About the AGP bus

Ed Light wrote:
"dvus" wrote in message
...
Ed Light wrote:

[snip]
I said, if I recall correctly, equal distribution. Equal to each
living person. None of this you merit more than he stuff. If that's
what people decide, democratically. I hope so.

Then you're a hopeless romantic. Any system not rewarding effort is
doomed before it starts as there is no incentive to produce.

You're stuck there. In any club you can see people working for the
"collective good." They just do it. They do it and receive the

A "club" isn't the business of living, it's the business of playing after
work. Sure, people will work for nothing towards a good charitable cause in
their spare time, but when the clock hits 9:00 am (substitute your start
time), charity stops and people start making a living. Those that want to
get ahead work hardest, and, in general, get the most in return. You think
anyone would volunteer for overtime if all they got back was the same as if
they hadn't?

output. Not hard to see the connection. Now if you went from a
horrible system to a utopia, you might want it to work.

It never works. The industrious will always get fed up with those just
coasting along. You'd need to devolve to the ant colony to find your system
working.

Personal output immediately drops to whatever is the absolute minimum
required and the mass bitching starts because supply can't meet
demand. It's inevitable.

Even in a profit-sharing capitalist company? :-)

They still get wages that the industrious expect to reflect their output. If
not they go elsewhere. Successful enterprises reward hard work in order to
retain a premium labor force.

Unions work hard at implementing what you describe and companies *still*
find ways to reward the better workers in order to keep them. I've noticed
that some of the most fervent union supporters are often the ones usually
sitting on the bench. Without the union, they'd seldom get hired.

dvus

dvus wrote:

Ed Light wrote:
"dvus" wrote in message
...
Ed Light wrote:

[snip]
I said, if I recall correctly, equal distribution. Equal to each
living person. None of this you merit more than he stuff. If that's
what people decide, democratically. I hope so.

Then you're a hopeless romantic. Any system not rewarding effort is
doomed before it starts as there is no incentive to produce.

You're stuck there. In any club you can see people working for the
"collective good." They just do it. They do it and receive the

A "club" isn't the business of living, it's the business of playing after
work. Sure, people will work for nothing towards a good charitable cause
in their spare time, but when the clock hits 9:00 am (substitute your
start time), charity stops and people start making a living. Those that
want to get ahead work hardest, and, in general, get the most in return.
You think anyone would volunteer for overtime if all they got back was the
same as if they hadn't?

output. Not hard to see the connection. Now if you went from a
horrible system to a utopia, you might want it to work.

It never works. The industrious will always get fed up with those just
coasting along. You'd need to devolve to the ant colony to find your
system working.

Take any activity, no matter how pleasurable, and when it becomes a job it
turns to dull drudgery. Ask any prostitute.

Personal output immediately drops to whatever is the absolute minimum
required and the mass bitching starts because supply can't meet
demand. It's inevitable.

Even in a profit-sharing capitalist company? :-)

They still get wages that the industrious expect to reflect their output.
If not they go elsewhere. Successful enterprises reward hard work in order
to retain a premium labor force.

Unions work hard at implementing what you describe and companies *still*
find ways to reward the better workers in order to keep them. I've noticed
that some of the most fervent union supporters are often the ones usually
sitting on the bench. Without the union, they'd seldom get hired.

One company I worked for had a policy of terminating by strict seniority.
That means that when they had layoffs, the junior guys all went and a lot
of the senior guys took demotions. Of course any senior guy who could get
another at the same level he had been working took it at that point rather
than taking the pay cut. So after a while all they had left was a bunch of
old guys who weren't good enough at what they did to get another job. That
whole company has since been outsourced to France I understand.

dvus

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
dvus wrote:
Ed Light wrote:
"dvus" wrote in message
...
Ed Light wrote:

[snip]
I said, if I recall correctly, equal distribution. Equal to each
living person. None of this you merit more than he stuff. If
that's what people decide, democratically. I hope so.

Then you're a hopeless romantic. Any system not rewarding effort is
doomed before it starts as there is no incentive to produce.

You're stuck there. In any club you can see people working for the
"collective good." They just do it. They do it and receive the

A "club" isn't the business of living, it's the business of playing
after work. Sure, people will work for nothing towards a good
charitable cause in their spare time, but when the clock hits 9:00
am (substitute your start time), charity stops and people start
making a living. Those that want to get ahead work hardest, and, in
general, get the most in return. You think anyone would volunteer
for overtime if all they got back was the same as if they hadn't?

output. Not hard to see the connection. Now if you went from a
horrible system to a utopia, you might want it to work.

It never works. The industrious will always get fed up with those
just coasting along. You'd need to devolve to the ant colony to find
your system working.

Take any activity, no matter how pleasurable, and when it becomes a
job it turns to dull drudgery. Ask any prostitute.

Personal output immediately drops to whatever is the absolute
minimum required and the mass bitching starts because supply can't
meet demand. It's inevitable.

Even in a profit-sharing capitalist company? :-)

They still get wages that the industrious expect to reflect their
output. If not they go elsewhere. Successful enterprises reward hard
work in order to retain a premium labor force.

Unions work hard at implementing what you describe and companies
*still* find ways to reward the better workers in order to keep
them. I've noticed that some of the most fervent union supporters
are often the ones usually sitting on the bench. Without the union,
they'd seldom get hired.

