Li, Aubrey wrote: > Mark.Haywood at Sun.COM wrote: > >> Mark Haywood wrote: >>> Li, Aubrey wrote: >>>> Mark.Haywood at Sun.COM wrote: >>>> >>>>> Li, Aubrey wrote: >>>>>> Alexander Kolbasov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached is the version that prints >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Status of virtual processor 0 as of: 12/05/2007 12:01:46 >>>>>>> on-line since 11/26/2007 15:06:47. >>>>>>> The i386 processor operates at [1596, 2128, 2660] 2660 MHz, >>>>>>> and has an i387 compatible floating point processor. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> This one looks good to me. >>>>> I should point out that I've seen at least one platform (MacBook >>>>> Pro I think) that exported about 10 P-states. >>>> So are you suggesting we should display a range like [1596 MHz - >>>> 2660 MHz]? >>> I do feel strongly about either format, but thought others might if >>> they knew it was possible (but probably rare) to see 10 frequencies >>> listed. > For some users don't know speedstep, a range like [1596 MHz - 2660 Mhz] > will let them think the processor can change the speed smoothly. > If the range display is prefered, I suggest to give the number of how > many steps out. > >> Make that, "I do not ..." > So, what's your thoughts? Keep the current one? But I think Alex's idea > is good, ;-)
If I thought it was common to see more than 4-5 P-states I'd prefer the range. My minimal experience has been that more than 4 is uncommon. So, if I absolutely had to give an opinion? Yeah, I think that the separate list of frequencies is better. Mark
