On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ..... The only limitation to a 16 bit processor is being limited to > 64 KB of data per page at a time. Right, just as the beggar's only limitation is that he has no money.
... Not quite sure how that applies. I have a feeling a beggar can get money in other ways then having him page memory. Maybee if he pages his wallet? :-D
>> But it's [16-bit limitation workarounds] so slow, cumbersome, >> and error-prone as to be a significant obstacle. > Which is why different kinds of embedded systems will use multiple > smaller scale processors. Fine if you're building something application specific. Not so much if it's a general-purpose computer. It the ASIC route was magic business pixie dust, we'd all be using Amiga's.
Hey now, they where damned purdy machines.
Moving beyond the UI, there's plenty that benefits from being able to count to higher than 65535 in a CPU register, or being able to work on more than 64 KB of stuff at a time. For example, I suspect implementing real-time MPEG2 decoding in the Intel 8501 would be difficult. Sure, lots of bitty boxes use bitty CPUs, but they have ASICs with wide pipes instead.
They add a little side circuit that can do it cheaply. http://www.keil.com/dd/chipinfo.asp?did=3323&bhcp=1 http://www.cast-inc.com/cores/mpeg4-e/index.shtml People do it all the time, cheaply.
I'm not trying to say small chips are useless or dead or passe, just that big chips are can enable more than "bigger and faster".
Yes. Price.
>> Sure, the i386 brought a number of other advantages to the table, >> chief among them a real MMU, but the address word size mattered, too, >> I think. > Only in the fact that it was faster ... Um. Perhaps you never worked with "Windows/286".
It was a moot point by the time the 386 came out. I also worked with Minix. In all fairness, I believe what caused the 386 to trounce the 286 was the advent of VGA graphics, and people upgrading their machines for it.
> And a good reason to completely disregard them because 'Gnome Sux, > KDE Rulez! Do you have a relevant point, here?
That the Linux community pushing 'You now have choice' breaks down when it comes to the general public. And that perhaps we can actually learn from WHY people prefer Windows in general.
> We have yet to see how that's going to play out, however. But > generally, anything that doesn't work like 'Doze does, doesn't fly > very well. They said that for years and years about 1-2-3 and WP and NetWare. The "network effect", AKA "installed base", is a very real thing. It takes something significant to overcome it. Which was what I was attempting to look at: Is there anything significant on the horizon? But we're all looking backwards or down instead of ahead for some reason.
And as much as I miss my Netware servers, they're mostly all gone now. But this is kinda a moot point I guess.
>>> And there is quite literally NOTHING you cannot do in 32 bit that >>> you can in 64. >> Addressing more than 4 GB of RAM without memory >> windowing/segmentation comes to mind.... > Those are possibilities that address the issue. Such as? Serious question; I'm at most a very casual student of micro-architectures, so I don't know. I enjoy learning, though. So educate me. :)
The easiest to explain is either some form of windowing or segmentation. Some decent reading, which I'll probably get flamed for referring to can be read at http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/efc41320-713f-4004-bc81-ddddfc8552651033.mspx?mfr=true The laymans description ends up with paging, however.
> Hehehe. And Windowz is also sometimes credited for the success of > the Pentium. Does that define it as a killer app? Perhaps. Indeed, Microsoft bloat has powered quite a bit of hardware sales. Have you seen the recommended system configurations for Vista? Supercomputers modeling the Earth's climate need less power.
Hey now, that gave me an excuse for my new laptop, HUSH UP before my GF hears you!@ :-D
> Or where they simply the defacto standard apps people used for > productivity, and had little to do with IBM-PC? That's the whole freaking point! :-) A "killer app" isn't necessarily intrinsic to the thing it boosts; it's just responsible for the widespread adoption.
Hrm. You may have a good point. Maybe it was the combination of both applications and the name 'IBM'. Or maybe it was the cheaper clones which pushed and pushed the platform further and further. I often wondered what would have happened if Apple hadn't locked down the Mac.
> This is fun, but I suspect some list members may be > telling us to STFU soon enough. I note that the silence is deafening. Perhaps we should take this off-list? :-)
I'm game, but it would be VERY non-typical for me NOT to annoy people.. Let's go offlist unless someone else chimes in. -- -- Thomas _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
