According to Novell, (I just talked to them), SUSE 9.3 in the USA was to start shipping today. Now, Digital River who does the shipping may have a "delay" in getting in gear and actually shipping it out, so we could be looking at Monday....the 18th. Fred -- The only bug free software from MickySoft is still shrink-wrapped in their warehouse..."
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 17:25, Fred A. Miller wrote:
According to Novell, (I just talked to them), SUSE 9.3 in the USA was to start shipping today. Now, Digital River who does the shipping may have a "delay" in getting in gear and actually shipping it out, so we could be looking at Monday....the 18th.
Fred
Yep, I got a e-mail from them yesterday, the 12th, telling me it's on back order. Here's a snip: The product(s) you've ordered is built to order and typically ships in 10 days or less. The product(s) has been placed on back-order and will be shipped as soon as possible when the stock becomes available. You will receive another e-mail notification when your order has actually shipped. Now I'm chompin' at the bit to get my hands on it, heh.
On Wed April 13 2005 7:17 pm, John B wrote:
Yep, I got a e-mail from them yesterday, the 12th, telling me it's on back order. Here's a snip:
I received the same thing, so called Novell today. :) Fred -- The only bug free software from MickySoft is still shrink-wrapped in their warehouse..."
John, On Wednesday 13 April 2005 16:17, John B wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 17:25, Fred A. Miller wrote:
According to Novell, (I just talked to them), SUSE 9.3 in the USA was to start shipping today. Now, Digital River who does the shipping may have a "delay" in getting in gear and actually shipping it out, so we could be looking at Monday....the 18th.
Fred
Yep, I got a e-mail from them yesterday, the 12th, telling me it's on back order. Here's a snip:
The product(s) you've ordered is built to order and typically ships in 10 days or less. The product(s) has been placed on back-order and will be shipped as soon as possible when the stock becomes available. You will receive another e-mail notification when your order has actually shipped.
Now I'm chompin' at the bit to get my hands on it, heh.
For me it was: "Dear Randall R Schulz, "Your order from shopNovell has been shipped and your credit card has been charged." And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!). RRS
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
James, On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Maybe later. I think first I'm going to by a Mac laptop (I got a new job w/ a signing bonus) so I can "be like Linus." RRS
Maybe later. I think first I'm going to by a Mac laptop (I got a new job w/ a signing bonus) so I can "be like Linus."
I too want a mac laptop to play around with an get some learning curve from it. Which one you looking at. Just call me the curious cat today hehehehehe. jack
Jack, On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:40, Jack Malone wrote:
Maybe later. I think first I'm going to by a Mac laptop (I got a new job w/ a signing bonus) so I can "be like Linus."
I too want a mac laptop to play around with an get some learning curve from it. Which one you looking at. Just call me the curious cat today hehehehehe.
I haven't really started looking into what the product line looks like today. It will also be my first laptop, so I've got a lot to learn.
jack
Randall Schulz
On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:48, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jack,
On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:40, Jack Malone wrote:
Maybe later. I think first I'm going to by a Mac laptop (I got a new job w/ a signing bonus) so I can "be like Linus."
I too want a mac laptop to play around with an get some learning curve from it. Which one you looking at. Just call me the curious cat today hehehehehe.
I haven't really started looking into what the product line looks like today. It will also be my first laptop, so I've got a lot to learn.
jack
Randall Schulz
I think you'll be very pleased with an Apple laptop. Enjoy, Jerome
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
More data executed per cycle than 32bit CPU => Faster.
On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:01 pm, Anders Norrbring wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm
going
to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
More data executed per cycle than 32bit CPU => Faster.
Where I come from we try not to execute Data. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:58, Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU??
64 bit data manipulation makes a big difference if you have software that can handle it I recently got my first AMD64, and I absolutely love it. Everything is just so nice and fast By the way, aren't the Macs 64 bit too?
On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:03, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:58, Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU??
64 bit data manipulation makes a big difference if you have software that can handle it
For me a big if.
I recently got my first AMD64, and I absolutely love it. Everything is just so nice and fast
By the way, aren't the Macs 64 bit too?
