Re: My Vintage Dream PC

That is the answer to "What have you heard?" You're an idiot.

I have been running it for nearly a year now, and I ran Vista trouble free for the last three.

Just like I said, Miss PKB retard, YOU do not know what is going on, UNLESS you have it right there in front of you.

How often do you have these bouts of massive skull thickness? Does the pea that is your brain ever really get a word in edgewise?

Yes... you do.

No, there doesn't. A piece of hardware can have several independently operating cores on it. There is no data passage requisite between them.

A perfect example is your PC's CPU (well not yours anyway) and your graphics card's GPU.

There are GPUs out there running distributed computing processes on them for "folding at home" for example, and the entire block of data gets processed without ANY need for the system CPU, except to grab another chunk and start on it, and pass the finished one out to the net.

Your paradigm is no longer valid, Missy.

John Larkin wrote: ............ muliple back and forth snipped................

Unless and until something demonstrably better comes along. :)

He was talking about their next OS, you dippy twit.

Grow up, retard.

The point was that she has not been "current" for decades, and it is pretty obvious.

solve=20

an

I suspect you and i are talking past each other. Expand some more on the distribution thing. Especially, clarify how it is different from the marketeering thing. I sure do not follow you yet.

of

Call me a pessimist, but i expect that somewhere around 10 to 12 cores it won't be able to keep up. Let alone at hundreds of cores. Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth. If you can't ship the product (data) it doesn't matter.

For FOOL circle power computing!

=20

No, not really. But there is a lot of old cluster technology that is about to become very useful again. Then again why bother with tens, let alone hundreds of processors, the humans using then cannot keep up with them. Why is merely more wasted CPU cycles better? A core2duo can support all the eye-heroin available.

My PC is currently running 399 threads, under Win XP. The CPU manages to manage all 399, and run them, too. So why wouldn't one CPU be able to manage hundreds of processors when that's all it has to do?

John

ears, and W7 has

ds are

ings

or

(build 7100).

as being

an that

belief.

as going

ther

son.

t is a

developed one

Wanna see what happens when fucktards get their hands on Linux? It's called Red Hat. I can't wait to see what MS-Linux is like.

ISTR hearing XP decribed in exactly those terms around the time it was being launched.

If by "trouble-free" you mean slow and annoying, then yes. I can't say it has crashed on my Wife's laptop.

Too late, their "next" OS is already in the hands of the customers, which means nothing in it will be fixed. It has ever been thus.

What makes you think they haven't got it working? They took a pretty standard OS (NT) and added their GUI to it. Apple did the same with Mach. With all the people working in Redmond, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a running version in a lab somewhere. What advantage would they get out of selling it?

Those diags are software.

The monitor will find some. Our monitors were the best diags we had.

And the monitor is software. It will have to be able to recover from a blip, especially if its in a sensitive spot.

/BAH