Quad core, 16 cores...

[jhavelka]

AMD will soon release a quad core processor with scaling possible up
to 16 cores, conceivably you might reason dual processor motherboards,
so effectively 32 cores some day. What will they develop AFTER 32
core systems?

 

[kony]

AMD will soon release a quad core processor with scaling possible up
to 16 cores, conceivably you might reason dual processor motherboards,
so effectively 32 cores some day. What will they develop AFTER 32
core systems?

Applications that can use 4 cores instead of 2.

 

[paulmd]

AMD will soon release a quad core processor with scaling possible up
to 16 cores, conceivably you might reason dual processor motherboards,
so effectively 32 cores some day. What will they develop AFTER 32
core systems?

You really want to know?

http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/
2100-1006_3-6119618.html

Clock speeds have hit a plateau, so they came out with the dual cores
and more efficient architecture, to do more WITH those clock cycles.

At some point they'll hit the limit of what they can do with silicon,
BUT there are better semiconductors out there.


Ram is a big part of the performance game too.

DDr2 is the latest and greatest on PC ram for now, but it's
theoretically to have QDR (QUAD DATA RATE) ram at some time in the
future. It already exists for cache.

 

[VanShania]

I'm betting that for home use, the number of cores will not be more than 8,
unless games or AI can become so complex that they will use that many.
Actually, I'm betting 4 core cpu's will be the standard for a while. A long
while.

--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse.
No such thing as Bad Kids. Only Bad Parents.
It is violent/abusive/neglectful parents that churn out the serial
killers/murderers/child molesters etc.

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939,AIW 9800 Pro 128mb
MSI 550 Pro, X-Fi, Pioneer 110D, 111D
Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire,2 Gb OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5
2XSATA 320gb Raid Edition, PATA 120Gb
XP MCE2005, 19in Viewsonic,BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- NFS: Most Wanted, Civ 4

 

[jhavelka]

Applications that can use 4 cores instead of 2.

I meant in terms of hardware. Thank you for the 80-core article, I
await the release of that system. Hopefully power requirements will
not increase proportionally. They probably won't stop with 8 cores,
they will not cease finding something faster or better to market.
Unfortunately this means bigger programs that require more processing
power. I would like to see simpler/smaller programs that don't take
up as much memory and get the job done as well as their larger
counterparts.

What is the likelihood of moving storage of data away from hard disks
entirely and to very fast solid state memory? I imagine this has the
possibility of making boot times faster as well as loading programs.
I wouldn't normally think of it but in recent years solid state
storage has dropped in price so much, now they must only make it
faster than standard hdds.

 

[Rod Speed]

I meant in terms of hardware. Thank you for the 80-core article, I
await the release of that system. Hopefully power requirements will
not increase proportionally. They probably won't stop with 8 cores,
they will not cease finding something faster or better to market.
Unfortunately this means bigger programs that require more processing
power.

I would like to see simpler/smaller programs that don't take up as
much memory and get the job done as well as their larger counterparts.

Unlikely, essentially because memory is cheap,
cheaper than hand crafting code to achieve that.

What is the likelihood of moving storage of data away
from hard disks entirely and to very fast solid state memory?

Rather poor. That has been predicted for decades now and still hasnt
happened, essentially because hard drives keep advancing too.

I imagine this has the possibility of making boot times faster as well as loading programs.

Yes, but that is a pretty minor part of most system use.

I wouldn't normally think of it but in recent years solid state storage has dropped in price so
much,

Its still a hell of a lot more expensive per GB than hard drives.

now they must only make it faster than standard hdds.

Which is clearly going to cost more too.

 

[paulmd]

I meant in terms of hardware. Thank you for the 80-core article, I
await the release of that system. Hopefully power requirements will
not increase proportionally. They probably won't stop with 8 cores,
they will not cease finding something faster or better to market.
Unfortunately this means bigger programs that require more processing
power. I would like to see simpler/smaller programs that don't take
up as much memory and get the job done as well as their larger
counterparts.

What is the likelihood of moving storage of data away from hard disks
entirely and to very fast solid state memory?

Unless the cost per gigabyte, and the overall capacity is brought to
something close to what a rotating hard disk is, it won't replace it.

Most consumers aren't going to pay $600 or so for a 32GB solid state
drive, when they can get several terabytes for that price.