The G5 desktops are 64 bit. Jerome
On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 pm, Susemail wrote:
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? There are many benefits to 64-bits. (Note that I have been a 64-bit user since 1994 including Linux). First, as you mentioned a larger linear address space. The x86 architecture was segmented. Larger tables, such as much larger file systems. Inherently faster transfers, a 64-bit processor transfers 64 bits at a time where a 32-bit system transfers 32-bits at a time. (There are some caveats too).
A 64-bit system uses 64-bit registers, so that integer calculations can be
done using 64-bit registers. Integers are better for financial calculations
because of the rounding and inaccuracies of floating point.
I guess the marketing people can come up with a bunch more, butthose are a
few off the top of my head.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:13, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 pm, Susemail wrote:
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU??
There are many benefits to 64-bits. (Note that I have been a 64-bit user since 1994 including Linux). First, as you mentioned a larger linear address space. The x86 architecture was segmented.
I was under the impression, perhaps misguided, that more recent x86 CPUs don't depend on the early segmented model. [snip]
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 01:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
Remember vividly these discussions (Byte). At introduction of 6809 (motorola's first true 16-bit machine) and the 68000 (32 bits). Nice cpu with orthogonal instruction set. No compiler or even assembler needed ... Hans
On Friday 15 April 2005 01:26, Hans Witvliet wrote:
At introduction of 6809 (motorola's first true 16-bit machine) and the 68000 (32 bits). Nice cpu with orthogonal instruction set. No compiler or even assembler needed ...
I don't believe any CPU needs an assembler - certainly not a compiler - since all these tools do is to translate text files into binary code. If you know the machine language, and have a masochistic streak, you can program any computer directly in it If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers. I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:44 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :):) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers.
I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
Anders, once upon a time machine language was all you had. The big jump was to nmemonics like lda, ldb etc as used in assembler. For those that had to program in that environment it became easy. You would look at a word in octal or in lites and recognise op codes and operands. Like any language it depended on how much you used it. The more you used it the easier it became. I'm sure there are a few grey haired old farts that still can talk machine. Fortunately I have forgotten all that nice stuff, I think. But I can bellieve some old purist did it in machine, primarily to get the speed he needed. We used to call it optimum programming. But that was a looong time ago, when the world and machines were simpler. ra -- Old age ain't for Sissies!
On Thursday 14 April 2005 20:29, Richard wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:44 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :):) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers.
I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
Anders, once upon a time machine language was all you had. The big jump was to nmemonics like lda, ldb etc as used in assembler. For those that had to program in that environment it became easy. You would look at a word in octal or in lites and recognise op codes and operands.
Like any language it depended on how much you used it. The more you used it the easier it became. I'm sure there are a few grey haired old farts that still can talk machine. Fortunately I have forgotten all that nice stuff, I think. But I can bellieve some old purist did it in machine, primarily to get the speed he needed. We used to call it optimum programming.
But that was a looong time ago, when the world and machines were simpler.
Geez you're bringing back memories (nightmares.) I'm hardly an old fart -- no grey hair yet. But, I remember writing assembly/ml programs on my first computer -- an Atari 800 (6502) -- without an assembler. Couldn't afford a lot of software or a floppy drive. Just me, the Atari, a tape recorder, and some books. I'd code on paper, convert instructions to hex, then make a second pass to resolve addresses and add offsets. I think I made a pretty fine two-pass compiler.
On Thursday 14 April 2005 17:29, Richard wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:44 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :):) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers.
I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
Anders, once upon a time machine language was all you had. The big jump was to nmemonics like lda, ldb etc as used in assembler. For those that had to program in that environment it became easy. You would look at a word in octal or in lites and recognise op codes and operands.
Like any language it depended on how much you used it. The more you used it the easier it became. I'm sure there are a few grey haired old farts that still can talk machine. Fortunately I have forgotten all that nice stuff, I think. But I can bellieve some old purist did it in machine, primarily to get the speed he needed. We used to call it optimum programming.
