Index
> OS Construction > Latest ver of DexOS ver 6, is releasedGoto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author |
|
|
Dex4u 16 May 2012, 20:05
Thanks both for your comments
 .
@Coty, i agree with you about Baremetal-OS, but you mis understand me, when i say single tasking. Single tasking is the way ahead, multi tasking was because chips were so expensive, that you need to make them work, hard by splitting many program into time slicers and giving them a bit of the cpu's time. It was just a elution of multi tasking, but really it was single tasking, but done very very fast. Just like the dots on your TV screen looks like movement. Your Window PC has never multi-task  .
It just single-tasks very fast. Now we have multi cores, we can give each program a core or two. With the bare bones of a OS on each core, just enough for the App to run. You seem to think single tasking mean's you can not play music or a movie etc and at the same time, doing something else. That's what dedicated chips are for, it like playing a cd in dos and using edit. Adding the use of multi core in DexOS, is half a hours work, its very simple. Like it or lump it ST is what your going to get 
Read and weep 
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w8itprogeneral/thread/f76425fb-8b8d-4197-95cd-76e5b473217b
Anyway Coty i taught you well Quote:
Posted in 2007 http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=54942#54942 |
|||
16 May 2012, 20:05 |
|
|
rugxulo 16 May 2012, 21:55
Coty wrote: ^ Baremetal-OS is more of the future if you ask me. Simply because of it's ability to run "One Task Per Core" as multi core CPUs were intended. Now with most CPUs on the market having a minimum of 2 cores with AMD having a total of 8 and intel with there 48 core version, I think it is were we are headed. Very very slowly. I didn't hear about 48 cores, only 16 (for servers). Home users only seem to get two or four. Do you personally know anyone in real life with more than four? While the idea of running each app on a core sounds good, don't forget that the OS, background processes, etc. take up a lot too, not to mention the ubiquitous web browser (w/ JS engine), media player, mail client, JVM or CLR or whatever. Besides, it's hard to make an app use multiple cores effectively, even 7-Zip barely uses two, and it's not a 2x win, only like 20% increase, and I think that's only due to splitting the file stuff from the calculations. Quote:
You're already waiting on the network as your weakest link, presumably, which is why multitasking is useful in the first place: you can do other stuff while waiting. Though I doubt multiple cores can access all these peripherals concurrently anyways. Like Dex says, a lot of the appearance of multitasking is an illusion (and eats up lots of RAM, BTW). Quote:
The original XBox 1 didn't multitask, it was a Pentium-III that only had one process but up to three threads (or so I heard). The XBox 360 was a triple-core PPC-based behemoth, but it was very rough around the edges, hence all the hardware problems (overheating), etc. Luckily, they seem to have mostly fixed that. Though I would hardly call the original "slow" or "useless" by comparison, it still got the job done (even if they no longer support it, *sniff*). Quote:
Speaking as a DOS fanatic, yes, multitasking can be useful, but it's not easy, eats up lots of RAM, and pretty much precludes any efficient use of BIOS (almost). So you're just asking to complicate things, esp. when multitasking is NOT useful in 100% of situations. Honestly, only in rare cases does it matter at all (e.g. compiling something big or searching for files). Quote:
Opening two files in one text editor instance is not multitasking, and even FASMD atop DOS does that. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you should already be able to do that. P.S. A "simpler" form of pseudo-multitasking is called task switching (a la 286), where you just dump out the active process' memory to disk or RAM, load something else and run that, etc. It's basically just an extended pause or wait until whatever (user intervention, IRQ, etc) triggers the switch. As mentioned, if you do it fast enough, it will appear seamless (e.g. cooperative multitasking). |
|||
|
16 May 2012, 21:55 |
|
|
Coty 17 May 2012, 02:50
rugxulo wrote: Very very slowly. I didn't hear about 48 cores, only 16 (for servers). Home users only seem to get two or four. Do you personally know anyone in real life with more than four? Yes actually, I can think of 3 off of the top of my head, one of which is my uncle, and if you want to count it the PS3 ( It has an 8 core PPC based CPU (7 are used for processing, the other is a dispatch core)) I can know quite a few more
