Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Feb 2007 08:15 [TTY screen preservation alert!!! Swallow your coffee before proceeding. I got annoyed.] In article <fe0ss2dh10c4nar1jf4kcuobcifibrokcd(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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. The systems we shipped made it appear to all users that they had their own PC when they logged in. Now, that is the beginning of personal computing. > >> 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. Not at all. It shows how the biz has regressed for two decades. The real computing biz has only begun to restart itself to provide real computing services to all users. > >> 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. It was the first time the biz proved that it could provide services to >500 users at the same time. NT should have been able to service thousands by now on the same computer system but it doesn't. > >>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. Well, if you really were born in 1960, then you had a big dump. > > You can't even keep a memory long enough to know what a simple >discussion is about. You were the one who has a misconception that NT was a rewrite. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 11 Feb 2007 10:28 In article <eqn31p$8ss_001(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eqkujo$2v2$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [.....] >>The PDP-8E had an interesting sort of OS on it. The OS could have modules >>installed on the fly in some cases. You had to always have the hard-disk >>module in place but the paper tape one could be removed and replaced as >>could a few other custom ones. IIRC they always had to be in field 0. >>Application programs could span fields but not the OS. The result was that >>some programs ran almost purely in field 1 and acted like they didn't even >>know about the fields. > >Are you talking about OS/8? One of the developers also did a lot >of work on my favorite OS. My memory isn't clear enough for me to say yes or no. >If I were ruler of the world, I'd have a PDP-8 at every elementary >school for kiddies to play with. No adults would be allowed. The PDP-8 is great machine to learn to program on. It takes very little time to learn the instruction set so you have more time to teach the important stuff. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Phil Carmody on 11 Feb 2007 11:26 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > > You can't even keep a memory long enough to know what a simple > >discussion is about. > > You were the one who has a misconception that NT was a rewrite. You do realise that all the evidence, such as the fact that non-NT windows at that time was increasingly written in x86 assembly, and that NT was not just portable across many architectures, but was actually first developed for non-x86 archs, and that the development team under ex-DEC man Cutler was an entirely independent team from the win3.x team, actually points towards "rewrite" being the most appropriate word to use. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: MassiveProng on 11 Feb 2007 11:34 On Sun, 11 Feb 07 12:54:14 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >The day you learn that the computing world is more than a single-user, >single-task PC, you will begin to live up to your boasts of prowess. You're an idiot. I live in the heart of the Cray Supercomputer Facility, and work for a major player in the realm. You still access the world on a terminal, and do not even use the WWW, and still behave like the world is running on a PDP, and make stupid claims about MicroSoft starting from a dumpster dive. Tell us again who knows more about the computing world.
From: krw on 11 Feb 2007 11:47
In article <eqlntm$421$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.2037d8dcaeddd806989f8e(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >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. > > They were already trying to sell at the time they were trying to sell the > 432. You couldn't get either chip(s). The 432 required two chips and > they ran too hot to be shipped. Nope. The '432 was announced well before the '286. I was at the Intel unveiling (one of IBM's representatives) at the Grand Hyatt in NYC. BTW, the 432 was three chips, not two. > >> 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. > > The advertising they did to me touted the multiprocessor application of > the device. That wasn't by any means the supposed advantage of the '432. MP had been done before. It was supposed the be their "mainframe" entry. Everyone laughed. It's most "interesting" aspect was the single-level store. Quite like IBM's ill-fated FS and later AS400 (as I mentioned). > >> 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. > > I suggest that it did. Mot was working on a 16 bit machine. Intel only > had a 8 bit machine. If the market went for 16 bit and swung over to the > 68K, it would cut into the cash flow into Intel until the 432 got to > market. I suggest that you have no clue. 80868 is a 16bit machine. You might want to try to count again. The PC market wasn't going to "swing" anywhere, particularly to the 68K. Your argument is simply silly. > >> 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. > > I disagree. Get real! > The 8086 processor had a huge collection of bad ideas in it. ....and you think the 8051 was the greatest processor of all time?! <boggle> > Needed 32 bits worth of register to access 20 bits worth of address space > was only one of many. So what? One didn't change segments on every access. Indeed one could say the opposite, one only had to supply 16bits of a 20bit address 99% of the time. ...more efficient. > The fact that a trip through the ALU was needed for > a jump instruction was another. Microarchitecture nit to save gates. Another adder could have been used but the gates weren't available. Later x86 processors didn't do this (though the P4 used the FPU for FX multiply; just as stupid). > The x86 had to keep the 8086 instruction > set because Intel knew that they couldn't strand the code and expect to > sell many processors. Wrong! They had the PC market and wanted to keep it. A radical change would have put them in the dumper. See: Itanic. > >> 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. > > I think the x86 is kludgy in a more extreme way than the 51. The silly > fools put in stuff like "ascii adjust for divide" but no 32 bit add > instruction. The REP prefix and the LOOP instruction both imply the CX > register. Ascii adjust was useful and simple enough to implement (no large use of valuable transistors). Why would there be a 32b add in a 16b processor? That would require a 32b ALU or microcode specifically for that one instruction. Sheesh, what a silly argument! Since SC is the "count" register, it sorta makes sense that it would be used for loop counts and repeats, eh? You could have complained that x86 wasn't as orthogonal as you like, but the 8051 is even less so. Compared to even x86, the 8051 is a mess. -- Keith |