But that was a looong time ago, when the world and machines were simpler.
ra -- Old age ain't for Sissies!
I wrote my first program in machine code. Jerome
On Friday 15 April 2005 01:29, Richard wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 06:44 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :):) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers.
I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
Anders, once upon a time machine
Once upon a time machine ... great start to a story! 'Once upon a time machine in a land far away were Jules Verne and H.G. Wells ...'
Old age ain't for Sissies! Y'ain't kidding.
Best -- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
I've got Suse Enterprise Server 9 running on about 15 dual 64 bit Xeon and Opteron based machines. These are running high volume data base and web servers (often reach 70Mb/s of traffic) All I can say is that 64 bits really comes into its' own when there is very high traffic, a 32 bit solution runs out of steam quite quickly under these conditions. One of our larger clients want to migrate from Sun/SPARC to Suse/64bitXeon because of the massive cost savings and comparable performance. This wouldn't have been a consideration had Intel stayed 32 bit. just my $0.02 Matthew
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 01:26, Hans Witvliet wrote:
At introduction of 6809 (motorola's first true 16-bit machine) and the 68000 (32 bits). Nice cpu with orthogonal instruction set. No compiler or even assembler needed ...
I don't believe any CPU needs an assembler - certainly not a compiler - since all these tools do is to translate text files into binary code. If you know the machine language, and have a masochistic streak, you can program any computer directly in it
If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers.
I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
... or that he designed his first computer during a Superbowl game :-) CDC instructors taught us that octal was much easier than hexadecimal. One maintenance engineer could could print your name on a 3600 system line-printer, one letter at a time w/ octal codes from the console. Look at the 8080/8086 command set; it was orderly when listed in octal groupings.
Stanley Long wrote:
Look at the 8080/8086 command set; it was orderly when listed in octal groupings.
Quite so. That's what made it so easy to remember. Lessee now. The move immediate commands were 07x and the register to register commands were 1xx, where: Accumulator = 7 B register = 0 C = 1 D = 2 E = 3 H = 4 L = 5 and memory =6. I've still got some of the instruction set references here (somewhere). I often used the Scelbi 8080 Pocket Reference.
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 01:26, Hans Witvliet wrote:
At introduction of 6809 (motorola's first true 16-bit machine) and the 68000 (32 bits). Nice cpu with orthogonal instruction set. No compiler or even assembler needed ...
I don't believe any CPU needs an assembler - certainly not a compiler - since all these tools do is to translate text files into binary code. If you know the machine language, and have a masochistic streak, you can program any computer directly in it
If you meant the machine language was so nice you could use it easily without the help of these tools, well, we obviously have different definitions of fun :) At least my brain needs the text to get an overview. A list of numbers to me is just a list of numbers.
I've read claims that Seymore Cray wrote the first OS for his supercomputer directly in machine language, and in octal code at that. I'm not sure I can force myself to believe that
I used to do that, for my first computer, an IMSAI 8080. Back in those days, you had to write your own device drivers, before you could do anythihg with the computer, including run an assembler. I'd get the square ruled paper, to keep the columns neat, and start writing out the code in op codes and then convert to octal, which I could then toggle into the computer. After a while, it got so that I didn't have to write down the mnemonics, as I knew the octal codes for most of the instructions.
On Friday 15 April 2005 03:39, James Knott wrote:
I used to do that, for my first computer, an IMSAI 8080. Back in those days, you had to write your own device drivers, before you could do anythihg with the computer, including run an assembler.
You're not from Yorkshire by any chance? :) Thank you all for your stories. For once I'm actually glad I wasn't born earlier :)
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 03:39, James Knott wrote:
I used to do that, for my first computer, an IMSAI 8080. Back in those days, you had to write your own device drivers, before you could do anythihg with the computer, including run an assembler.
You're not from Yorkshire by any chance? :)
No. Why would you think that???
On Saturday 16 April 2005 00:09, James Knott wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 03:39, James Knott wrote:
I used to do that, for my first computer, an IMSAI 8080. Back in those days, you had to write your own device drivers, before you could do anythihg with the computer, including run an assembler.