Not in the next 5 years anyway. I don't want to predict beyond then.

 

[kony]

I meant in terms of hardware.

I know, but it is pointless to think about until we have
applications that can take advantage.

Thank you for the 80-core article, I
await the release of that system. Hopefully power requirements will
not increase proportionally. They probably won't stop with 8 cores,
they will not cease finding something faster or better to market.
Unfortunately this means bigger programs that require more processing
power.

No, it just means writing them differently. Programs would
continue to get evermore bloated regardless of how far the
number of cores increase.

I would like to see simpler/smaller programs that don't take
up as much memory and get the job done as well as their larger
counterparts.

Then use them. This is not some future wish, situation,
they exist right now. For example, don't use Vista,
unless/until you have a specific need. Don't use Office
2007, for the same reason. Don't use Office 2003, for same,
etc, etc. It's entirely up to you to choose the app that
suits your needs, and determine what tradeoffs to make.
Most people just make the lazy choice, not bothering to
check application funcitonality and instead use something
that is newer, or more featured, more popular, etc...
putting less thought into choosing.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, if they don't mind
slower load times, more memory used, more disk space, etc,
since a modern PC can be fitted with more of these latter
two than required in most cases but if you want something
different you will have to spend the time to pick that other
alternative.

What is the likelihood of moving storage of data away from hard disks
entirely and to very fast solid state memory?

It will happen the moment you do it. You could've done it
yesterday, or today, or tomorrow... it is you that is
keeping it from happening, you didn't choose to do it.

I imagine this has the
possibility of making boot times faster as well as loading programs.

Depends entirely on what you're booting, how you boot, what
loads during boot, what programs you run, etc, etc.

I wouldn't normally think of it but in recent years solid state
storage has dropped in price so much, now they must only make it
faster than standard hdds.

They don't have to do anything, do they? If you are the
typical mechanical HDD user, you didn't use the fastest HDDs
& configurations available either, so the question of
performance isn't relevant, rather price.

 

[CBFalconer]

On 30 Jan 2007 19:02:22 -0800, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
.... snip ...


Then use them. This is not some future wish, situation,
they exist right now. For example, don't use Vista,
unless/until you have a specific need. Don't use Office
2007, for the same reason. Don't use Office 2003, for same,
etc, etc. It's entirely up to you to choose the app that
suits your needs, and determine what tradeoffs to make.
Most people just make the lazy choice, not bothering to
check application funcitonality and instead use something
that is newer, or more featured, more popular, etc...
putting less thought into choosing.

For example, I have ne on my system. It is just under 32k. Dated
June, 1986. Works fine.

 

[Skeleton Man]

I would like to see simpler/smaller programs that don't take

Then use them. This is not some future wish, situation,
they exist right now. For example, don't use Vista,
unless/until you have a specific need. Don't use Office
2007, for the same reason. Don't use Office 2003, for same,
etc, etc. It's entirely up to you to choose the app that
suits your needs, and determine what tradeoffs to make.
Most people just make the lazy choice, not bothering to
check application funcitonality and instead use something
that is newer, or more featured, more popular, etc...
putting less thought into choosing.

Here here! My sentiments exactly.. I still run windows 2000 because it's
the most comfortable and practical for me.. I would lose more than I would
gain from upgrading to XP or Vista..

People are just ill-informed.. they want it because it's new and because
everyone else has it.. if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you
follow ?

Regards,
Chris

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Here here! My sentiments exactly.. I still run windows 2000
because it's the most comfortable and practical for me.. I would
lose more than I would gain from upgrading to XP or Vista..

People are just ill-informed.. they want it because it's new and
because everyone else has it.. if everyone else jumped off a
bridge, would you follow ?

Read the URLs in my sig below, and eschew Vista.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[Rod Speed]

Here here! My sentiments exactly.. I still run windows 2000 because
it's the most comfortable and practical for me.. I would lose more
than I would gain from upgrading to XP or Vista..

People are just ill-informed.. they want it because
it's new and because everyone else has it..

Plenty have enough of a clue to realise that the system restore,
files and settings transfer wizard and repair install alone means
XP leaves 2K for dead, and then there's all the other stuff like
transparent recognition of cameras, ipods, media players,
etc etc etc that are a very convenient bonus.

if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you follow ?

Pathetic, really.

