E
Ed Cregger
David Maynard said:
Let's not confuse multitasking for parallel processing.
Ed Cregger
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Let's not confuse multitasking for parallel processing.
Ed Cregger
T
Timbertea
Aside from which, you have to take the chipset DRM to use theConor said:Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
should we wait?
Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
user is likely to use doesn't convince me.
processors. I'm a current dual processor user, my aging dual xeon system
is well past its prime. Once Intel announced they were forcing their
DRM scheme into the chipset you need for the Pentium-D, that eliminated
my desire to have anything to do with it or any other Intel product
period. If you can get the average person to grasp that if they take the
bait and bite now, they wont be able to do any of the media operations
they currently can - maybe they will figure it out.
--
If you want to protect your freedom to use digital media, don't buy
Intel Chipsets, Intel Processors, any Sony product
period, and strongly encourage your friends & everyone you know to do
the same. We are the product, and if we walk away
the media companies have no eyes for DRM enabled systems. This is our
once chance to fight back, I suggest we use it.
M
Mxsmanic
David said:Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
the "home user."
I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
there for those who wanted it.
M
Mxsmanic
****knuckle said:Try as I might, the only conclusion I can draw from what you just wrote
is that you'd prefer to multitask on a single-core?
No, I was pointing out that multiprocessor systems have been around
since time immemorial (in computer terms).
I'm not sure when the first multiprocessor PC motherboards appeared, but
the one I have on my desk has been running since 1997. So
multiprocessing is nothing new, whether it's a single core or a dual
core.
Granted, it's
possible to
burn a cd, encode a dvd rip and surf the net on a single core, but how
is it better?
It depends on how fast the core is. A single fast processor is always
superior to two slower processors for any given task, because of the
lower overhead of single-processor systems.
Multitasking may have been around for a half century, but 'true
multitasking can only be achieved on a multiprocessor machine
where each task is scheduled for execution on a different processor'.
Not so. Any time you share resources between multiple tasks without
running each task to completion in sequence, you are multitasking. It
doesn't matter how many processors you have.
The speed at which individual tasks complete is mostly a function of the
total processor power available, not of the number of processors.
You're better off with a single processor at 2 gigaflops than with two
processors with 1 gigaflop each.
M
Mxsmanic
BP said:Jesus. How old are you guys? Old PCs couldn't multitask at all. They ran
friggin DOS ferchrissakes.
There were other computers before PCs, and there still are.
Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0, and
even then it was not multitasking as people know it today. The BSOD was a
daily occurance for any brave souls who attempted it.
Windows 3.0 is fifteen years old; a long time in computer terms.
M
Mxsmanic
Ed said:Let's not confuse multitasking for parallel processing.
And let's remember that parallel processing is always inferior to scalar
processing, for a given amount of processing power. That is, you're
better off with a machine that can execute a single instruction stream
at 100 gigaflops than with a machine that can execute two instruction
streams at 50 gigaflops.
The reason for this is that all parallel and scalar operations can be
handled by a scalar processor, but some scalar operations cannot be made
parallel. So many tasks _must_ execute on a single processor, no matter
how many processors you have, and these tasks will not run any faster
than a single processor can run.
A more important advantage of multiple processors is that individual
tasks are less likely to hog the system, since most aren't (or can't be)
written to use multiple execution threads. Thus, even if a single task
becomes processor-bound, you can still do other things, whereas a
single-processor system tends to become very sluggish when running
compute-bound tasks. This is a striking and obvious difference when you
are running a multiprocessor system versus a single-processor system.
Of course, if you have n processors and n tasks monopolizing all of
them, even a multiprocessor system becomes sluggish.
D
David Maynard
Mxsmanic said:David Maynard writes:
I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
there for those who wanted it.
Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does not,
however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.
I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
'home user' either.
D
David Maynard
Ed said:Let's not confuse multitasking for parallel processing.
Ed Cregger
Who was?
C
Conor
....but only cos they're running at the highest speed. Unless theThat's bullshit. the dual-cores are smoking everything. especially if
you're into
ripping dvd's, surfing the web, checking out the newsgroups all at the same
application is written to take advantage of SMP then there is no speed
gain over a single CPU/core at the same clock frequency.
C
Conor
If you can't do all of those at the same time on a single core thenI'm talking about all at the same time there, buddy. Some people prefer
to run 5+ programs at the same time with performance loss.
your PC is ****ed. I do all of that on a XP2500+ with 1GB RAM.
C
Conor
Try as I might, the only conclusion I can draw from what you just wrote
is that you'd prefer to multitask on a single-core? Granted, it's
possible to
burn a cd, encode a dvd rip and surf the net on a single core, but how
is it better?
THere is no difference doing it on a single core P4/XP CPU than a dual
core.
Ah..another ****tard who buys into the benchmarks. Tell me, does itMultitasking may have been around for a half century, but 'true
multitasking can
only be achieved on a multiprocessor machine where each task is scheduled
for execution on a different processor'. The benchmarks speak for
themselves -
what is there to argue about?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410
mean you can type faster when browsing web whilst ripping a DVD at the
same time or does it in fact make **** all difference?
B
BP
What's the name of this group again?And who said "PCs?"
Wow. All that swearing for nothing.Not true.
B
BP
David Maynard said:Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does
not, however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.
I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
'home user' either.
Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P
M
Mxsmanic
David said:Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does not,
however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.
It's hard to see a clear advantage to running more than one processor
for an average home user. The average user would be better off with a
single, faster processor. There are some advantages to multiprocessor
systems on servers, and on workstations if no single-processor system is
available with the requisite total horsepower. I have a slight personal
affection for multiprocessor systems because they remind me of
mainframes, but it's hard to see any clear advantage to having them
beyond the handful I've already mentioned.
I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
'home user' either.
Were there multiprocessor PDP-11 systems?
M
Mxsmanic
BP said:Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P
Only the very earliest computers used tubes; transistors (discrete and
then integrated) have been the rule for over half a century. All PDP
machines were solid-state (no tubes). The only tubes used in
computerland over the past few decades have been CRTs, and it looks like
they might _finally_ be replaced in the next few years (I no longer have
any myself).
There is a rumor, however, that SAGE continued to use some tube
computers until the mid-1980s (it originally had 22 gigantic tube
computers scattered across the U.S., each requiring about four megawatts
for machine power and air conditioning).
C
Conor
You've just shot yourself in the foot. It is to discuss hardware builtWhat's the name of this group again?
for PCs from scratch using blank PCBs and components. It isn't to
discuss homebuilt PCs, problems with hardware or hardware made by a
manufacturer which means that 99.99999999% of the posts in this group
actually don;t belong here.
M
Mxsmanic
Conor said:It isn't to discuss homebuilt PCs ...
Looks like alt.comp.hardware.PC-HOMEBUILT to me.
E
Ed Cregger
C
Conor
From the group FAQ...Mxsmanic said:Looks like alt.comp.hardware.PC-HOMEBUILT to me.
It is a bastard child of the newsgroup
alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt that was intended to offload discussion
related to assembling PCs from consumer-level boards and devices, from
the
discussions of building computer parts from electronic components.
B
BP
That was a joke, son.
Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!
Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!