You're not from Yorkshire by any chance? :)
No. Why would you think that???
I think it's an oblique reference to the "Four Yorkshire men" sketch where they sit around trying to out-do each other with stories about how poor they were when they were kids. "Back when I were a lad, we were so poor, we had to share one pair of socks between the six of us!" -- Steve Boddy
Anders Johansson wrote:
Thank you all for your stories. For once I'm actually glad I wasn't born earlier :)
Actually, the '70s were a very interesting time in personal computers. The first "popular" hobbiest computer was the Altair 8800, which came out in Jan 1975. The IMSAI was a better built clone of the Altair. Back in those days, we struggled with finding suitable I/O hardware, often buying surplus teletypes etc. Back then, we knew our computers inside out, including software and learned *A LOT*!!!
On Friday 15 April 2005 19:13, James Knott wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
Thank you all for your stories. For once I'm actually glad I wasn't born earlier :)
Actually, the '70s were a very interesting time in personal computers. The first "popular" hobbiest computer was the Altair 8800, which came out in Jan 1975. The IMSAI was a better built clone of the Altair. Back in those days, we struggled with finding suitable I/O hardware, often buying surplus teletypes etc. Back then, we knew our computers inside out, including software and learned *A LOT*!!!
Gee, sounds interesting. *I* wish that I had been born 10 years earlier. Didn't "discover" computers until 1978. I was 12 then.
Hans Witvliet wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 01:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
Remember vividly these discussions (Byte).
At introduction of 6809 (motorola's first true 16-bit machine) and the 68000 (32 bits). Nice cpu with orthogonal instruction set. No compiler or even assembler needed ...
Hans
We were way down the road with 32-bit mainframes then, but our console designers were heavily into the 6809 while we were working on taming the large beasts, so the next big thing for us was the SPARC 5's that we used for keeping logics, running remote diagnostics and fault finding on our next range - those things were fast, then when the PC really got going, the SPARC 5 boxes were too slow for useful work under Solaris, but made quite responsive Linux boxes. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid.
It was. The hardware really limited things back then. Remember memory mapping etc?
On Thursday 14 April 2005 21:31, James Knott wrote:
Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote: [snip]
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU??
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then.
It was. The hardware really limited things back then. Remember memory mapping etc?
You mean bank switching ? MMUs (Memory Mapping Units) are part of modern processsors last time I looked.
Synthetic Cartoonz wrote:
It was. The hardware really limited things back then. Remember memory mapping etc?
You mean bank switching ? MMUs (Memory Mapping Units) are part of modern processsors last time I looked.
There was memory mapping in external hardware. As I recall, there were some boards that used the "LIM" (Lotus, Intel, Microsoft) standard for memory mapping boards in the XT systems. When the 286 came out, they were no longer necessary. I also used to work on Data General mini-computers. They could normally access 32 Kbytes, but with the addition of a memory mapping board, they could (IIRC) go to 2 MB. With the memory mapping boards, you could relocate blocks of memory into the normal address space. Also, I believe that Zilog made a version of the Z80, the Z180, which could do memory mapping.
James Knott wrote:
Synthetic Cartoonz wrote:
It was. The hardware really limited things back then. Remember memory mapping etc?
You mean bank switching ? MMUs (Memory Mapping Units) are part of modern processsors last time I looked.
There was memory mapping in external hardware. As I recall, there were some boards that used the "LIM" (Lotus, Intel, Microsoft) standard for memory mapping boards in the XT systems. When the 286 came out, they were no longer necessary. I also used to work on Data General mini-computers. They could normally access 32 Kbytes,
That should have been 64 Kbytes or 32K words.
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too. Jerome
* Susemail
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU! Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU??
The larger adress space is (for me at least) the main reason. Other benefits are that it's (slightly) faster [although quite frankly, you will be hard pressed to notice the difference between an AMD3500+ and an AMD64 3500+] in day-to-day use and of course, these days an AMD64 is about the same price as a straight 32bit AMD , and I think that for intel CPUs the price difference betweenn an 32intel and a 32intel+64hack (with same specs) is marginal, so for a little bit of extra money (if that) you get a lot of extra possibilities.
