Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2007 07:17 In article <era3ti$tvp$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er9h7n$8qk_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <er7bgl$ijh$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>The funny thing is that the computer business has swung back and forth on >>>single vs multiple users. >> >>Of course. That's the nature of the biz. There are other >>kinds of swinging, too. >> >>> Now we seem to be at the single user end of the >>>swing. >> >>Not at all. It is clear that single user hasn't been adequate >>for at least 8 years. > >That is only a leading indicator of what is to come not an indication of >where we are. > > >> The problem is that the software side >>of the biz is dragging its heels and the hardware types are >>getting away with not including assists to the OS guys. > >The most hardware guys have to design hardware to run with Windows. Sigh! Windows' OS has a grandfather that required those hardware assists. Your point is making an excuse for lousy design requirements. > This >sets a limit on what assists they include. The lack of assists included >sets limits on what the OS does. There is a positive feedback between the >two. > > >>>There is a trend back with people suggesting that everyone in the >>>building's files be maintained on a single server. >> >>Well, whenver somebody talks to you about that, always mention >>keeping a backup copy off-site. > >Even just suggesting that there be true backups of peoples machines throws >them into a panic. Good. That's why you should just say the words. That will have a ripple effect throughout the industry. > "Imagine an evil person gets to the PC, deletes all >the files of that user and reformats the harddisk on the machine. How >long would it take to put it all back as a working system?" has been the >question I have asked. Instead of saying evil person, just say lightning strike or power surge or blizzard/hurricane when everything shuts down for 2 weeks. >>> Unfortunately, with a >>>Windows system done this way, there is no sure way to back up your files. >>>I figure at some point someone will bring out 3rd party software that >>>correctly backs everything for each user correctly. >> >>Nope. That won't happen. As soon as you get a procedure and >>hard/software/humans in place, MS will change something that >>will break it. I've never been able to figure out a independent >>way no matter what they did. > >On just a sinlge PC it is quite easy. No, it is not. The way files, directories, structures and MOST importantly, data has been organized makes it almost impossible to manage files on a PC. > Doing the backup of whats on the >server is hard. On a single PC, you boot something other than windows and >make a bitwise image of the hard disk. When things break, you go back to >that other OS and restore the disk as it was. If you have been good about >backing up your data files, you don't need to do a full image every day. That's called an incremental backup. Great care needs to occur to combine full and incremental backups. /BAH
From: MassiveProng on 23 Feb 2007 07:27 On Fri, 23 Feb 07 12:09:12 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >That had to do with resources such as magtape drives, diskpacks, >etc. Today, it has to do with such things as available RAM, available swap space, etc. You need to get on the clue bandwagon. Riding the clueless bandwagon has you meandering through life with blinders on.
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2007 07:26 In article <erhn0i$em5$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erhea1$8qk_010(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ergbsm$jtg$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ereobj$8ss_010(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <ercret$dg2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <erc8n2$8ss_006(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>In article <877iufp05h.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>>>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>[....] >>>>>Unfortunately the hardware in the x86 series of processors makes it hard >>>>>to do a general purpose VM that doesn't thrash a lot. If the problem is >>>>>too big to fit in real memory, doing the disk I/O in the program instead >>>>>of letting the VM take over usually make for a faster result. >>>> >>>>A solution is to invent a software GETSEG if the hardware can't >>>>give help. >>> >>>You can usually work out before hand what needs to be in memory when. >> >>You can do this only if the directives are in a script or the >>machine is dedicated to one task and the process has been debugged. > >The code of a FFT is an example of a classic case where the order things >are needed is well known. There are lots of tasks like that. If they are >part of the total load on a computer, it still makes sense to use code >within that routine to do the swapping for that routine. > > >>You can not ever predict what will be required if any human >>has access to the system. > >Sure you can. If the computer is running a printer server, you can >predict the right order for the files to be read by the server. If there >is a task constantly running to take sliding billion point FFTs, you know >what is best for the FFT part. Just because the human may change >something it doesn't mean they change everything. All of this is single-task, single user thinking. Computer usage by the general population requires more than this. You keep looking at the load balance from a naive user POV. My biz was timesharing from the OS' POV. > > >>>This way, the swapping action is always the best one instead of pot luck. >>>A simple case is when you are sorting a huge file. The first step is to >>>sort the biggest hunks that will fit into RAM, after that the code is a >>>classic merge operation. For each part it is fairly easy to see what >>>needs to be in RAM. >> >>You are still thinking in single-use mode. That situation is becoming >>rarer even on PCs. I've been trying to point that out throughout >>this particular thread drift. > >No, I'm thinking of the case where something very difficult needs to be >done with a PC. While it is doing it, the best rules for swapping are >known. Again, I think you are confused about swapping. The OS only needs to swap if it has to temporarily delete contents of memory whose bit settings have to be restored exactly as they were. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2007 07:30 In article <erhm5r$em5$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erhdqd$8qk_007(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <erf2m9$39q$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <erennl$8ss_006(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <ercoj7$8qv$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <ercbpb$8qk_009(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>[.. surf web, get spam and play games ..] >>>>>>>Go take a look at what all those PCs get used for. What I listed was >>most >>>>>>>of it. People have PCs in there home that only serve as a very limited >>>>>>>tool. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. I'm currently running a test so see just how much pressure >>>>>>people are getting to start doing on-line banking. The latest >>>>>>development is that any check you write is handled like a debit >>>>>>card. The requirement for a voucher for each payment is disappearing. >>>>> >>>>>You are one person and certainly the minority. I'm about to look at what >>>>>my wife is doing on her computer..... >>>>> >>>>>She is "surfing the web" right now. Like many others. >>>>> >>>>>Just because a few people do more complex stuff, you can't assume that >>>>>everyone does. >>>> >>>>This isn't an assumption. There is enormous pressure to herd >>>>the general public into using electronic banking. >>> >>>I use electronic banking. I go to the banks web site and do it. It is >>>just another "surfing the web" case. I don't have any special software to >>>do it. I am far from the normal user but even I didn't add anything >>>beyond the web browser to do my banking. >> >>Since you have already converted to on-line banking, why are >>you disputing my statements about it? > >I am disputing your incorrect statements. You cannot know what is incorrect because you've already been herded into doing online banking. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2007 07:59
In article <er4i05$1ln$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er47qv$8qk_001(a)s897.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.....] >>>NT was written in the first place for a processor that didn't do >>>interrupts well. >> >>Nuts. If the hardware doesn't do it, then you can make the software >>do it. As TW used to say, "A small matter of programming". > >On the N10 there was no way to code around it. The hardware was designed >so that it had to walk to the breakroom and back before it picked up the >phone. Nothing you could say over the phone would help. > > > >>> 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. >> >>You are confusing delivery of computing services by software with >>delivery of computing services of hardware. > >No, hardware sets the upper limit on what software can do. That all depends on who is doing the coding. <snip> /BAH |