-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:52:07PM -0500: >>Its possible to be fast enough, but bytecode interpreting kills way too >>much performance. Virtualizing the processor would do the same. > > > Virtualizing shouldn't be _that_ much of a hit; it would be drowned out
You cannot talk about the performance of virtualizing without mentioning what kind of virtualization and whose implementation we are talking about and then if you want to be really pedantic we can talk about what kind of uses. For generalized use they vary wildly in performance. Emulating another cpu type of virtualization is the slowest. Then we have VMWare and then User Mode Linux. With Xen finally coming in as fastest. IBM's MVS style virtualization is probably right in there with Xen as far as speed goes but it's hard to say since mainframe architecture is wildly different. > A 7Mhz Amiga could multitask like that. Granted, it didn't have any > memory protection, but we've got machines that are what, two-and-a-half > ORDERS of magnitude faster now? It's obscene how much more processing > power we have, with not much to show for it.... I think we have quite a bit to show for it (I think the Internet and sharing photos with my family via my webpage is nice). But you and I obviously value different things. :) > Nah, not suddenly. You can watch it. I used to play a lot of XGalaga > on my 266MHz AXP multia. (It was a fast machine in its day. Don't laugh. > Well, not too hard.) I ran RedHat, as they seemed the best thing going. > Each version of RedHat (and I bought the point-version upgrades!) was > slower than the previous version, until the day came that XGalaga, under > TWM, was too slow and jerky to be playable. > > I started reconsidering what 'progress' meant about then. I think you should consider "What is an appropriate OS for this hardware?" as the newer RedHats clearly offered a lot more functionality but that level of functionality were not intended for that sort of hardware. I think if you had your way the default install of any OS would be able to run on your 7Mhz Atari and if we wanted anything else to take advantage of the new machine we just bought with a cpu two and a half orders of magnitude faster we would have to download it separately. >> Thats why my current PC has >>more problems word processing than my old Apple 2e did. Even on 5" >>floppies it loaded the program in comparable time to OO and Office, and it >>never slowed to hell when I hit save. > > > I think it's a matter of user expectations. The average user will put > up with a certain amount of pain, and so that's what we get. If they'd > put up with any more, we'd get that instead. The average user these days is accustomed to bitmapped displays and a certain level of ease of use that was not available on your 2e. For example hardly anybody memorizes keystroke combinations to save files etc anymore. Nobody would care to use AppleWriter or whatever you used on your 2e because they would word process more slowly with that than they would with a modern PC. In that case it was the user that was too slow, not the hardware. - -- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC01009PIYKZYVAq0RAufQAKCGFxvRmjm4OXg9mGA8cWJyBQDVKQCeLFiX A4zUfTnAf2YrHsY5m2Eg5aI= =BYj0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