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. True. Then again, I remember buying a 4G harddrive, and thinking that that should be able to serve as central file storage for our enitire office for the next couple of years ..
Heck, I recently bought an apple iStick w/512M or memory. The thing is
about the size of a pack of chewing gum.
One of my first sysadmin task was to replace a disk in our convex .
That was also a .5G disk, and it took 2 people to manhandle it in and out
of the system ...
Currently listening to: NIN_DemosAndRemixes_t10
Gerhard,
On Friday 15 April 2005 01:32, Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote: [snip]
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then.
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me.
I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example.
heh heh heh. Maybe we have a new, great computing "truth" here. Add to: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson. Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943 "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates. Someone who dug CP/M source code out of other people's garbage cans.
I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
The problem with the software development world is that software developers assume their program is the beneficiary of all system resources. No matter what the technological advance, software advances as fast, or even faster, to consume and overtake it. Today, developers code for their own convenience without regard or respect for system resources. While hard drives, physical RAM and CPU caches have become faster and larger, code has bloated even faster, negating the performance increase. From what I see of the entry-level people we hire and fire at work, schools aren't teaching programmers how computers work at even a fundamental level, so they have no real idea what "efficient" means. It is quite common to find some Object Oriented "expert" (that's someone with a degree and one job on their resume) who can't build a simple C char array. I've seen quite a few who have no clue at all that a C pointer corresponds to an instrumental, functional part of the CPU and is not merely a language syntax construct. I still have an Amiga 3000 kicking around -- 25MHz 68030 and 16M RAM. (For that sytem 16M is HUGE -- especially back in 1990) I'm amazed that in 90% of practical situations there is no appreciable difference between using the Amiga and using my 1.8Ghz, 1G RAM linux system (or even "faster" Windows systems at work). The GUI is light and fast -- it even makes icewm feel bloated. The apps are a tiny fraction of the size of similar programs on the contemporary platforms and seem to load instantly. It still works as well as it does, because it was designed by a bunch of uber-geeks who had to care that the 68000 address range was only 16M.
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
Jerome
For the moment maybe, 64-bit Alpha and Sun boxes have been around for quite a while now and AMD/Intel have caught up, giving Linux a chance to displace Sun's servers at a knock-down price. Sun never envisaged x86 64-bit, so they steered clear of Linux on SPARC. Whatever comes along will get used, they are programs that will demand it, a large supercomputer in inside the keyboard and a paper thin monitor, just give it time. On Monday slashdot reported that scientists at the Univeristy of Illinois had demonstrated a pseudomorphic heterejunction bipolar transistor operating at 604 GigaHertz, when chips are made of these devices, imagine the power under your finger tips. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
On Friday 15 April 2005 3:11 pm, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
Jerome
For the moment maybe, 64-bit Alpha and Sun boxes have been around for quite a while now and AMD/Intel have caught up, giving Linux a chance to displace Sun's servers at a knock-down price. Sun never envisaged x86 64-bit, so they steered clear of Linux on SPARC. Whatever comes along will get used, they are programs that will demand it, a large supercomputer in inside the keyboard and a paper thin monitor, just give it time. On Monday slashdot reported that scientists at the Univeristy of Illinois had demonstrated a pseudomorphic heterejunction bipolar transistor operating at 604 GigaHertz, when chips are made of these devices, imagine the power under your finger tips. Regards Dear Sid.
We Natives of Illinois like to call our state "The Silicon Prairie". Lots and lots of very cool and innovative stuff has come from Illinois. Schockley, Bratton and Bardeen made the first transistor here as well. Ever seen pictures of that first junction? UGLY!! PeterB Ex-IBMer and Keen Bonanza (A36) co-pilot :o) -- -- Proud SUSE user since 5.2 Loving SUSE 9.2 My BLOG == http://vancampen.org/blog --
Peter B Van Campen wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 3:11 pm, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
>And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. >I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of >getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the >10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
Jerome
For the moment maybe, 64-bit Alpha and Sun boxes have been around for quite a while now and AMD/Intel have caught up, giving Linux a chance to displace Sun's servers at a knock-down price. Sun never envisaged x86 64-bit, so they steered clear of Linux on SPARC. Whatever comes along will get used, they are programs that will demand it, a large supercomputer in inside the keyboard and a paper thin monitor, just give it time. On Monday slashdot reported that scientists at the Univeristy of Illinois had demonstrated a pseudomorphic heterejunction bipolar transistor operating at 604 GigaHertz, when chips are made of these devices, imagine the power under your finger tips. Regards
Dear Sid.
