Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 23 Feb 2007 20:01 On Fri, 23 Feb 07 12:59:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >That all depends on who is doing the coding. ><snip> > >/BAH With your case, the efficiency of the result is always degraded from optimal.
From: MassiveProng on 23 Feb 2007 20:02 On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:47:40 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >No, I am not. The case under discussion was quite specific. There were >two large tasks which individually would fit into physical memory but that >added up to more than would fit. If the two were loaded at the same time, >the results would be later in coming than if you ran them one after the >other. 100 percent CORRECT. Now watch her squirm.
From: MassiveProng on 23 Feb 2007 20:11 On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:04 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >No great amount of care is needed. I've done that sort of restore a few >times with no great trouble. Since files are stored with the modification >date, a copy command that checks dates does the hard part. > Batch (read DOS type batch file) driven backup routines worked flawlessly for me for YEARS, and only backed up what was needed, and never overwrote a newer file with an older file. She has no nut to be off of, but she is, nonetheless, OFF. I'd bet that a batch file would still work on all but protected of "open" files even today under Vista, which has the DOD VDM capacity restored in it. I Use the NET command to redirect print jobs sent from old DOS apps that only use parallel ports, like OrCAD (early, non-windows), or Tango! I love Tango because for non-fine pitch and bigger, it is hard to beat. Laser/Jet printer output to HP printers is fantastic. I currently use DOSBox, however, as it allows the basic VGA screen to be expanded to my 1280x768 realm. At 32" my layouts are awesome to work on with it!
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Feb 2007 07:22 In article <ermtbj$rph$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ermofh$8qk_003(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <er4i05$1ln$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <er47qv$8qk_001(a)s897.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>>NT was written in the first place for a processor that didn't do >>>>>interrupts well. >>>> >>>>Nuts. If the hardware doesn't do it, then you can make the software >>>>do it. As TW used to say, "A small matter of programming". >>> >>>On the N10 there was no way to code around it. The hardware was designed >>>so that it had to walk to the breakroom and back before it picked up the >>>phone. Nothing you could say over the phone would help. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> The N10 AKA 860 processor had to spill its entire >>>>>pipeline when interrupted. This slowed things down a lot when the code >>>>>involved interrupts. When the project was moved back to the X86 world, it >>>>>was marketed as secure ... well sort of .... well kind of .... its better >>>>>than 98. I don't think a lot of time was spent on improving the interrupt >>>>>performance. >>>> >>>>You are confusing delivery of computing services by software with >>>>delivery of computing services of hardware. >>> >>>No, hardware sets the upper limit on what software can do. >> >>That all depends on who is doing the coding. > >If a CPU chip needs 1 hour to do a an add instruction, you can't make it >go faster by anything you code. Like I said it sets the upper limit on >the performance. Sigh! If an ADD takes an hour and the computation has to be done in less time, then you don't use the ADD instruction. You do the addition by hand. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Feb 2007 07:24
In article <ermuv0$rph$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ermmos$8qk_002(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>>>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. > >You are completely off your nut on this. Not at all. You are already herded into the corral. You will never experience the pressure that will push the rest into that pen. /BAH |