On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 07:42 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> Jon Elson wrote:
> >> The IBM move elevated the least capable chip set to dominance and
> >> > crippled the superior chip manufactures.
> >> >
> > Oh, we're talking about almost 30 years ago, now.
> > OK, yes, the I86 architecture is an abom
Yeh, how else would we get to see toyl porn pics of Stuart's Enshu? ;-)
Mark
On 09/22/2010 04:38 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:58 -0400, Don Stanley wrote:
> ... snip
>
>> I think you are totally correct, the industry has been hijacked for fun
>> instead of work.
>>
Jon Elson wrote:
>> The IBM move elevated the least capable chip set to dominance and
>> > crippled the superior chip manufactures.
>> >
> Oh, we're talking about almost 30 years ago, now.
> OK, yes, the I86 architecture is an abomination of incomprehensible
> magnitude.
I have always said that I
Kirk Wallace wrote:
>
> I hear that after DARPA got the Internet started, text based e-mail and
> bulletin boards made it fairly popular for computer types, but
> (personally, I wouldn't know), but it was adult entertainment that
> really drove the network expansion and the popularity with non-comp
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> The problem is Gordon Moore's law has finally expired (long live Gordon
> Moore!) Notice that CPU speeds (about 3 GHz)
> have totally flattened out after 3 decades of continuous increase. Speeds
> have not increased
> at all in the last 5 ye
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 19:48 -0400, Dave wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 4:38 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:58 -0400, Don Stanley wrote:
> > ... snip
> >
> >> I think you are totally correct, the industry has been hijacked for fun
> >> instead of work.
> >>
> > Where would the
Dave wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 4:38 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:58 -0400, Don Stanley wrote:
>> ... snip
>>
>>
>> Where would the Internet (and in someway EMC2) be without porn?
>>
>>
>
> Uh?? .. care to explain further...??
>
He's talking about "com
Don Stanley wrote:
> If IBM had not chose to Dumb Down their PC to stop the threat to
> their computer line, we would have unimaginable computing capability
> in a chips now.
>
No, not really. IBM has not been involved in the PC business for at
least 4 years, now,
they sold their name (for the
On 9/22/2010 4:38 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:58 -0400, Don Stanley wrote:
> ... snip
>
>> I think you are totally correct, the industry has been hijacked for fun
>> instead of work.
>>
> Where would the Internet (and in someway EMC2) be without porn?
>
Uh?? .
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:58 -0400, Don Stanley wrote:
... snip
> I think you are totally correct, the industry has been hijacked for fun
> instead of work.
Where would the Internet (and in someway EMC2) be without porn?
--
Kirk Wallace
http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/
http://www.wallac
Thanks Kent;
I guess my greatest disappointment is that was an AMD processor.
I have been routing for them from their beginning, and Zialog and
Motorola before that.
If IBM had not chose to Dumb Down their PC to stop the threat to
their computer line, we would have unimaginable computing capability
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:29 -0700, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Kirk Wallace wrote:
... snip
> Whats wrong with the Intel D510 motherboards at ~$80. I think they have ~8-10
> usec latency with the SMP 10.04 kernel.
>
>
> Peter Wallace
Nothing. It would probably save temporal m
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:05:07 -0400
> From: "Kent A. Reed"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] (no subject) or, old system vs new system
> I feel your pain and I know that trying to explain why you have it
> doesn't make it go away. A lot of us on this mail list and i
dave wrote:
>
> Good post. Sorry to have snipped so much of it but...
> All of the above is what makes the ARM/Beagle-board port so attractive.
> We don't need blazing speed, just blazing interrupt response and context
> switching.
>
And, the irritating part is, we still have NO IDEA what the
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:01:24 -0700
> From: Kirk Wallace
> Reply-To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
>
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] (no subject) or, old system vs
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:19 -0700, dave wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 12:05 -0400, Kent A. Reed wrote:
> > Don Stanley said, in part:
... snip
> Old, "un-improved"
> > Pentiums end up looking very good when your foremost goal is consistent,
> > low latency.
... snip
> Good post. Sorry to have sn
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 12:05 -0400, Kent A. Reed wrote:
> Don Stanley said, in part:
>
> The user's perception of the speed and responsiveness of these machines
> has almost nothing to do with the qualities we need in real-time
> control. The qualities we need for real-time control have been des
Don Stanley said, in part:
> I was grudgingly coming to the same conclusion. I did some comparisons
> today. I could not believe the fastest computers in the shop with minimum
> graphics (the AMD Atahlon 64 4000+ we have trying to fix) only performs
> slightly better than a Pentium IV 400MHZ ru
18 matches
Mail list logo