We Natives of Illinois like to call our state "The Silicon Prairie". Lots and lots of very cool and innovative stuff has come from Illinois. Schockley, Bratton and Bardeen made the first transistor here as well. Ever seen pictures of that first junction? UGLY!!
PeterB
Ex-IBMer and Keen Bonanza (A36) co-pilot :o)
It's not been apparent, we often think of the Silicon Valley, Ca. and there are visible signs everyhere, then again around that part of the world I've only driven from Chicago airport down to Battavia and never saw a Tech company other than ours. Nice looking aircraft the Bonanza, only flew C150/152's, PA28 Warriors and the Diamond Katana DV20. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
On Friday 15 April 2005 5:48 pm, Sid Boyce wrote:
Peter B Van Campen wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 3:11 pm, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote: >Randall R Schulz wrote:
Dear Sid.
We Natives of Illinois like to call our state "The Silicon Prairie". Lots and lots of very cool and innovative stuff has come from Illinois. Schockley, Bratton and Bardeen made the first transistor here as well. Ever seen pictures of that first junction? UGLY!!
PeterB
Ex-IBMer and Keen Bonanza (A36) co-pilot :o)
It's not been apparent, we often think of the Silicon Valley, Ca. and there are visible signs everyhere, then again around that part of the world I've only driven from Chicago airport down to Battavia and never saw a Tech company other than ours. Nice looking aircraft the Bonanza, only flew C150/152's, PA28 Warriors and the Diamond Katana DV20. Regards Hi Sid.
You should fly over FermiLab. ( in Batavia, IL) The 'ring' is so awesome that it is a reporting point for pilots navigating the Greater Chicago area. DuPage county airport is just NE of the ring, and a busy General Aviation hub. University of Illinois main campus (in the twin cities of Champaign-Urbana) is 100 of so miles S of Chicago and has its own airport for its aviation program. I have had a few visits to the Computer Sciences areas there. Who sez there are no "Hallowed shrines of science" in the Mid-West? The home of the Mosaic browser. I have flown Grumman Tigers and Cheatahs, Rockwell 112c, Mooney 201M, a vintage Navion(sweet feeling ship!) and the Bonanza. There were a scant few hours in the 'engineers seats' in a C-47/DC-3 and a Spanish built Junkers JU-52 Tri-motor. I would like to try the Diamond. We had an invite to go fly the Cirrus in Duluth MN on Lake Superior, but never got to go; drat! PeterB Last IBM mainframe worked on 4381s and 3090s. Last IBM OS ESA/MVS and VM-XA p.s. the Junkers flyes just as fast (or slow) on 2 engines as on 3 ! There are visual sight-glasses (float-glasses) for the oil and fuel tanks on the JU! There is also an under floor compartment for the 'engineer' to pump oil out to any of the engines in flight! -- -- Proud SUSE user since 5.2 Loving SUSE 9.2 My BLOG == http://vancampen.org/blog --
The Friday 2005-04-15 at 15:34 -0500, Peter B Van Campen wrote:
We Natives of Illinois like to call our state "The Silicon Prairie". Lots and lots of very cool and innovative stuff has come from Illinois. Schockley, Bratton and Bardeen made the first transistor here as well. Ever seen pictures of that first junction? UGLY!!
