Comment Re:Generating your own electricity .. (Score 1) 504
Now that aside, notice you are talking about explicitly tagging your text, which I am not doing.
And which I always do. Different strokes for different folks.
Now that aside, notice you are talking about explicitly tagging your text, which I am not doing.
And which I always do. Different strokes for different folks.
The TLDR is I chose the 'code' option after testing the available options and finding it sucks less.
I use <code> too, if I'm posting code. Well, actually, I use <ecode>, because <code> appears not to honor line breaks and <ecode> appears not to honor indentation, and, for code, the latter sucks less than the former. Neither of them appear to provide me with any advantages if I'm just posting text.
The grandparent's signature line suggests he or she is making some sort of point about Javascript.
(Any objections containing the letters "e", "c", "m", and "a", regardless of capitalization, in sequence must be accompanied by an indication of why Javascript is different from ECMAscript in this context.)
Um, you pretty much described EXACTLY what Barnes and Noble tried to do, and it didn't really work out all that well for them(the execution may have left something to be desired but).
Other big-box book retailers haven't succeeded at that, either.
But TFA seems to be talking more about independent bookstores than the "brick-and-mortar" chain bookstores that gave the independent bookstores trouble a while ago.
they need to build in an x86 emulation layer to make these more attractive to gp programmers
You're programming your drone in assembler language?
My second computer was a 360. I began life coding Fortran IV on one of the 360's immediate predecessors, the IBM 1410. At the time, mainframes occupied two distinct categories: "business" machines like the 1410, which organized data as individual 6-bit bytes, and "scientific" mainframes like the 7090 series, which saw data as 32-bit integers and floats.
36-bit. There was also the 1620, which organized data as 4-bit decimal digits (with an extra flag bit and a parity bit); a character took two digits.
Over twenty years ago there were computers that hardware and software that were designed to work together. At least two of these systems had extra tag bits in memory that defined the memory contents. Specifically I am talking about Symbolics Lisp Machines and Burroughs Large Systems that natively ran Algol.
Or, rather, ran an instruction set with some features oriented towards ALGOL. Other languages could also be, and were, translated to that instruction set.
But what about those of us who want to rip Betamax, Casettes, Grammerphone Records and VHS?
Hell, what about Edison Cylinders?
Srsly, the late '90's called, they want their "Windows is still a hack on top of DOS" meme back.
You're right. Windows X is a hack on top of Windows 1
OK, if "Windows NT 3.1" is Windows X, what's Windows X - 1?
Do you have a piece of source code to support your claims?
No. Do you have a piece of source code to prove that NT-family versions of Windows are DOS-based? The "Inside Windows NT" books say that the NT kernel-mode code has a very much non-DOS structure.
Because unless proven otherwise, Windows is still a crap patchwork.
An OS can be a "crap patchwork" without being based on DOS.
Great minds think alike. Came here to post this.
Other minds think there's still DOS in the core of Windows, rather than a bag on the side to run old DOS programs, sort of like the VDM in Wine. Srsly, the late '90's called, they want their "Windows is still a hack on top of DOS" meme back.
The first gen Conroe Core 2 chips apparently used a similar design trick. It was after all primarily a return to the Pentium III core with a die shrink and some tweaks to support EMT64. Intel was scrambling to recover from the wasteful detour of the Pentium IV. It might have taken them one more gen before the redesign for full 64-bit ALUs - I don't remember anymore.
Well, that link looks like a forum of fanboys rather than a forum of experts (for one thing, they appear to be confusing EM64T, the Intel 64-bit x86 instruction set, with the initial implementations; the ISA is true 64-bit, even if the initial implementations don't have 64-bit data paths, just as an IBM System 360/30 was a 32-bit computer even though it had 8-bit data paths internally and did 32-bit arithmetic a byte at a time).
The first posting linked to an article at chip-architect.com about the 64-bit Pentium 4, and that's the posting that contains the actual analysis of the 64-bit Pentium 4 (as opposed to the shouting on the forum).
About all the forum posters say about Conroe is "seems to apply since conroe as intel fans will tell you KILLS/rapes/pilleges amd in 32bit, but in 64bit they just shrug and ignore the fact that it dosnt perform as well as conroe 32bit perf would emply."; nobody on the forum appears to have actually looked at the die layout as the guy on chip-architect.com did.
It was approximately 2010. I asked about EM64T while participating in a build event at an Intel convention in Chicago. They called corporate and confirmed.
So, in 2010, they'd either be Core 2 (not inconceivable, as per my other reply, if the Core 2 design started out as 32-bit and changed to 64-bit late in the game) or Nehalem (less likely, as by that time I'd expect them to have a design that started out as 64-bit, unless their design pipeline was as deep as Pentium 4's pipeline
The machine that I walked away with used a Mini-ITX board, had an I5 and HD4000 graphics. Perhaps things have changed since then.
I rather suspect they have.
It was true for the first generation or two of Intel chips that supported AMD's 64-bit extensions. It hasn't been true for quite a while though.
So that'd be the 64-bit Pentium 4s (perhaps not surprising, as it was initially a 32-bit microarchitecture, and fully widening it to do 64 bits of arithmetic at the time might've been more work than they wanted to do) and the Core 2 (more surprising, as that microarchitecture was released in 64-bit chips from Day One, but maybe the design work started with a 32-bit chip and the 64-bitness was added at the last minute).
So I can believe it for the 64-bit Pentium 4s; is there any solid information indicating that it was true of the Core 2 processors?
Intel calls EMT64 64 bits
Intel hasn't called it EM64T in years. It's now "Intel 64".
when it is just 32 bits on each 1/2 of the clock cycle.
Please provide a reliable source for your assertion that all Intel 64 processors have 32-bit data paths internally.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
