Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 10 Feb 2007 12:32 On Sat, 10 Feb 07 12:29:39 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >That's all new stuff. I'm talking about the source histories before >NT. Bullshit. EISA as well as MP machines were around since the first iteration of NT. Since you didn't work at MS, I hardly think you really know much about "the source histories" FOR NT, which had nothing to do with the version of windows that came before it. NT was the FIRST MS rewrite of windows. Remember OS/2? IBM and MS were suppose to collaborate and make OS/2 win32 compatible. Do you even know what the win32 API is?
From: MassiveProng on 10 Feb 2007 12:35 On Sat, 10 Feb 07 12:29:39 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >We did master/slave implementations in 1971. This discussion is about PCs, dipshit. > JMF and TW did >the SMP implementation in 1978 with a FCS (first customer ship) >in 1979; the production tapes went out in 1980. You are off topic of this subthread, again. > I have, on my >wall, the configuration map of a customer who ran with 5 CPUs. Oh boy. Not on a PC, which was what this discussion IS about, dumbass. >And all this was done before you shat in your first diaper. Nope. I was born in the year of the laser. Another date that a twit like you will have to look up to know or even come close to remembering. You can't even keep a memory long enough to know what a simple discussion is about.
From: Fred Bloggs on 10 Feb 2007 12:37 > Since you didn't work at MS, I hardly think you really know much > about "the source histories" FOR NT, which had nothing to do with the > version of windows that came before it. NT was the FIRST MS rewrite > of windows. Remember OS/2? IBM and MS were suppose to collaborate > and make OS/2 win32 compatible. > Looks like the dipwit found a book in his dumpster diving and now he's a full-blown world class fantastical expert of all things MS....
From: MassiveProng on 10 Feb 2007 12:37 On Sat, 10 Feb 07 12:29:39 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> I am on my third dual CPU machine. > >So little, so late. You're an idiot. With you it is "So little for so long". When are you going to catch up with the rest of the world? > The biz should have been doing a hundred >by now. > You are totally retarded. NO, PCs should NOT be doing 100 cpus by now. But supercomputers are doing far more than that, so you can't even keep up with THAT aspect of technology.
From: krw on 10 Feb 2007 13:28
In article <eqkv5i$2v2$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... <snip> > Intel tried to sell the 432 at just about the same time as they tried > to sell the 286. It didn't take a genius to notice that N 286s with some > overhead would out perform N 432s. The iAPX432 came out in '81, a tad before the 80286. I don't think Intel actually tried to sell it. It was a real turkey, performance wise. Too much hardware falling all over itself. > The 432 was supposed to do > multiprocessor systems efficiently but it failed badly. The 432 had nothing to do with multi-processor. It was actually quite like IBM's FS in the early '70s (which was killed before implementation) and the AS400. > I think there must have been a group of people at Intel working on the 432 > and that this was seen as the future. Sure. the 432 group was in Oregon. The x86 people were in CA. > The X86 series was supposed to just > keep the market from running away while they designed it. Nope. 432 <> Itanic. ;-) The 432 was supposed to be a "micro- mainframe". It had nothing to do with x86, architecturally or market-wise. > The X86 ended > up with so many bad ideas in it because the real brains were being wasted > on the 432 project. Wrong. x86 was extended because they could. Backwards compatibility is key, much like the history behind the IBM 360->z9. Break backwards compatibility and the competition is on an even playing field. > IMO The best processor line Intel introduced was the 8051. It is too bad > that they didn't think to extend it in the obvious ways. Others have now > taken up the lead on that. Best processor? You think the x86 is kludgey and like the '51? I've used the 8051 several times and wouldn't shy away again, but the ISA is a mess. -- Keith |