Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment FreeDOS is needed even today, but... (Score 2) 211

...just for historical reasons.

It is absolutely awesome to have when you simply need to run some old program, which is in my case usually bound to some piece of old, but still useful HW, like chip programmer, some old measurement or CNC equipment etc. Or perhaps for analysis of program behaviour in order to do modern reimplementation. Or to enjoy nostalgia trip with some old DOS game...

WRT to FreeDOs development, I don't think it's needed outside integration into modern OS & HW, like having modern drivers for mouse and optical unit, USB useage for printing, nice, antialiased fonts, good high, EMS etc memory manager etc. I/O virtualisation of some sort would be great, so I can, for example have virtual LPT port that would be seen on desired I/O port address and connected to some real LPT port somewhere entirely else or even to USB driver or some userland program through pipe etc.

I don't think susbtantial, grand scale reworks like 32-bit and 64-bit implementation, multicore and multitasking are neccessary. We have plenty other solutions for that.

Comment Re:no price? (Score 1) 88

Just curious, what's so wrong with branch with delay slot and isn't that more native way to look at branch ?

Everywhere where it matters ( loops) there is at least one instruction that can be inserted into slot, so this shouldn't be a problem.

Isn't this more problem of compilers that weren't designed to use such feature than architecture's wart ?

It probably can eb hidden within modern implementations, but still it seems nice to have in smallest implementations, possibly on FPGA.

Comment Re:X32 (Score 1) 95

So you will go with small, cheap and economic ARM instead of x86.

Why go for x86 and then worry about a couple bytes of _code_ ?

One can be lover of sport cars and byu a Ferrari. Or one could be a prudent driver and go for Diesel car.

But having Diesel Ferrari doesn't make you prudent performance driver, it makes you a moron.

Comment Re:bad for amd? (Score 1) 120

Well, I don't like Bulldozer, at least not as it is now.

It doesn't make much sense as it is nether here not there. They are trying to sell one modules as two cores, which is ridiculous. Also, it is not clear why in real life one module ( ie by making it execute just one thred with all its resources) can't match performance of one decent core on clock-by-clock basis.

Also, AMD managed to squeeze 6 K-10 cores on 346 mm2 with 45nm geometry on Thuban ( x6 1055,1075,1090,1100T), With 32nm they should be able to use 2x logic on same area. If one module costs them only 18% more die area as the classical core from previous generation, then they should be able to put something like 8-10 MODULES ( and not only 4) on a chip, done with 32nm on 315mm2 like FX-8150. If they went for 350mm2 like before, then even 12 modules, perhaps with a bit less L3 wouldn't be out of the question ( 12 modules = 24 threads ! ).

Users would then get poor man's Magnycores. It would be awesome. And people would understand even if unithread performace sucked - it would be manythreading monster. Even better, they could offer higher clocked versions with just two or 4 modules for those kind of customers. Or even refer them to existing Thubans.

As it is now, it looks as if someone panicked in the late stage of the design and tried to save it by bundling it with shitload of L2 and L3 cache.

Comment Re:Why just 4 modules on Bulldozer? (Score 1) 271

True. Where are all those promised cores ?

Bulldozer was supposed to be about doing things parrallel big time.

All they have shown are four fat cores they call modules, and they paid for each only 18% more transistors than for regular core.

If that is true and if they have 2x bigger transistor budget, shouldn't we be seeing chips with something like 12 modules ?

Comment Re:Might as well get used to it (Score 1) 274

You are naive.

CIA had its hands all over Balkan all the time(amongst others) And all that time, there were wery little visible agents that one could point on.

They used various sorts of puppets instead. So, if they're involved in this, those two girls are just getting paid in one way or another and doesn't particularly care or know who is paying them.

After all, why would you need specially trained agent to scream "RAPE!" ?

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 476

I wish Slashdotters would stop with the incessant "x86 sucks" mantra. You're all fools.

There's plenty of crufty old instructions in the x86 ISA; no modern compilers generate them though, so no one cares that they're there. They take up a couple pages in the ISA manual I guess. The die area it takes to implement them is totally, completely insignificant.

Take a look at what it takes to decode x86 instruction in parallel and then we'll talk.

Slashdot Top Deals

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan