flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > [content deleted]

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:54; edited 1 time in total
Post 28 Dec 2008, 22:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
no
Post 28 Dec 2008, 22:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
One product has not been able to meet the needs of everyone in the past, so the market became fractured, again and again ...
Post 28 Dec 2008, 23:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I think some of your stuff could be used -- like how now the network and sound cards are integrated in mobos, previously they were not, and I have to say it's a good thing.

I disagree with the Hard Disk and other "storage" medium being integrated -- your data should be able to be transferred and unmounted if you so wish for emergencies or whatever reasons.

But why SSD? They are too expensive and have a shorter lifespan of write cycles (they use flash right?) than hard disks. If you truly want backup medium, get some flash cards and use a card reader, and write there.

Or get a SSD for backup and use eSATA but it's too expensive. The problem with SSDs is that there aren't any "external SSD" with USB which is more convenient than eSATA (even if slower).
Post 28 Dec 2008, 23:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:

mobo with integrated multicore CPU, wlan,
lan, sound, 32 gigs of ram (depend on price),
SSD (size depend on price).


Don't forget to integrate a nuclear reactor with U for next
100'000'000 years included so you can
drop the power supply, voltage
selecting switch, and power cable, and even better, forget
all the annoying electricity bills.
Laughing

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 28 Dec 2008, 23:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
A PDA already does all of the above, it integrates everything into one device. And they are already more powerful than the old 486's so don't scoff at them too much. In a few years time I would expect PDA's will be more powerful than the existing desktops of today. So just be patient, you will get what you want eventually.
Post 29 Dec 2008, 02:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
revolution wrote:
...they are already more powerful than the old 486's ...
Yes, but, for some of us, the almost brand new 486 is nearly timeless, still an object at which to marvel, a cpu with an integrated floating point unit. For more than a decade we were obliged to wait for that improvement, as we impatiently installed a variety of external floating point capable components onto the motherboard (Cyrix, AMD, and Intel's own). Had "asmcoder" constructed his wish list for Christmas in 1978, instead of 2008, he undoubtedly would have included that bit of silicon as well, among the group of components to add with the cpu on the motherboard.

For those of us who dwell in the past, it seems like only yesterday, that the cheers arose, and the hats were thrown, and the beer flowed a little bit faster, that day that the 486 was announced. (Was it the annual cpu conference, in January, 1988?) I believe, but may be in error, that both MIPS R4000, and Motorola 68040, competitors of Intel's 486 design, introduced equivalent capabilities, i.e. on chip IEEE 754 conformant floating point capability, only about 1990, a year or two after Intel......but, my recollections are growing fuzzy, now, so that could easily be incorrect. I have already forgotten entirely when the Sparc or Alpha first introduced their own implementations of IEEE 754 in Silicon.
Question
Post 29 Dec 2008, 09:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
asmcoder wrote:
why 'modern' computers require so many parts.
Would it be better, to have to choose between power and mobo only? instead of bilions of nvidia/ati stuff?

Then we get an xbox/ps
Quote:
In a few years time I would expect PDA's will be more powerful than the existing desktops of today.

By then a desktop will be more than it is today...

I remember reading a computer magazine when the 486 came out, they said that since intel had so many 286's around they used them for microwave ovens and washing machines Smile Today's superduper cpu is tomorrow's servant.
Post 29 Dec 2008, 09:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
tom tobias wrote:
revolution wrote:
...they are already more powerful than the old 486's ...
Yes, but, for some of us, the almost brand new 486 is nearly timeless, still an object at which to marvel, a cpu with an integrated floating point unit. For more than a decade we were obliged to wait for that improvement, as we impatiently installed a variety of external floating point capable components onto the motherboard (Cyrix, AMD, and Intel's own). Had "asmcoder" constructed his wish list for Christmas in 1978, instead of 2008, he undoubtedly would have included that bit of silicon as well, among the group of components to add with the cpu on the motherboard.

