Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:30 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" <jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org> Cc: mika ruohotie <bsdhack@shadows.aeon.net>, perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu, freebsd@atipa.com, cmott@srv.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IDT processors? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971109164923.27308B-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971109134621.1801A-100000@trojanhorse.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Jamil J. Weatherbee wrote: > > > Did anyone ever notice that 80386 backwards in 68308, does that mean that > intel crap is just ass backwards motorola 68000's? > What is the highest 68000 at this time 68400? How fast? > > In my opinion, gaining performance by making a hotter more complicated cpu > is no kind of solution. We should of gone multiprocessing back on the > 386's. It is still not a solution either because I dont believe in any > computer that has moving parts when it comes to reliablity. The machine > should be completly sealed from the environment (no dust) and fully > submersible (more or less). In the case of drives that nearly _glow_ with heat, and are inside the case, just how are you going to do that? And, what kind of general purpose computer do you have that doesn't have a disk (your moving parts comment)? Much of the performance improvement that's gone into _all_ modern CPUs is dealing with pipelining, branch prediction, superscaling, all of which are great places for subtle bugs. The inter-instruction dependencies can drive you to drink. Seeing as we never noticed the bug at all, until a few days ago, I can't see it's too much of a killer. I don't like it much, but painting Intel as a big villain because of that is nonsensical. Clearly, if it was that much of a major thing, you'd have noticed it before now. There are better reasons to dump on Intel, that make much more sense than this one. Hell, has anyone realized that the coming Merced processor is going to mean rewriting a _whole lot_ of FreeBSD? I've heard it has a compatibility mode, but (to get the performance out of it) much will change. > > > > On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, mika ruohotie wrote: > > > > ALPHA, get that freebsd port done! > > > > why would anyone want to use anything else than r10000? > > > > now, _that_ would be a port i'd like to see, freebsd on SGI platform. > > > > how likely is it? > > > > > > mickey > > > > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971109164923.27308B-100000>