How to develop a random number generation device

Wireless mouse and keyboard? Idiot. That isn't the OS, that's the drivers for the shit hardware.

You're an example of a bad one, KeithTard!

Yeah... just look how ugly your retarded ass turned out to be!

You don't install OS patches? How do you manage that?

It's interesting that you didn't know about Patch Tuesday.

I just bought a dozen HP ML350 "server" boxes; ECC memory, redundant power supplies, redundant BIOS, redundant fans, hot-plug RAID drives. The layout, packaging, and cabling are superb. How's that?

John

I have neither. And XP sometimes does mysterious things for seconds at a time. After all, there's only one CPU.

Still AlwaysWrong.

John

"Systems Summary" Idiot.

What is interesting is that you actually think that is how it is done.

Overkill. You likely won't manage those worth a shit... either.

I see you've been in mommy's hamper again, Dimbulb.

The only thing you've administered, Dimbulb, is an enema. ...to yourself.

Wow! I'm impressed. Several hundred laptops? Wow!

Shit's what happens when you let loose of the enema bag, Dimmie.

It has to.

I though mommy did that for you, after.

XP sometimes daydreams for a few seconds, but nothing like Vista. ...on dual cores, even. *LOTS* of memory helps.

Surprise?

Speaking of asymmetries, how's mom's laundry doing?

^ | +--- Exactly, the question, Dimbulb.

Is Vista worse? All that kluged DRM stuff must involve a lot of overhead.

After all these years? Certainly not. I'd be surprised if he ever got anything right!

John

XP goes for longish periods (ms) with the interrupts off too.

I think you mistook my point. You would have as many set of registers as there are virtual CPUs, perhaps plus some. When a task hits a point where it needs to wait, its ALU section starts doing the work for the lower priority task. This could be all hardware so no context switching time other than perhaps a clock cycle would be needed.

I figure they would form some kind of repeating pattern along the chip. This way the problems have to be solved only once. The amount of hardware in a FPU is more than is in the integer ALU and floating point operations are less common so I think it would work out.

On the later X86 machines there is a second ALU just for doing addressing. We already have sort of more ALUs than FPUs in the current machines.

On operations like 1/sqrt(X), doubling the number of transistors can more than double the speed. You can make the initial guess very good and loop much less.

Absolute crap and takes at least twice the memory to do it in. I have two dual-core ThinkPad T60s, one Vista (may even be a Core-2 Duo) and one XP. The performance of the Vista system was absolute crap until I installed the second GB. It's a good thing memory is cheap, but 3GB is all she wrote on 32bit x86 and Windows. I don't like being that close to the wall.

One day perhaps we'll both be Dim-struck. Nah!

I'd be perfectly happy to go back to Win2K. Unfortunately, that isn't a reasonable choice.

I don't think I did. My point is that you don't need banks of registers, simply use the renaming that's already there and a couple of bits to mark which registers are renamed to which virtual CPUs. No context switch and no bank switching. All the hardware is already there. More registers are needed in the register files but multiple copies of the unused ones aren't.

FPUs are small. I dint remember exactly but the FPU I worked on wasn't a lot bigger than the FXU. It certainly wasn't a large as the VMX units and those weren't all that big compared to the instruction decoder, sequencer, and arrays. AFAIC instruction units aren't the major issue. In fact, they're often duplicated because they can be cheaply.

The PPC-970 had two FPUs, two FXUs, a VMX, and separate ALUs in the Load/Store unit*S*. The dual core was still in the 200sq.mm. class. Most of that area was in arrays.

Doubling it again likely won't have the same results though. Diminishing returns bite hard.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

jp