Just plain fucked...
in [Design]
|
Prev: Freq. Independent Phase Shifter
Next: Please, DO NOT forget the only thing that matters on this planet........................……..
From: JosephKK on 11 May 2010 23:12 On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:24:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:14:10 -0500, "Tim Williams" ><tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: > >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:hjahu5d35h5ej11fe9ml9hlvepjceek3jn(a)4ax.com... >>> Sure, but why do they make you install a virtual machine and a whole >>> nother OS to run 16 bit apps? Why didn't they include a dosboxy thing? >> >>John, >> >>It's not a Windows thing. In 64 bit ("long") mode, 16 bit instructions >>don't work (either generate a fault or are mapped to other instructions). >>32 bit is the new 16 bit (32 bit programs run in long mode for >>compatability). >> > >Of course it's a Windows thing. Surely Microsoft has a programmer good >enough to write a dosboxy thing that will run 16-bit code. Or they >could hire one. They just chose not to. > >>Anything that emulates (NOT virtualizes) 16 bit operation is an additional >>program, like DOSBox or the Virtual Machine stuff. > >Right. Win7/64 doesn't include that. Which means I'm in no hurry to >use it. > >John Switching between 64 bit mode and other modes is really quite expensive in CPU cycles, cache misses, and more. Doing just a little of that will eat over 10% of the processor and memory bandwidth. I really is not all that compatible if you are switching modes all the time.
From: John Larkin on 12 May 2010 00:24 On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:12:47 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:24:27 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:14:10 -0500, "Tim Williams" >><tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:hjahu5d35h5ej11fe9ml9hlvepjceek3jn(a)4ax.com... >>>> Sure, but why do they make you install a virtual machine and a whole >>>> nother OS to run 16 bit apps? Why didn't they include a dosboxy thing? >>> >>>John, >>> >>>It's not a Windows thing. In 64 bit ("long") mode, 16 bit instructions >>>don't work (either generate a fault or are mapped to other instructions). >>>32 bit is the new 16 bit (32 bit programs run in long mode for >>>compatability). >>> >> >>Of course it's a Windows thing. Surely Microsoft has a programmer good >>enough to write a dosboxy thing that will run 16-bit code. Or they >>could hire one. They just chose not to. >> >>>Anything that emulates (NOT virtualizes) 16 bit operation is an additional >>>program, like DOSBox or the Virtual Machine stuff. >> >>Right. Win7/64 doesn't include that. Which means I'm in no hurry to >>use it. >> >>John > >Switching between 64 bit mode and other modes is really quite expensive >in CPU cycles, cache misses, and more. Doing just a little of that will >eat over 10% of the processor and memory bandwidth. I really is not all >that compatible if you are switching modes all the time. Why would it matter that a program that ran fine on a 40 MHz 486 uses 10% of one core of a 2 GHz quad-core CPU? If it were rewritten into modern bloatware, it might use 60%! I have a lot of 16-bit engineering apps I'd still like to run. John
From: Martin Brown on 12 May 2010 04:41 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:12:47 -0700, > "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:24:27 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:14:10 -0500, "Tim Williams" >>> <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hjahu5d35h5ej11fe9ml9hlvepjceek3jn(a)4ax.com... >>>>> Sure, but why do they make you install a virtual machine and a whole >>>>> nother OS to run 16 bit apps? Why didn't they include a dosboxy thing? >>>> John, >>>> >>>> It's not a Windows thing. In 64 bit ("long") mode, 16 bit instructions >>>> don't work (either generate a fault or are mapped to other instructions). >>>> 32 bit is the new 16 bit (32 bit programs run in long mode for >>>> compatability). >>>> >>> Of course it's a Windows thing. Surely Microsoft has a programmer good >>> enough to write a dosboxy thing that will run 16-bit code. Or they >>> could hire one. They just chose not to. >>> >>>> Anything that emulates (NOT virtualizes) 16 bit operation is an additional >>>> program, like DOSBox or the Virtual Machine stuff. >>> Right. Win7/64 doesn't include that. Which means I'm in no hurry to >>> use it. >>> >>> John >> Switching between 64 bit mode and other modes is really quite expensive >> in CPU cycles, cache misses, and more. Doing just a little of that will >> eat over 10% of the processor and memory bandwidth. I really is not all >> that compatible if you are switching modes all the time. > > Why would it matter that a program that ran fine on a 40 MHz 486 uses > 10% of one core of a 2 GHz quad-core CPU? If it were rewritten into > modern bloatware, it might use 60%! > > I have a lot of 16-bit engineering apps I'd still like to run. You can still run them in a virtual machine XP or DOS installed inside the 64bit OS - the CPU can do it but you don't want to intentionally cripple a 64bit OS just to provide backwards compatibility with a handful of geriatric 16bit apps. See for example 3.1.1 in http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253665.pdf It was *exactly* this sort of retro compatibility design decision to maintain full 16 bit compatibility with the 80286 that hobbled OS/2 and led to the global dominance of the much flakier 32bit Windows. Support for running virtual PC on Windows 7 is only in the Pro & Ultimate versions largely because corporations have a lot of stuff that will only run on XP. That includes a lot of big ticket scientific kit. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/ How much of their marketting fluff you believe is up to you. CAVEAT EMPTOR. XP is still very widely used and will outlive Vista by some considerable margin. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Spehro Pefhany on 12 May 2010 07:35 On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:29:22 -0700, the renowned FatBytestard <FatBytestard(a)somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote: >On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:40:24 -0700, "Joel Koltner" ><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>It's actually making a come back -- web-based apps are becoming quite popular >>these days; > > > It is called "Cloud Computing". It should be called "Fog Computing".. and there are shadowy characters in trench coats lurking in the fog. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Jeroen Belleman on 12 May 2010 08:32
Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:29:22 -0700, the renowned FatBytestard > <FatBytestard(a)somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote: >> >> It is called "Cloud Computing". > > It should be called "Fog Computing".. and there are shadowy characters > in trench coats lurking in the fog. Ah, another for my collection of snappy remarks! Cheers, Jeroen Belleman |