the comp i'm on right now, i dont think i could find if i went shopping for used. it's still pluggin along. not hefty enough for penguin ubuntu 6 tho - that was my first try, and 667MHz + 256Mbyte ram couldn't do it. admittedly, i never spent more than 12 hours or so waiting on the installer. maybe i gave up too quickly.
as for multitasking, possibly barring new multi core processors that are actually performing parallel core activities, it is an illusion in the same way that a motion picture is an illusion. the instantaneous function of the machine is one process, then the next one, then the next one. on the other hand, if you have two or more machines, then multitasking makes more sense in that two or more things are going on at the same time. traditional fixation shifting multitasking suffers from the overhead of constantly shifting the focus of the processing device, with an end result that is less effctive overall than a sequential tasking scheme. this is even true in the human brain. ..'trading in' was in response to an earlier metaphor about 80mph cars. --- On Thu, 3/8/12, Mark Wendt <mark.we...@nrl.navy.mil> wrote: > From: Mark Wendt <mark.we...@nrl.navy.mil> > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] EMC2/Ubuntu updates - safe to install? > To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Date: Thursday, March 8, 2012, 4:46 AM > On 03/08/2012 07:17 AM, charles green > wrote: > > the overcapacity problem is a problem of going to > unnecessary lengths to accomplish a defined task, a problem > of applying the most extreme measures in straigtforward > cases. > > > Who said anything about going to unnecessary lengths? > The capacity > available on the computers we're currently using far > outstrips the needs > of the CNC control software, and leaving that excess > capacity unused is > a waste of resources. > > if you had a pocket calculator, would you trade it in > for a smart phone that included a pocket calculator app, > streaming web video, and a fish pond widget for your cat to > play with? the long term cost increase would only be a > factor of ten thousand or more, and who isnt getting all > kinds of additional income these days? > > > Who's trading anything in? We're talking about using > something that we > already have. Any computer that's capable of running > LinuxCNC, is > certainly capable of multi-tasking. > > the disposal liabilty pcs of a decade vintage have > plenty of capacity to function as machine controllers, so > why not repurpose them to that task rather than a > dumpsite? if you had one computer that could do > everything except more or less dedicate its resources to > being a machine controller, and for free, have another > computer perform that function, would you toss that second > comp and somehow reconfigure the first comp for an extended > capability? > > > My machine computers are all used computers, retasked from > something > else or bought used. Why should I go out and buy > another computer when > I have a computer standing by that I can use? Why have > two computers, > both using resources when I can use just one to accomplish > the same > thing? Unless you want the exercise of running back > and forth between > the computers to fix something, transfer code, run programs > that work > with the CNC software and so forth. > > another angle: one of the advantages of an os > like win98 or dos is that they are not ever going to require > updates, or run into backwards compatibilty problems. > fixed forms, like a basic bipolar junction transistors, may > be not suitable devices for every application, but they are > useful, well defined, and behave in predictable and > consistant ways. tools that have such traits are > desireable. continuous retooling is a drag. > > > Pretty soon even the used computers out there will not > support win98 or > DOS. In fact most of them do not, due to the devices > attached to the > machine. Computers are designed to multi-task. > Especially with > operating systems like Unix and Linux. Multi-tasking > operating systems > have been around for a long time, and become more and more > robust every > year. If you prefer to stick yourself back to > something that can only > do one thing at a time, you're more than welcome to do > that. Doesn't > make it any better or more preferable. > > I'm sure you can build an embedded system running LinuxCNC > that does > only machine control and nothing else. But you are > talking a higher > expense to make it that way. I've been around high > performance > computing for a good many years, and the computers and > operating systems > available today, even on the used market, far outstrip > machines that > were designed to run Win98 and DOS. But hey, if you > want to limit > yourself to technology and procedures that are 20 - 30 years > old, by all > means, be all you can be. > > Mark > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity > Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud > computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a > service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
