Ben Scott wrote:
> 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. :)
>> Hehehe. And Windowz is also sometimes credited for the success of
>> the Pentium. Does that define it as a killer app?
On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
business pixie dust, we'd all be using Amiga's.
> >> Sure, the i386 brought a number of other advantages to the table,
> >> chief
>
> Ok, now sit her down in front of a formatted hard drive, :-D
O.K., but let's talk oranges and oranges (I almost said "apples and
Apples(R)", but that would have been confusing).
It has been a long time since I installed a Microsoft product from a
bootable OEM disk, but it was not pleasan
On 2/18/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/18/07, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That the Linux community pushing 'You now have choice' breaks down
> > when it comes to the general public. And that perhaps we c
On 2/18/07, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/18/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 genera
On 2/18/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
My experience (from putting GNOME/KDE boxes in front
On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> People may giggle, but the PS2 Emotion processing chip is 128 bit.
I believe it has 128-bit floating point/vector data processing
capabilities, but the integer registers are 64-bit, and th
On 2/17/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 21:08 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:01:19 -0500
> > "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People may giggle, but the PS2 Emo
On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If so, in the context of most of the discussion in this thread ...
s/thread/tangled ball of string/
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 21:08 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:01:19 -0500
> > "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I do not think a "128 bit address space" computer will ever exist, at
> > > least not in th
On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People may giggle, but the PS2 Emotion processing chip is 128 bit.
I believe it has 128-bit floating point/vector data processing
capabilities, but the integer registers are 64-bit, and the address
word is 32-bit. Right? If so, in the co
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 quit
On 2/17/07, Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:01:19 -0500
"Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not think a "128 bit address space" computer will ever exist, at
> least not in the silicon technologies that we are talking about.
Probably not for a whil
On 2/17/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And there is quite literally NOTHING you cannot do in 32 bit that
> you can in 64.
Yes there is. You can mmap a single 5 GB virtual address space.
Now if you had said that there are no problems that you can not solve,
given enough time
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:01:19 -0500
"Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not think a "128 bit address space" computer will ever exist, at
> least not in the silicon technologies that we are talking about.
Probably not for a while, but I'm 100% certain, there will be a 128-bit
addre
Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote:
I think I read someplace that 128 bits would allow you to address
every Proton and neutron in the known universe, but I doubt that (a
little).
A quick Google search yielded "10^72 up to 10^87" for range of number of
particles in the universe.
(No idea if that parti
> And there is quite literally NOTHING you cannot do in 32 bit that
> you can in 64.
>
Yes there is. You can mmap a single 5 GB virtual address space.
Now if you had said that there are no problems that you can not solve,
given enough time and processing power, with a 32 bit machine than you
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.
But it's [16-bit limitation workarounds] so slow, cumbersome,
and
> Yes, there are uses for 64 bit address space, just as a 128 bit address
> space would enable use to tackle unthinkable problems.
I do not think a "128 bit address space" computer will ever exist, at
least not in the silicon technologies that we are talking about.
Just to take advantage of a 6
On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> machine. They don't understand why, but they know they can play
>> digital music while writing a term paper on their new Dell, while
>> their old Apple ][ or IBM-PC Model 5150 couldn't handl
On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
machine. They don't understand why, but they know they can play
digital music while writing a term paper on their new Dell, while
their old Apple ][ or IBM-PC Model 5150 couldn't handle that.
That has nothing to do with sized bits I'm afr
On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
machine. They don't understand why, but they know they can play
digital music while writing a term paper on their new Dell, while
their old Apple ][ or IBM-PC Model 5150 couldn't handle that.
That has nothing to do with sized bits I'm afraid.
On 2/17/07, Jim Kuzdrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not really true. 16-bit machines are *very* limited. There
> is not a whole lot you can do in 64 kilobytes of RAM (all you can
> directly address with a 16-bit address word).
Not quite so. As a programmer of embedded systems, I
On 2/17/07, Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Typical end users as defined before don't really care about the
differences. As long as they can do more or less what they want to do
with the computer, they won't really notice the difference.
I think you and I actually agree. I'm not s
On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:10, Ben Scott wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If end users are defined as home users and office users, then 64
> > bits will never matter to them, just like 32 bits doesn't matter to
> > them today.
>
> That's not really true.
Dang! teledildonics.com is already registered:
Registrant:
Riggs, Roy
1508 BOONE CT
MURFREESBORO, TN 37130-5032
US
Domain Name: TELEDILDONICS.COM
Administrative Contact:
Riggs, Roy[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnhl
Ben's point about the advantages of more memory and the comparison to
the 16-bit to 32-bit transition is well taken, but I don't think that
changes my main point:
Typical end users as defined before don't really care about the
differences. As long as they can do more or less what they want to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:10:59 -0500
"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not really true. 16-bit machines are *very* limited. There
> is not a whole lot you can do in 64 kilobytes of RAM (all you can
> directly address with a 16-bit address word). Anything running on an
> 8086 (i.e.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:00:29 -0500
Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sixty-four bitness will never matter to end users, but it will become
> ubiquitous over time, and sooner or later nearly everyone will have
> computers and devices with 64 bit CPUs and operating systems and the
> v
On 2/17/07, Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If end users are defined as home users and office users, then 64 bits
will never matter to them, just like 32 bits doesn't matter to them
today.