 

[paulmd]

Plenty have enough of a clue to realise that the system restore,
files and settings transfer wizard

System restore is exploited by viruses. File and setting transfer
wizard is OK.

and repair install alone means
XP leaves 2K for dead,

Win2k has a repair install that works just fine. In fact, this is one
of the things that xp sucks at. As the ASR is available only in pro,
and the 'fast repair' that I've found to be very useful went away in
XP.

XP also has a massive unpatched security hole in the recovery console.
You can boot an XP computer with a win2k cd, and bypass the
administrative password prompt altogether.

and then there's all the other stuff like
transparent recognition of cameras, ipods, media players,
etc etc etc that are a very convenient bonus.

None of these things are issues with win2k.

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

System restore is exploited by viruses.

Anyone with a clue stops them from infecting their system and has
full backups that ensure they are just a nuisance even if they do.

File and setting transfer wizard is OK.

Its a hell of a lot more than just ok if you ever need to do a clean install.

Win2k has a repair install that works just fine.
In fact, this is one of the things that xp sucks at.

Nope, the only problem is that its a bit confusingly named when you
boot the install CD, too easy to confuse with the repair console.

As the ASR is available only in pro,

ASR isnt a repair install.

and the 'fast repair' that I've found to be very useful went away in XP.

A repair install doesnt take that long.

XP also has a massive unpatched security hole in the recovery
console. You can boot an XP computer with a win2k cd, and
bypass the administrative password prompt altogether.

Sure, but its stupid to rely entirely on passwords for security.

Stuff that needs to be protected against that level of
attack needs to be secured much better than that
and that means that that hole is irrelevant in real life.

None of these things are issues with win2k.

I never said anything about issues. They arent
done anywhere near as conveniently in 2K.

And then there's the wireless wizard. 2K has nothing like that.

 

[kony]

Plenty have enough of a clue to realise that the system restore,
files and settings transfer wizard and repair install alone means
XP leaves 2K for dead, and then there's all the other stuff like
transparent recognition of cameras, ipods, media players,
etc etc etc that are a very convenient bonus.

With windows (actually any OS if we want to get picky) it is
a good idea to make a full backup. If your OS isn't bloated
beyond reason it is quite quick to restore that backup,
single-digit minutes, and it makes system restore just a
waste of HDD space in some cases.

What does a user care about "transparent recognition" if
their device works as they need it to? Theoretical
differences have to actually matter to the user as much as
they do to you, for it to be a similarly important
difference between these two OS. Subjectively some may feel
Win2k has benefits OVER XP, particularly XP/SP2. More is
not always better.

 

[Rod Speed]

With windows (actually any OS if we want to get picky)
it is a good idea to make a full backup.

Irrelevant to whether a restore point is much more convenient.

If your OS isn't bloated beyond reason it is quite
quick to restore that backup, single-digit minutes,

Pig ignorant drivel.

and it makes system restore just a
waste of HDD space in some cases.

No it doesnt, its always much faster so its handy when
it works and thats the absolute vast bulk of the time.

And the hard drive space costs peanuts now.

What does a user care about "transparent recognition"
if their device works as they need it to?

Saves a lot of farting around initially and is much more convenient whenever its used.

Theoretical differences have to actually matter to the user as much as they
do to you, for it to be a similarly important difference between these two OS.

Meaningless waffle, as always from you.

Subjectively some may feel Win2k has benefits OVER XP, particularly XP/SP2.

Anyone with a clue does. Then there's fools like you...

More is not always better.

Pity it is in this case anyway.

 

[kony]

Irrelevant to whether a restore point is much more convenient.

Quite relevant, you have to make the backup anyway to be
fully protected, and it takes mere minutes to restore it.
The supposed convenience is offset enough by the overhead,
and addt'l drive space to implement it.

 

[Rod Speed]

Quite relevant,
Nope.

you have to make the backup anyway to be fully protected,

No you dont. You can use the system restore instead and
use a repair install in the rare event that that doesnt succeed.

and it takes mere minutes to restore it.

Pig ignorant lie on the time that takes.

The supposed convenience

Nothing supposed about it, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

is offset enough by the overhead,

Not enough to matter a damn.

and addt'l drive space to implement it.

Which costs peanuts with today's hard drives.

Rule of Holes : When you are in one, STOP DIGGING.