For those of us who dwell in the past, it seems like only yesterday, that the cheers arose, and the hats were thrown, and the beer flowed a little bit faster, that day that the 486 was announced. (Was it the annual cpu conference, in January, 1988?) I believe, but may be in error, that both MIPS R4000, and Motorola 68040, competitors of Intel's 486 design, introduced equivalent capabilities, i.e. on chip IEEE 754 conformant floating point capability, only about 1990, a year or two after Intel......but, my recollections are growing fuzzy, now, so that could easily be incorrect. I have already forgotten entirely when the Sparc or Alpha first introduced their own implementations of IEEE 754 in Silicon.
Question


I disagree Smile , If I recall correctly, some of the early 486's had somewhat partial fpu's, therefore, still required an fpu socket and 387 fpu chip. Also, the strange way they allowed you too increase the cpu speed, by adding another "clock doubler, tripler, etc." chip. I think the 'pentium I' is the first processor to truly "an object to marvel after", full fpu, better fabrication process used, approaching 1 instruction per clock, doing away with extra clock increasing chips, I'm not sure on this one, but the first moddable cpu?, motorola 680x0 killer, and etc, etc. Just some thoughts.

_________________
Gimme a sledge hammer! I'LL FIX IT!
Post 29 Dec 2008, 11:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
madmatt wrote:
If I recall correctly, some of the early 486's had somewhat partial fpu's, therefore, still required an fpu socket and 387 fpu chip.
Perhaps you are thinking of the cheaper 'sx' version of the 486 that didn't have an FPU, and thus needed and additional chip if one wanted an FPU. I know of no "partial", or in any way lesser, Intel FPU implementation.

Although, I have been told that the 486SX chip did have an FPU but it was faulty during manufacture and thus disabled and sold cheaply. And even worse, was that the 487SX (the FPU addition chip) was in fact a full 486 and simply disabled the 486SX and took over the bus completely. I don't know for sure if this is true, and I guess it is all academic now anyhow, but it sounded plausible to me at the time.

[edit]
It seems someone on Wikipedia agrees with me:
Identical in design to 486DX but without math coprocessor. The first version was an 80486DX with disabled mathco in the chip and different pin configuration. If the user needed math co capabilities, he must add 487SX which was actually an 486DX with different pin configuration to prevent the user from installing a 486DX instead of 487SX, so with this configuration 486SX+487SX you had 2 identical CPU's with only 1 turned on)
Post 29 Dec 2008, 11:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
[edit]forget it, too slow...spanked[/edit]
Anyway, who was using the fpu back then? (besides some specialist programs).
It was crap and still is.
Post 29 Dec 2008, 11:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
Quote:
Perhaps you are thinking of the cheaper 'sx' version of the 486 that didn't have an FPU, and thus needed and additional chip if one wanted an FPU. I know of no "partial", or in any way lesser, Intel FPU implementation.

Although, I have been told that the 486SX chip did have an FPU but it was faulty during manufacture and thus disabled and sold cheaply. And even worse, was that the 487SX (the FPU addition chip) was in fact a full 486 and simply disabled the 486SX and took over the bus completely. I don't know for sure if this is true, and I guess it is all academic now anyhow, but it sounded plausible to me at the time.

'partial, or, some of the more complex fpu instructions non-functional' was the word that I heard during that time, I never followed up in-depth about what actually was going on, I was more into commodore products at that time, C64, Amiga. Thanks for giving me a "partial" correction on this Smile ,
Post 29 Dec 2008, 11:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
I heard that intel disabled the fpu (a deliberate move, not "it didn't test properly"), to sell the cheaper sx and flood the market. Wasn't that about the time of the 'intel inside' push?

My perspective at the time:
- buy a 486: yes (even though the AMD 386DX40 was the king, and cheap)
- buy a DX or SX: the question was back then "does it play doom?", doom didn't use fpu, no need to pay double for it.
Post 29 Dec 2008, 12:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:54; edited 1 time in total
Post 29 Dec 2008, 12:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
Quote:
and ssd is far better than hd
Look at toms hardware for some interesting benchmarks
Post 29 Dec 2008, 12:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
asmcoder wrote:
and ssd is far better than hd, you wouldnt exhaust write cycles in 30 years.
Some operating systems write on a piece of memory every second or even more than that, regardless if you do anything or not!

Also, SSD are like 8 times more expensive for the same capacity, speaking above 100 GB here.

SSD is mostly good for backup, not for constantly working on it.
(and here you can't even find SSD with more than 128GB and costs more than a hard drive with 1 TB, and I already have an old HD which costed little and has 160GB Wink)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 29 Dec 2008, 14:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Every SSD uses wear-levelling (google it) so writes are distributed over the entire drive. You may think you are writing to only one sector but you are not.
Post 29 Dec 2008, 14:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:54; edited 1 time in total
Post 29 Dec 2008, 16:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
SSDs use the standard HDD interface, so it supports sectors (and seek).
Post 29 Dec 2008, 16:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:54; edited 1 time in total
Post 29 Dec 2008, 21:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.