That's not really true. 16-bit machines are *very* limited. There
is not a whole lot you ca
If end users are defined as home users and office users, then 64 bits
will never matter to them, just like 32 bits doesn't matter to them
today. For the majority of people, its just a yard stick, like 4
cylinder vs. 6 cylinder vs. 8. Most have some notion of what it means,
that more is generall
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 18:30 -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2007, at 14:31, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote:
>
> > I will note, however, that you can not mmap in an 8GB flash into a
> > single address space with a 32-bit processor.
>
> maddog, is this another of your profound observations? Tha
On Feb 16, 2007, at 13:44, Ben Scott wrote:
One is my understanding: Even if you're working with a 64-bit
architecture, isn't most software still dealing with 32-bit values?
Does throughput double without re-writing all the code to take
advantage of that?
I recall reading somewhere [I'll neve
On Feb 16, 2007, at 14:31, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote:
I will note, however, that you can not mmap in an 8GB flash into a
single address space with a 32-bit processor.
maddog, is this another of your profound observations? That 64-bit
addressing might be more interesting in the low-end/embedde
Bayard Coolidge wrote:
Well, I can think of at least one amateur radio application that comes to
mind, antenna modelling. And, of course, that's not limited to _amateur_
radio, but I'm sure the professionals might already be using "professional
workstations" from Sun, HP, IBM, or whomever, runni
On Friday 16 February 2007 14:27, Michael ODonnell wrote:
> >> End users of portable processing may benefit from clock rate
> >> reduction. The 64-bit internal and main memory paths double the
> >> processor's instruction throughput.
>
> If all data paths doubled in width you'd certainly see incre
Jim Kuzdrall wrote:
>End users of portable processing may benefit from clock rate
>reduction. The 64-bit internal and main memory paths double the
>processor's instruction throughput. A given 32-bit performance can be
>had at half the clock rate in a 64-bit processor. (Almost. There are
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:14:59 -0500
"Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that Intel did not invent complex instructions, but they have
> done more to break compiler-writer's hearts than any other company.
Naw, they are keeping compiler writers in business. All our old friends
fro
> It's not *end-user computing*. End-user computing is stuff my mom does, or
> your Aunt
> Marge or the high school teenager. :-)
Sorry, I thought we were talking English, and where I come from, and
"end user" is *anyone* that *uses* the software instead of making it or
administering it, whethe
>> End users of portable processing may benefit from clock rate
>> reduction. The 64-bit internal and main memory paths double the
>> processor's instruction throughput.
If all data paths doubled in width you'd certainly see increased
througput/efficiency. But many internal data paths in curre
> Does throughput double without re-writing all the code to take
> advantage of that?
Yes.
And other issues such as double-word arithmetic (especially in floating
point) are done as a single clock-tick. But this has little to do with
larger address space.
>
> The second is semi-historical: A
Well, I can think of at least one amateur radio application that comes to
mind, antenna modelling. And, of course, that's not limited to _amateur_
radio, but I'm sure the professionals might already be using "professional
workstations" from Sun, HP, IBM, or whomever, running a licensed UNIX
variant
On 2/16/07, Jim Kuzdrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been asking the question, "How would an end-user significantly
benefit from x86-64?" ... Anyone got any other ideas?
End users of portable processing may benefit from clock rate
reduction. The 64-bit internal and main memory paths doub
On 2/16/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You seem to be defining every "end user" as "mom-and-pop-home", or "bank
teller". In the scientific and engineering world ...
NOTE WELL: The following exasperated rant is written with a smile on
my face and laughter in my throat. :-)
> I've been asking the question, "How would an end-user significantly
> benefit from x86-64?"
> Anyone got any other ideas?
End users of portable processing may benefit from clock rate
reduction. The 64-bit internal and main memory paths double the
processor's instruction throughput.
On 2/16/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 11:35 -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
I've been asking the question, "How would an end-user significantly
> benefit from x86-64?"
Define the end user as a home user with hobbies or std office
drone^H^H^H^H^Huser.
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 11:35 -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
> This doesn't really relate directly to FLOSS, but the reality of
> these questions might well dictate the course of future events (i.e.,
> World Domination), and I know there are a lot of smart, "in touch"
> people on this list, so...
>
> On
This doesn't really relate directly to FLOSS, but the reality of
these questions might well dictate the course of future events (i.e.,
World Domination), and I know there are a lot of smart, "in touch"
people on this list, so...
On 2/15/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"What practical b
48 matches
Mail list logo
