Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 16 Feb 2007 19:31 On Fri, 16 Feb 07 14:10:54 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <er45sh$pkf$2(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>On 2007-02-12, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> You had to load the CX register to do a LOOP. >>>> >>>>What's LOOP got to do with anything? >>> >>> You haven't been following the discussion. I used the case of a REP >>> prefix used inside a loop as the example of why the 8086's instruction set >>> was so poorly designed. The CX and the REP both use the CX so the CX must >>> be loaded for the REP inside the loop. This means that the current CX >>> contents must be saved, the CX loaded, the REP done and the CX restored. >>> This is a lot of extra work. >> >>It's less work to just use something else to hold the loop count > >Well, that depends on what the hardware has to do for you >to change that "something else". > >>and use DEC and JNZ in place of LOOP (faster too since 80486) >> >>One of the other registers or [bp+N] is often a good choice >>(for apropriate values of N) > >Snort. Don't you just love that "appropriate values of N"? >It implies you have to check it each and every time. > Every time I check you, I see an inappropriate value.
From: MassiveProng on 16 Feb 2007 19:33 On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <er440c$p85$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >[....] >>It's a matter of principle not of pragmatism. >> >>Why pollute a linux machine with some other operating system... > >It isn't exactly polluting it when you run DOS under Bochs or dowemu. I >still have quite a bit of code that needs to run under DOS. Because linux >does a much better job of running DOS than XP or Vista, for me linux is >the better answer by far. > >I also get the advantage of an OS that doesn't crash or get viruses etc. > Dosemu is lame. DOSBox is the best emulator out there. It even scales 640x480 vga apps out to fill my wide screen resolutions with no aspect ratio error. I run Tango as well as an Old OrCAD and see them on what is the equiv of a 25" 4:3 screen. Best emu in existence, you 20 blank line at the end retard.
From: MassiveProng on 16 Feb 2007 19:36 On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:45:09 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >I believe that neither XP nor dosemu use a threshold. The delay under XP >appears more random. Chances are the timing under XP runs the DOS stuff >at a priority level equal to other tasks. There is some task between the >DOS stuff and the hardware that runs at some other time and priority. You are truly clueless about time slices, and task prioritization. Serial I/O is pretty far up there, and does NOT get disturbed or reset to another value by ANY other task.
From: MassiveProng on 16 Feb 2007 19:40 On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:09:52 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <er440c$p85$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>On 2007-02-13, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> >> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>I'll repeat it since you're a slow learner: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>>>>partitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I repeat: >>>>>> >>>>>> You're a goddamned idiot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So when, despite being a slow learner, you do learn something, >>>>>it is invariably wrong. >>>> >>>> You're an idiot. You statement about Linux is absolutely 100% >>>>WRONG! >>>> >>> >>>It's a matter of principle not of pragmatism. >>> >>>Why pollute a linux machine with some other operating system... >> >> >> The people who pay you use an OS that you don't. > >While that's true, the premise remains unchanged. Today >hardware is cheap. Said the idiot obviously totally unaware of what a budget is.
From: MassiveProng on 16 Feb 2007 19:56
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:21:31 GMT, "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <eatmyshorts(a)doubleclick.net> Gave us: >On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:49:30 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >... >>>As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. >> >> I don't think he is redefining it; I think he believes he's talking about >> the same thing. He keeps reminding me of the last tech I had to finally >> resort to beating up in order to get him to understand what was going to >> happen. I don't think that guy knows to this day why his way was the >> exactly wrong way. >> > >Yes, sadly most people would rather be right than happy. > Yeah, and you got neither, dumbfucktard. |