Here is intels 48 core: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/intel-48-core-processor/ Not to mention NVIDA has programible GPUs now, some of which have more than 1000 programmable cores. Take this chip for example: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-690/specifications You'll see it has 3072 cores (Labled CUDA) These aren't just for video, CUDA cores can be used just like the main CPU in your computer. Most Nvidia based graphic cards on the market now actually support CUDA, in fact my now 2 year old MSI afterburner has about 700 if I remember right. This is just the beginning... But I also would like to point something out, you don't exactly need a full core, my Intel core i3 shows up as a 4 core CPU, this is because of something called hyperthreading. See how this works is intel basically cloned a second set of registers so it looks like this : eax0 eax1 ebx0 ebx1 ... eip0 eip1 esp0 esp1 ... Now to software it doesn't see the second set of regs, instead the CPU kinda switches between the two. So it uses something like 2% more dye and improves multitasking by like 20% compared to an average core. I think I read that the new AMD 8 core CPU also does this and really only has 4 complete cores, but I dunno were I read that at, so I can't say if the source was reliable. rugxulo wrote: You're already waiting on the network as your weakest link, presumably, which is why multitasking is useful in the first place: you can do other stuff while waiting. Though I doubt multiple cores can access all these peripherals concurrently anyways. No, Humans are the weakest link there, You can wait a few minuets for someone to answer you... Dex wrote: You seem to think single tasking mean's you can not play music or a movie etc and at the same time, doing something else. The only issue with this is that this is written in stone, this is like having a cheap mp3 player, it only supports 1 or 2 codecs, and with this digital age most people download music more than anything, theres ogg, mp3, wav, wma, acc, aac, ect. Then there is the interface, were is that handled so I can skip a song at anytime. Now my ideal work around is a programmable core capable of executing updates for latter audio codecs or due to copyright issues ones that the manufactures couldn't install. By this time it's easier to dedicate a small thread on CPU for playing music, but at the same time, if you think about it. rugxulo wrote: P.S. A "simpler" form of pseudo-multitasking is called task switching (a la 286), where you just dump out the active process' memory to disk or RAM, load something else and run that, etc. It's basically just an extended pause or wait until whatever (user intervention, IRQ, etc) triggers the switch. As mentioned, if you do it fast enough, it will appear seamless (e.g. cooperative multitasking). http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=12410 Dex wrote: Anyway Coty i taught you well Yes, and for that I am quite thankful  |
|||
|
17 May 2012, 02:50 |
|
|
revolution 17 May 2012, 03:35
Coty wrote: ... CUDA cores can be used just like the main CPU in your computer. |
|||
|
17 May 2012, 03:35 |
|
|
Stephen 17 May 2012, 04:47
I was running a 12 cpu computer back in the 80's
But really, now when I'm playing around with DexOS, or some cnc stuff, I tend to have more then one computer going with a single task on each. I do know several people using computers with lots of cores, but they are all doing animation/fx or engineering simulations. Mostly a few tasks with more cores then different tasks. I do have my e-mail and browser open and can't say I never open more then one thing at a time. One core, fifty cores, mostly people don't care how the device does what it does, just that it does what they want as fast as they want to do it.
I keep looking at the 240 core Boxx system: http://boxxtech.com/products/ROW/row_overview.asp As well as their 12 core system: http://boxxtech.com/products/renderPRO/pro_overview.asp I just need to get some one to give me an animation job big enough to make it worth buying them Most often they would only be running one task. |
|||
|
17 May 2012, 04:47 |
|
|
rugxulo 17 May 2012, 05:12
GPUs don't count (IMO), nor does HTT (though it does help performance). What I'm saying is that, even with programmers willing, which is somewhat rare, there aren't enough cores to go around, so the alleged benefit drops off. And most programs can't effectively use even four cores, much less the 48-core thingy that Intel doesn't actually sell, just prototypes.
Quote:
I'm just saying, it's been a few years, and I'm very underwhelmed by all the hype. Show us the cores or shaddup. P.S. Apparently AMD's Bulldozer has two integer clusters and one FPU per module, so it's not quite the same as we traditionally view cores either. |
|||
|
17 May 2012, 05:12 |
|
|
Bargest 17 May 2012, 11:31
I think cores count could not grow and grow forever.
Nowadays we have 16-core CPUs on servers, but only 4-channel memory. So processors just hang, waiting their turn to access memory. Of course caches slightly improve the situation, but it is not a cure for everything. 48-core CPU running on 4-channel memory actually will have the same speed, as 16-core CPU. Intel MP specification says there can be just 256 cores on one computer. It means in OS like BareMetal maximum process count will be 256 (if we get 256-core processor someday ), now it is limited by 8-16. Several browser processes, one game, one media player and one explorer window - and we are out of cores. And if every process consists of several threads? But if you open TaskManager in windows, you can see, how many processes can be running at the same time. |
|||
|
17 May 2012, 11:31 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|