If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Bob writes:
If I thought I could make XP look and feel like 2K, I might consider using it. Those are simple desktop options. My XP system looks like NT 4.0 for the most part. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard writes:
That it's almost universally popular is defacto proof it's not just "a really stupid way to do things." Popularity is not necessarily evidence of technical superiority. The entire x86 architecture is a case in point. Maybe if you put more effort into understanding why it's done that way it wouldn't be such a mystery. No need. It wastes memory. This is one reason why no amount of address space will ever be enough. You can accommodate real-world needs with a certain number of bits, but you cannot compensate for stupidity with any number of bits. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Coolidge writes:
No, it just proves that someone a long time ago thought it was a good idea and no one has thought otherwise. BTW, there are other ways to do it that doesn't require using memory addresses, it's just more transparent to the current processor architecture. Mainframes have been doing it in other, better ways for nearly half a century. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Ed Coolidge writes: No, it just proves that someone a long time ago thought it was a good idea and no one has thought otherwise. BTW, there are other ways to do it that doesn't require using memory addresses, it's just more transparent to the current processor architecture. Mainframes have been doing it in other, better ways for nearly half a century. Other ways ? Mainframes invented VM in the 60's, went from 24 bit to 31 bit addressing in the 70's and had multi-gigabyte memory configurations in the 80s. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Al Dykes writes:
Other ways ? Mainframes invented VM in the 60's, went from 24 bit to 31 bit addressing in the 70's and had multi-gigabyte memory configurations in the 80s. Mainframes have handled I/O with fully independent I/O controllers for decades. No dedicated main memory required, and highly efficient I/O. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Compare the cost of one mainframe I/O controller with the cost of 10 desktop
computers. "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Al Dykes writes: Other ways ? Mainframes invented VM in the 60's, went from 24 bit to 31 bit addressing in the 70's and had multi-gigabyte memory configurations in the 80s. Mainframes have handled I/O with fully independent I/O controllers for decades. No dedicated main memory required, and highly efficient I/O. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon writes:
Compare the cost of one mainframe I/O controller with the cost of 10 desktop computers. The mainframe I/O controller costs less to build, but margins in mainframe hardware land can be as high as 95% or more. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Coolidge wrote:
David Maynard wrote: That it's almost universally popular is defacto proof it's not just "a really stupid way to do things." No, it just proves that someone a long time ago thought it was a good idea and no one has thought otherwise. You are presuming this is a 'PC' thing and it's not. Memory mapped I/O has been around a long time, long before the 'PC'. BTW, there are other ways to do it that doesn't require using memory addresses, Of course there are. But just because an 'alternate' is available doesn't make it 'better' nor does it prove the current solution is "really stupid." In fact, it suggests there's likely a good reason why the current method was picked over the 'alternates'. it's just more transparent to the current processor architecture. Simply not so. The x86 architecture explicitly supports separate I/O space, as opposed to, for example, the 6800 architecture which had none and touted "memory mapped I/O" as a 'feature' (while neglecting to mention one could do it with any processor). |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:03:28 -0500, David Maynard wrote: Phil Weldon wrote: Software expands to fill availble space. It certainly can't expand into unavailable space Sure it can - called Virtual Memory. Only if it's available. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 05:45:17 -0500, David Maynard wrote: It certainly can't expand into unavailable space Pagefile? That's available. Not as RAM. It's still "available space." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
overcoming the 300 gigabyte limit | || | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | February 2nd 05 03:30 AM |
Controller that allows drives over 137gb limit?? | John Barrington | General | 4 | June 22nd 04 11:10 AM |
Somewhat off-topic...Customizing the TIF limit for Internet Explorer | MovieFan3093 | Dell Computers | 2 | October 23rd 03 03:22 AM |
Temporary Internet Files limit | HistoryFan | Dell Computers | 3 | October 16th 03 03:32 PM |
Limit to processor speed? | ZITBoy | General | 33 | September 17th 03 12:46 AM |