Japheth wrote:
> So faithfully expect point 1. to be realized
> somewhere in the second half of this decade!
I do (BTW, I have 2 CPU cores ... located in 2 PC's located
cca 20 Km from each other ... total frequency is 800 MHz).
> Are yu going to complain about this?
Sure. But not today. Expect
>> What stopped the plans?
>
> Only Japheth knows ...
I guess you're refering to this:
http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=4486
Nothing stopped the plans, but it's delayed a bit ... and I happened to
implement 2. before 1. Are yu going to complain about this?
JWlink is now in
Hi,
>>> 2. How do you glue the out fragments then ???
I have no idea HOW the smartness of pbzip2 works but
I do believe them that they are only 0.2% worse than
non-parallel bzip2 size performance. Works for me and
it is just VERY cool to have a factor 2, 3, 4 or 6
speed gain on a CPU with that n
> forgot to mention: FAT performance will suck if you try
> to create 6 thumb files in parallel with your 6 core CPU
Known issue. Is Linux able to share the file I/O ?
Windaube XP definitely can't (2 tasks on 1 core).
--
> Interesting, how far did they get?
public plans ...
> What stopped the plans?
Only Japheth knows ...
> No. BZIP2 has a maximum block size of 900k anyway and
Deflate and LZMA have no block limit ;-)
> > 2. How do you glue the out fragments then ???
> See above.
Not really. You don't know t
Hi!
>> I think there were some ideas about DOS extenders for using
>> multi core multithreading within DOS apps
>
> HX 2.15 + 7-ZIP ... never came out.
Interesting, how far did they get? What stopped the plans?
>> pbzip2 compresses multiple parts of a file in parallel, so you
>> can compress o
> I would imagine that Freedos in 16 bit mode can't use multiple cores
It can't actively take benefit from them, but it still runs, FYI :shock:
> One of the problems with DOS that I recall is a total
> lack of hardware protection
Right.
> Unfortunately, accessing hardware directly
> instead of
2011/8/20, Michael C. Robinson:
> A thought experiment, could a 32 bit version of Freedos with a version
> of Opengem that can support modern hardawre run on one processor
> core while dos command lines that are actually full blown dos run on
> the other processor cores? [..]
>
> It would be nice
Hi!
> Figuring out what to use multiple cores for is a problem in today's
> world. What do you with seven cores? How about 100 cores? Multicore
> chips are not coming into existence because making faster single core
> chips doesn't make sense, they are coming into existence because making
> fa
At 04:38 PM 8/20/2011, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
>A thought experiment, ...
Do you realize that you are no longer talking about "DOS"?
>There apparently used to be a version of DOS called concurrent dos that
>actually attempted or was capable of multitasking. Multitasking in the
>multiple core
A thought experiment, could a 32 bit version of Freedos with a version
of Opengem that can support modern hardawre run on one processor
core while dos command lines that are actually full blown dos run on
the other processor cores? Segment the memory so that each core, say
1 gig per core on a qu
Hi Michael,
sorry about covering so many topics in one mail :-) I tried
to use paragraphs. Also, you are welcome to shorten quoted
parts a lot when you write replies to my mail. Thanks :-)
> I'm thinking of modern video cards and multiple core processors.
My modern video card works fine in DO
Op 20-8-2011 11:33, Michael C. Robinson schreef:
> The 386 on up supports protection in hardware to a certain degree. DOS
> has never been defined on modern 64 bit computers to my knowledge. Of
> course, I suppose one could have protection be an optional thing.
I fail to see why these additional
2011/8/20, Michael C. Robinson :
> ReactOS is possibly a decade out from being stable. I probably can't
> even compile an installable ISO right now. It isn't entirely clear why,
> but the ReactOS project is hitting some major show stoppers.
I'm afraid, that the major "stopper" is the fact, that
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm afraid, that the system, which is supposed to
> be "simple, light and really fast", just cannot have any "protection
> layers" - and _should_ allow direct access to hardware (unlike all
> those Unix-variants).
The 386 on up supports protection in hardware to a certain de
Op 20-8-2011 7:47, Michael C. Robinson schreef:
> I'm thinking of modern video cards and multiple core processors.
> I would imagine that Freedos in 16 bit mode can't use multiple
> cores. One of the problems with DOS that I recall is a total
> lack of hardware protection. This allowed direct har
2011/8/20, Michael C. Robinson :
> I'm thinking of modern video cards and multiple core processors.
> [..] I'm thinking that Freedos should be able to support
> multiple processing cores and other modern hardware. OpenGem should be
> upgraded to work on 32 or 64 bit systems. Another considerat
I'm thinking of modern video cards and multiple core processors.
I would imagine that Freedos in 16 bit mode can't use multiple
cores. One of the problems with DOS that I recall is a total
lack of hardware protection. This allowed direct hardware
access, which is fast. Unfortunately, accessing
18 matches
Mail list logo
