Why so little parallelism?
|
From: BDH on 6 Nov 2006 20:28 > What? For you? That's your mind. You have to decide. > > I have my own responsbilities. Heh, no, I meant that more generally. More of "what do you think of as needing improvement and having an actual chance of changing."
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 7 Nov 2006 03:01 > He was not a designer of microprocessors. Has anybody claimed that? Even today, there is a place for more than The One Architecture, and a place for lots of different systems. But for quite some time there hasn't been a place for the original Cray approach. > Ability: No number of six foot high jumpers equals a seven jumper. For sure. But the goal function has changed: Everybody can jump seven feet high nowadays, but doing it carrying 50 kg of baggage is the new game in town. > I suspect that you and the vast majority of lurkers/posters don't really > know what his market was. Oh, we can use words like cryptanalysis or > nuclear bomb codes and the like which were public and others would argue > for the civilian applications in oil and structural analysis were a > factor. They didn't cover development costs. I suspect that many in > those serious markets won't ever really reveal just what he did for them. > Nor ERA nor CDC. Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national security"!? Jan
From: Nick Maclaren on 7 Nov 2006 04:57 In article <4raspqFq3ffrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> writes: |> > He was not a designer of microprocessors. |> |> Has anybody claimed that? Even today, there is a place for more than The One |> Architecture, and a place for lots of different systems. But for quite some |> time there hasn't been a place for the original Cray approach. Or rather, the place has shrunk so much that it is no longer large enough to contain a viable original Cray approach. The place still exists, even if it is solely in the minds of Organisations That We Know Nothing About. |> Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national |> security"!? With the emphasis on the quotes in "national security". Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Eugene Miya on 7 Nov 2006 12:58 In article <1162862901.940635.88140(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, BDH <bhauth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Heh, no, I meant that more generally. More of "what do you think of as >needing improvement and having an actual chance of changing." Well, there are some very difficult challenges on both the architectural and device level. It's if one wants to do more of the same as most IBM customers want or something really radical. Bold might not work and is a considerable investment. I am not the person to do the work, but like Google, I observe for funders. But I don't observe for hardware. For me the next 2 hurtles I have to watch are this weekend. One friend is leading a session on advances in ideas he has in optics. That friend is assigned to give a public talk in Feb. (hurtle #2). Another set of people are looking at rethinking architecture and languages this weekend. I am not certain who's leading that session, but I know Knuth is being tapped. Now I know that MIX and MMIX aren't popular. And he's not an architect either. I think this session might be regard as some what amateurish, but then Wozniak was the original local at this meeting (others know him far better than me, and he no longer attends, but many of his friends do). On the wider architectural scale, I'm more curious about how dynamic data flow might have worked. Dally's 380 talk had a tiny bit of that. --
From: Eugene Miya on 7 Nov 2006 13:14
>> He was not a designer of microprocessors. In article <4raspqFq3ffrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> wrote: >Has anybody claimed that? Even today, there is a place for more than The One >Architecture, and a place for lots of different systems. But for quite some >time there hasn't been a place for the original Cray approach. No one claimed he was. I made the statement, because he designed systems not just processors. Is there a place? (for The One) I don't see him doing "the one." I just see him doing fast. He was a "hang on" kinda guy. If you didn't want to hang on, let go. Not a place for speed? I am not certain what you mean by original? You mean vectors? (he wasn't the first.) You mean fast scalar? >> Ability: No number of six foot high jumpers equals a seven jumper. > >For sure. But the goal function has changed: Everybody can jump seven feet >high nowadays, but doing it carrying 50 kg of baggage is the new game in town. They can? I can't jump 7 ft. I think Terman would take you to task. Jumpers still just jump w/o bags. I know where you are attempting to go, and that's not why guys like Cray did (nor made them comparable to world class jumpers). They figure to toss the 50 kg bags over the bar before jumping. >> those serious markets won't ever really reveal just what he did for them. >> Nor ERA nor CDC. > >Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national >security"!? Parts of it. Livermore has what we in the USA call an "Open House" now more called "Family Day" where employees can bring family and friends to see the safer parts where they work (this allows some sideways visitation) and I've also visited LANL's C-Division (none of this is visitation is secret) as well as The Fort's and C*A compound. And I also get knowledge from the other people here in the group who visit as well as ask hosts who they talk to outside as well. Those guys are a little more finnicky about visitors. No conspiracy: but their national systems are overrated. And I ask not to see classified stuff. These places have exhibit areas, little museums, show rooms, etc. In their words: "We have mutual interests." So I have to leave it at: Cray likely worked on things which have not been revealed to the open world. If and when some of that stuff which is computer related become available, I will try to snatch it or make contacts for the Museum to get it (assuming a DOD or the Smithsonian museum doesn't get it first). You guys know very little of ERA's history, and I think they want it that way. -- |