Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Feb 2007 07:29 In article <er4gcr$1ln$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er45hl$pkf$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>On 2007-02-15, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>I read that there was a multitasking dos released by Microsoft in >>Europe. and then there's Deskview and I think Digital Research had >>a go at multitasking dos too. >> >>I played with something called multidos (I think it) was shareware or >>freeware and faked multitasking somehow. > >If you call two tasks "multi", I don't :-). > I wrote one that worked quite nicely. It >allowed the user interface task to run while disk I/O and printing etc >also ran. It was very special purposed so it wouldn't be something to >market. > >It really isn't that hard to create a multitasking system if only one task >is allowed to touch a given bit of hardware. Mostly you just have to >change the stack pointer and return from the timer interrupt into the >other task's context. You have a very big IF in that sentence. ;-) /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Feb 2007 07:32 In article <3c2f5$45d5c633$4fe763a$12490(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jasen 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... > > >Because he insists on taking a sandwich to the banquet? I use it to see what regular people have to endure. Then I can use that data (usually data about lack of ability) to figure out how to fix the problem. /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 17 Feb 2007 08:15 MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:25:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > It is possible to have all tasks done for > >you on that one system without any of them interfering with the other. > > > No!... REALLY!??? > > Jeez, girl. You are years behind the rest of us. That is such OLD > knowledge that it has almost been retired as long as you have. > > With you, it shows, however. Except, of course, it's false. It presumes either an infinitely powerful computer or a user who doesn't actually do anything at all with their computer. I'm currently running a 500MB LLL reduction on my G5 with 512MB RAM. I have 72 such reductions to perform. Care to tell me how I could run all 72 without any of them interfering with the other? Or even 2. 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: Phil Carmody on 17 Feb 2007 08:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <aaict21nu9t1faaiodh912qu7en2240379(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:25:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > >> Other > >>than instrumentation, there usually isn't any computing task that > >>has to have the CPU pay attention to it *right now*. > > > > > > A/V stream decoding does. Hell, even MP3 stream decoding does. > > > > When I watch Lost episodes on ABC.com, those streams get a LOT of > >CPU time slices simply because the stream MUST be processed > >continually. > > Son, it is time you learned about buffered mode I/O. Idiot. Presume the stream is all buffered in memory - how does that affect the fact that the processor must constantly be throwing up frame after frame to the screen? It doesn't. So the buffering or otherwise is irrelevant. You're completely hatstand. Sure, a reasonably capable processor will only spend a fraction of the time doing the decoding/filtering/scaling/whatever, but for that timeslice, it's working on something that must be processed in real time. -- "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: Phil Carmody on 17 Feb 2007 08:31
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > > As OSes go it is fairly good. Unlike Windows, it can > >keep up with a 19200 baud serial stream. > > Oh, jeez. You are too impressed with small potatoes. It should > be keeping up with 1000 19200 baud serial streams. I think you're stuck in the 80s. 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./. |