Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 15 Feb 2007 09:42 In article <er1k4l$8qk_002(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <jff7t2160tu1ll3bb1k7t0k5beohqsv3ti(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:37:51 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>(Ken Smith) Gave us: >> >>>In article <equso2$8ss_002(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>So am I. PCs should have never implied one task running >>>>at a time nor a single disk pathway. >>> >>>In days gone by, you could get channel controllers (alaIBM360) for the ISA >>>bus. With a little programming skill, you could make things like >>>transfering files happen without help from the main CPU. I expect these >>>things will reappear as more demanding applications get written for Linux. >>> >> >> >> You guys are both idiots. >> >>http://tekmicro.com/products/product.cfm?id=57&gid=1 >> >>http://tekmicro.com/products/product.cfm?id=13&gid=1 >> >> >> The world has left you behind. > >In some ways, the world hasn't caught up with us. It's going >to take another five years, I think, before the OS biz' main >distributions get as agile as ours was in 1980. It's been >almost 3 decades to reinvent the wheel. I know you can't view the web. The links point to some cute devices that are nothing like the channel controllers on the IBM360. One does wonder why MissingProng would have included them in his post. It seems that Intel doesn't make the 8089 anymore. Something that evolved from it could be a good thing to have in the modern computers. Perhaps it will be multiCPU machines that will be the next break through in general purpose computing. There are already some machines for special purposes that have 32K processors in them. I think that Linux has reached the point where it is good enough for all practical purposes. Chances are a break through in the hardware will be the next big thing. As OSes go it is fairly good. Unlike Windows, it can keep up with a 19200 baud serial stream. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 15 Feb 2007 10:00 In article <er1jv3$8qk_001(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eqvacf$mq6$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <equso2$8ss_002(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>So am I. PCs should have never implied one task running >>>at a time nor a single disk pathway. >> >>In days gone by, you could get channel controllers (alaIBM360) for the ISA >>bus. With a little programming skill, you could make things like >>transfering files happen without help from the main CPU. > >The CPU should have had to manhandle I/O transfers other than >telling the device to go and where to put its done interrupt. I assume you intended a "not" in there somewhere. On the 360, you could direct the channel to "go get the record for Mr. Jones". > >> I expect these >>things will reappear as more demanding applications get written for Linux. > >NT should have been able to do this for thousands but it got borke. NT was written in the first place for a processor that didn't do interrupts well. The N10 AKA 860 processor had to spill its entire pipeline when interrupted. This slowed things down a lot when the code involved interrupts. When the project was moved back to the X86 world, it was marketed as secure ... well sort of .... well kind of .... its better than 98. I don't think a lot of time was spent on improving the interrupt performance. >I was talking about simple things like being able to print a file, >download yesterday's newsgroups posts, build an EXE while the PC >user played a session of Pong! while waiting for everything to >finish. This all should have happened on one machine without >interfering with each other. Linux does ok at this. Right now I also have LTSpice running on another desktop. I'm typing this while if figures. >For some strange reason, MS products can't chew gum and salivate >at the same time; it appears that they think this is a feature. The DOS mind set was to only do one thing at a time. Some bits of later versions looked like multitasking was intended but abandoned. Even very later versions save registers into code space instead of onto the stack. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 15 Feb 2007 19:05 On Thu, 15 Feb 07 12:36:37 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In some ways, the world hasn't caught up with us. It's going >to take another five years, I think, before the OS biz' main >distributions get as agile as ours was in 1980. It's been >almost 3 decades to reinvent the wheel. Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! That IS funny! You should do geek stand up! There was no such thing as Gigabit per second sampling back then. Compared to today's chips, a 5 volt TTL chip take a year to reach logic level 1. The word (phrase, term, etc.) for today is: "Slew Rate" Try again, honey, you are at 70dB down. You need to boost the gain a bit. Too much bit error rate... Oh... that's right... it's not the carrier or the packets, its the data. Bad data is bad data. One cannot clean up what is errant from the start.
From: nonsense on 15 Feb 2007 20:48 MassiveProng wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 07 12:36:37 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>In some ways, the world hasn't caught up with us. It's going >>to take another five years, I think, before the OS biz' main >>distributions get as agile as ours was in 1980. It's been >>almost 3 decades to reinvent the wheel. > > > > Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! > > > That IS funny! You should do geek stand up! > > There was no such thing as Gigabit per second sampling back then. > > Compared to today's chips, a 5 volt TTL chip take a year to reach > logic level 1. > > The word (phrase, term, etc.) for today is: > > "Slew Rate" > > Try again, honey, you are at 70dB down. You need to boost the gain > a bit. Too much bit error rate... > > Oh... that's right... it's not the carrier or the packets, its the > data. > > Bad data is bad data. One cannot clean up what is errant from the > start. None of the has anything to do with the OS biz. As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself.
From: Ken Smith on 15 Feb 2007 21:11
In article <be273$45d50d69$49ecf9d$20196(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: [.....] >None of the has anything to do with the OS biz. We just had another wonderful experience with XP. Characters pumped into the serial port may take up to 5 seconds before a DOS application running under XP gets to see them. Most of them eventually come through. Tomorrow, we may try it with "dosemu" to see how well that works. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |