placed in low-end, high-end computing applications and everything in between. Even so, with Apple out of the picture, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone selling new PowerPC-based computers geared for the general public.
Also, ISAs aren't kept "just because." If you think x86 is bad, consider that the most modern IBM Power Systems are still binary compatible with code written for machines 40 years ago!
What I find interesting is that Intel tried this thing before, but it was called the iAPX 432 back in the '80s. It failed miserably back then, but is only somewhat more successful now.
Also, I think it was HP that approached Intel to make Itanium, not the other way around.
Because there weren't any low-power 64-bit PowerPC processors at the time and Apple couldn't wait.
Right. As long as there's a compiler, the user can always compile almost anything that's not shipped such as an mp3 player or gnash (gnu's flash player which I think can play youtube videos now).
Well, at least with New Jersey, there's still the theoretical possibility of escape.
I'm glad the computer I'm using is not affected. I think it's funny how every few years the media picks up and runs with the new malware of the day. Remember that one that flashes the computer's BIOS? The one named after some famous artist?
No kidding. No wonder games with such a production budget needs to sell a million copies to break even. On the other hand, I picked up Chicken Shoot for the Wii a few months back. It's not exactly the best game out there, but I can guarantee that the production budget for that game was way less than $25 million (I'd peg it at $50k at most) and the game certainly doesn't need to sell a million copies to break even.
Not sure, but you could say the same about other OSes and other environments. Mac OS X, if you don't load aqua, has a really small memory footprint but then balloons once aqua is loaded. Same with KDE and GNOME.
I keep forgetting that 512MB is considered "low-memory" nowadays.
Linux runs fine tough on such "low-memory" (I had harddisks smaller than that, like 20Meg!) machines.
It's a little disingenuous to say that "Linux" (aside from the fact that Linux is just a kernel and that the term "Linux" is now being used in the mainstream for almost any Unix-like OS; but that's another argument altogether) will run in low memory. While this is true, most people wouldn't use it like that. My WRT54g with 16 MB of RAM is running OpenWRT. I had a 386 that only had 12 MB of RAM and I had X running with twm, and it ran only slightly faster than Windows 95, which had a much better looking UI.
So yes, you can run "Linux" on a low memory computer, but you're sure as hell not going to be running KDE or GNOME or some other good-looking interface with it.
Modded insightful? Hardly, unless the poster can reasonably say that he/she still uses MS-DOS 5.0 as the main computer.
Yes, and then you'll list about 90 OSes that most people haven't heard of or don't care about. The 10 that the article has listed (actually 9 since X Window isn't an OS) most computing people have heard of and know about in passing at least.
Uh, that's the whole point of experimenting. It's easy to say in hindsight that this was the result. But what if the result had gone the other way? Would you still be saying that it obviously would have worked?
To them, comments like these are not only funny, but provide a kind of sexual release somewhat similar to viewing a nude photo of Deanna Troi.
OMG! Where???
If you ask me, some things never go out of style. ;-)
No, it just means you are aesthetically-challenged. twm is just plain ugly. If I were going to use something with minimal footprint, I'd at least want something good to look at such as wm2, ratpoison, or blackbox/fluxbox/openbox
I don't think so. The word is of Greek derivation, not Latin, so it should be hippocampodus or something like that.
But really, it's annoying when people use the '-i' suffix for a plural when there is no basis to.
Let me give you a hint: girls aren't into arrogant assholes despite what rap videos would lead you to believe.
What I found annoying is how the article states that only 1% of the people knew how much the Earth's surface is covered with fresh water.
No, it says 47% know, here's the quote: "Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water .(*)"
"(*) The approximately correct answer range for this question was defined as anything between 65% and 75%. Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%."
Falcon
You apaprently didn't read very far:
No kidding. Plus, compared with putting money in Citigroup stock, this is a better investment. At least it will have at least half its value next year!
What I found annoying is how the article states that only 1% of the people knew how much the Earth's surface is covered with fresh water. Well, that means 99% of people don't know the answer; and that would presumably include highly intelligent people such as scientists...
Yes, especially since the emancipation proclamation was nearly 130 years ago.
Linux for PS2 and Linux for PS3 are just Sony's feeble attempts at saying 'We support open source'.
I always thought it was an attempt to bypass some European import law(s) by saying "Hey look! It runs Linux so it's really a computer and not a game console!"
The PS3's specs might be a problem for a Windows box that demands half a gig for OS overhead, but Linux isn't supposed to have those problems.
Well, actually you can try running Windows 2k in qemu on the PS3 and I think you'd have more than enough ram to spare still. As I recall, I loaded Windows 2k on a old Pentium laptop with 128 MB of RAM and it still ran pretty well.