At a job I had, we had one of those transistors inside a glass globe, at the entrance to our auditorium. I recognised it at first sight, but I don't know if it was a reproduction or a real, original, one. I thought it was kind of cute :-) -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Peter B Van Campen wrote:
We Natives of Illinois like to call our state "The Silicon Prairie". Lots and lots of very cool and innovative stuff has come from Illinois. Schockley, Bratton and Bardeen made the first transistor here as well. Ever seen pictures of that first junction? UGLY!!
I thought the first transistor was made in Bell Labs, in New Jersey. http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/belllabs_transistor.html
James Knott wrote:
Sid Boyce wrote:
On Monday slashdot reported that scientists at the Univeristy of Illinois had demonstrated a pseudomorphic heterejunction bipolar transistor
It must have some really *WILD* mood swings. ;-)
That should have read heterojunction. Perhaps they have a Pointy Head Boss (PHB) and the name is a pun on that. There was a manager in our manufacturing plant named D. Long, the lads started wearing tea shirts with "The O-Easy Club" front and back and he never caught on, 0E is the zSeries op code for the "Move Character Long" instruction which he fully well knew. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
On Friday 15 April 2005 13:11, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
Jerome
For the moment maybe, 64-bit Alpha and Sun boxes have been around for quite a while now and AMD/Intel have caught up, giving Linux a chance to displace Sun's servers at a knock-down price. Sun never envisaged x86 64-bit, so they steered clear of Linux on SPARC. Whatever comes along will get used, they are programs that will demand it, a large supercomputer in inside the keyboard and a paper thin monitor, just give it time. On Monday slashdot reported that scientists at the Univeristy of Illinois had demonstrated a pseudomorphic heterejunction bipolar transistor operating at 604 GigaHertz, when chips are made of these devices, imagine the power under your finger tips. Regards Sid.
That's good news, I wonder if they had any problems with temperature. I agree, whatever comes along will be used. I'd settle for really fast solid state hard drives, and maybe one of those keyboards you mentioned with a 604 GigaHertz optical chip in it. Jerome
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
Some users are already finding the 32 bit address space to be limiting.
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU??
A faster game of Solitaire? ;-) Added performance is one feature, in that more can be accomplished in a single instruction. It's becoming more difficult to improve performance, strictly by increasing clock speed. So the plan is to get more done, in each instruction. Also, the clock rollover problem gets pushed out a few billion years. However, we should have 128 bit CPUs, by the time that happnens. <g>
On Thursday 14 April 2005 03:02 am, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Why? Are they any faster? (given the same clock)... I remember well the move from 16 bit software to 32 bit software was in many situations a big let down, because it was no faster, and often slower, since every memory fetch had to be 32bits whether you needed it or not, as did each instruction. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 03:02 am, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Why? Are they any faster? (given the same clock)...
I remember well the move from 16 bit software to 32 bit software was in many situations a big let down, because it was no faster, and often slower, since every memory fetch had to be 32bits whether you needed it or not, as did each instruction.
Certainly, because you were still running 16-bit apps. Last night I built MPlayer on this XP3000+ 32-bit/512M box, then on the XP3000+/512M 64-bit laptop running at a much slower clock frequency, the 64-bit laptop build was a darn site quicker as are my kernel builds. When Sun went 64-bit SPARC, everyone saw the speed difference. 64-bit wasn't designed just to show that the designers were clever, it was about speed and performance. When we can deliver a completely 64-bit distro, see and feel the big difference. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 03:02 am, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Why? Are they any faster? (given the same clock)...
I remember well the move from 16 bit software to 32 bit software was in many situations a big let down, because it was no faster, and often slower, since every memory fetch had to be 32bits whether you needed it or not, as did each instruction.
In many cases, that was simply due to sloppy programming. There's no way a 286 can match today's systems.
participants (21)
-
Anders Johansson -
Anders Norrbring -
Carlos E. R. -
Fergus Wilde -
Fred A. Miller -
Gerhard den Hollander -
Hans Witvliet -
Jack Malone -
James Knott -
Jerry Feldman -
John Andersen -
John B -
Matthew Stringer -
Peter B Van Campen -
Randall R Schulz -
Richard -
Sid Boyce -
Stanley Long -
Stephen Boddy -
Susemail -
Synthetic Cartoonz