One company I worked for had a policy of terminating by strict
seniority. That means that when they had layoffs, the junior guys all
went and a lot of the senior guys took demotions. Of course any
senior guy who could get another at the same level he had been
working took it at that point rather than taking the pay cut. So
after a while all they had left was a bunch of old guys who weren't
good enough at what they did to get another job. That whole company
has since been outsourced to France I understand.

It should be obvious that any adjustment of a workforce not based on ability
is eventually going to have a detrimental effect on output, both in quality
and quantity. As it happens, all men are not created equal, at least not in
terms of productive ability or inclination. That fact, coupled with varying
intensities of ambition are why communistic societies are doomed to fail
before they start. I'd agree that a nice, ruthless dictator can help
lengthen the longevity of a communistic government, but indiscriminate
executions seems like a high price to pay to keep a flawed system in place.

My, we've certainly gotten off-topic, haven't we?

--
dvus

"dvus" wrote
My, we've certainly gotten off-topic, haven't we?

Yeah. Someone said, "you've gotta love the free enterprise system..."
Oops. I couldn't resist suggesting an alternative, but met much resistance!


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light wrote:
"dvus" wrote
My, we've certainly gotten off-topic, haven't we?

Yeah. Someone said, "you've gotta love the free enterprise system..."
Oops. I couldn't resist suggesting an alternative, but met much
resistance!

Heh, yeah, that was me. I had no idea what I was starting.

--
dvus

"dvus" wrote in message
...
Ed Light wrote:
"dvus" wrote
My, we've certainly gotten off-topic, haven't we?

Yeah. Someone said, "you've gotta love the free enterprise system..."
Oops. I couldn't resist suggesting an alternative, but met much
resistance!

Heh, yeah, that was me. I had no idea what I was starting.

:-) !!!


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Nicholas Buenk wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

McGrandpa wrote:


"RaceFace" wrote in message


"YanquiDawg" wrote in message
...

Probably a couple more years.There are millions of AGP motherboards
out there
and they are still being made.


Hi all, nVidia, ATI and all other graphics cards, will produce AGP
cards for
how many time?

I agree - it will be at least a year before other cards such as sound
cards, network cards, and the like are out in PCIe format in any
quantity. It will be that long before there are even any graphics
cards that will utilize the potential bandwidth of PCIe, anyway.
There'll still be AGP cards around for a while yet. At least a
couple years.

But more likely, the top end cards will all be PCIx, and mid to low
range cards for AGP.

PCI-E. Not PCIX, despite nvidia's "PCX" brand name. PCIX is a 64-bit
parallel bus that can accept regular PCI boards. It is different from PCI
Express.


And probably would have been a betters solution, with it's legecy
compatablity. But no they had to go for a cheap serial interface...



PCI-X is too slow for current graphics cards. It goes up to 133 MHz on
64 bit, but this is only the same speed as AGP 2X. And it would likely
have major problems scaling faster in speed because it has such a wide
parallel bus. A serial bus like PCI Express is much easier to scale up
in terms of speed (look at SATA).

--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

J. Clarke wrote:
I see PCI Express as more of a "stuck with" than a "must have". I think we
would all have been better served if they had instead of PCI Express put
PCI-X in their chipsets as a standard feature. But that wouldn't have
forced one to upgrade any other components in order to replace a
motherboard.

As I mentioned in another post, PCI-X is not sufficient for use on a
video card these days. The fastest version is only the same speed as AGP
2X, we already have AGP interfaces 4 times faster than that..

--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

Robert Hancock wrote:

Nicholas Buenk wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

McGrandpa wrote:


"RaceFace" wrote in message


"YanquiDawg" wrote in message
...

Probably a couple more years.There are millions of AGP motherboards
out there
and they are still being made.


Hi all, nVidia, ATI and all other graphics cards, will produce AGP
cards for
how many time?

I agree - it will be at least a year before other cards such as sound
cards, network cards, and the like are out in PCIe format in any
quantity. It will be that long before there are even any graphics
cards that will utilize the potential bandwidth of PCIe, anyway.
There'll still be AGP cards around for a while yet. At least a
couple years.

But more likely, the top end cards will all be PCIx, and mid to low
range cards for AGP.

PCI-E. Not PCIX, despite nvidia's "PCX" brand name. PCIX is a 64-bit
parallel bus that can accept regular PCI boards. It is different from
PCI Express.


And probably would have been a betters solution, with it's legecy
compatablity. But no they had to go for a cheap serial interface...



PCI-X is too slow for current graphics cards. It goes up to 133 MHz on
64 bit, but this is only the same speed as AGP 2X. And it would likely
have major problems scaling faster in speed because it has such a wide
parallel bus. A serial bus like PCI Express is much easier to scale up
in terms of speed (look at SATA).

(a) PCI-X 2.0 goes to 533 MHz
(b) What about SATA? The second revision is not quite as fast as parallel
SCSI has been for years, and a lot less flexible besides.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robert Hancock wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
I see PCI Express as more of a "stuck with" than a "must have". I think
we would all have been better served if they had instead of PCI Express
put
PCI-X in their chipsets as a standard feature. But that wouldn't have
forced one to upgrade any other components in order to replace a
motherboard.

As I mentioned in another post, PCI-X is not sufficient for use on a
video card these days. The fastest version is only the same speed as AGP
2X, we already have AGP interfaces 4 times faster than that..

The fastest version is the same speed as AGP 8x, which, given that no video
board currently on the market is bottlenecked at _4_x, would appear to be
adequate for video.

Your information, from whatever source, is not current.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)