Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 21 Feb 2007 10:20 In article <erhepi$8qk_001(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <erf0g5$39q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ereron$8qk_010(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[......] >>>>The reason almost all PCs aren't dually is not because PCs >>>>can't be dually, it's because that's what the market wants. >>> >>>That's not the reason. Devices aren't multi-ported. To have >>>an effective multi-CPU general purpose system, all CPUs should >>>have hardware access to all devices. >> >>That is not true. You can have single ported devices in a multiprocessor >>system with no problem. > >Go back and read my analogy about the pop bottle. That would be a silly thing to do. It makes no sense at all for a hardware point of view. >> Since the device is usually a physical thing, it >>can only do one thing at a time and is always slower than the processor. > >No, this 'always slower than the processor' has been a new phenomena. When I was working on the "numerical engine" with Babbage, we didn't have to worry about such issues. We were well along when we got our funding yanked because the mousey girl he was boffing turned out to be related to some earl. >>A well written OS can deal with this issue with no big problem. > >I know the problems. An OS can spend 25-50% of its available >compute time switching contexts to the CPU that has the >physical access to a device. That would be a badly written OS. [.....] >>> Another limitation is >>>no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys connected to it. >> >>The PC I'm typing on can have 2 ttys connected. The one at work can have >>4. This isn't the real problem. > >And the predecessor to NT could deal with a thousand. It is the >real problem. The biz has been reduced to small computer thinking >in a world that is already doing large computer usage. I take it you don't like 4 being "multiple" too. >>Reentrant drivers are not the issue when the hardware they connect to >>isn't. A well written OS will deal with it by letting one or the other >>CPU have control of the device while its operations are going on and make >>sure the other CPU is doing something elese useful. > >A well written OS cannot create new hardware paths. It is software >and limited to the hardware configurations it runs on. This is true but it is not a problem nor a new observation. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Phil Carmody on 21 Feb 2007 14:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <ergc9g$jtg$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <45DB089A.DB973D69(a)hotmail.com>, > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> Another limitation is no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys > >>> connected to it. > >> > >>You can have 4 serial ports. Possibly more. > > > >If you connect a serial to USB converter, you can easily end up with more > >than 4. > > > 4 was unacceptable in 1968. What has the biz come to? 1 serial port was enough for a Microvax. 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 21 Feb 2007 14:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <c814$45db3101$cdd085c5$1823(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >Phil Carmody wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > <snip pretty good description of real time> > > Thank you. I owe you one. Why, it was nothing special, just a typical definition of the term that you could have got from anywhere? What's more is that it contradicted the garbage you've been spouting. 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 21 Feb 2007 14:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <erf2nv$39q$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <ereo6m$8ss_009(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>What does the OS, running from a CD, use for its scratch pad? > >><snip> > > > >It uses the RAM of the computer. They like to have quite a lot of RAM. > > A RAM can't be the scratchpad. That would slow down processing > enormously. Unbelievable. This is going to be a laugh - please explain why you say that. Give a numeric example too. Black is white on planet BAH. And your anachronistic use of the term "A RAM" isn't big, isn't clever, and certainly isn't what a bit god would use. You're not special because you're anachronistic, you're out of touch. Well, except if you think of "special" as in the "special bus", and "special ed.". 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: T Wake on 21 Feb 2007 14:59
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87r6sji9b3.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> In article <c814$45db3101$cdd085c5$1823(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> <snip pretty good description of real time> >> >> Thank you. I owe you one. > > Why, it was nothing special, just a typical definition of the > term that you could have got from anywhere? > > What's more is that it contradicted the garbage you've been > spouting. You are implying BAH read it........ |