My Vintage Dream PC

[Peter Flass]

In a few years, when most any decent CPU has 64 or so cores, I suspect
we'll have one of them run just the OS. But Microsoft will f*** that
up, too.

Not very efficient, it would be a return to the bad old days of
master-slave or asymmetric multiprocessing. The problem usually isn't
the CPU anyhow, it's memory corruption, and multiple cores don't solve
this problem.

 

[jmfbahciv]

I was going to say Texas Instruments,

Nope. I'd never heard of TI back then. Not being able to remember
that TTY is beginning to bug me. I remember all of us fighting over
who got to take it home for the weekend.

but that doesn't look like the
one I remember. What a great feeling to get a lightweight terminal that
ran 3X as fast as a "standard" TTY and had a built-in acoustic coupler
instead of a separate unit. In this respect, at least, times have
changed for the better.

The key was the lightweight. Not many of us were able to have a TTY
at home until the VT05s became plentiful enough for each of us to get
one.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Wallclock time for development

Making development design decisions.

or at run time? Both will lead to
instability and security problems mentioned here. But our computers are
so fast that history is running in reverse, people are buying netbooks,
which are a *serious* step down in power.

History has reversed itself so far that developers are now reinventing
things that we took for granted.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

In a few years, when most any decent CPU has 64 or so cores, I suspect
we'll have one of them run just the OS. But Microsoft will f*** that
up, too.

I've been hearing about their next release. Not good at all.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Patrick Scheible wrote:

Bill Leary wrote:
Patrick Scheible wrote:

Hi:

My vintage dream PC contains the most advanced motherboard [in terms
of ability to handle the highest processor speed of it's type as well
as maximum RAM capability] that contains the most amount of 16-bit ISA
slots but does not contain any PCI or other non ISA also. It does not
even have any EISA or SCSI.

Here are the other specs of my vintage dream PC

1. OSes: Windows 3.0 [not 3.0a, just 3.0] and the most advanced
version of DOS fully compatible with the other softwares/hardwares in
my vintage dream PC.
[snip]

Windows 3.0?? More like my vintage nightmare PC.
Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much true.

Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?
Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also to
designate specific releases.)
Monitor releases which is not the app.

Note that I'm not saying a thing about whether that's good or not. Or
even if it's good or not.

Windows is the app.
In Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME, yes. In Windows NT, XP, and Vista,
the windows interface is inseparable from any other part of the OS.
I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
probably, The source of all its bugs.

Putting the interface in the kernel is one of its design flaws.
That's because their developers didn't know how to do app code.
They were so used to having their way with putting app code
into the exec, that they thought they had to do the same with
VMS. that's one of the hard and fast rules that DEC didn't
tend to do....allow any old user mode code have direct read/write
access to exec code. That's why the bit gods invented UUOs and
CALLIs.


/BAH
OK VMS man, just what the heck are UUOs and CALLIs?

A sane method to ask the exec (or kernel) for services and/or
data.

/BAH

Kind of a vague description for something you seem to think important.
How about trying a bit harder to explain to me (perhaps us).

It's vague because each OS provides a different kind of service. Each
OS has to have its tradeoff litmus test and each one will be different
depending on how its going to be used.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

To the extent that is so, thanks.

You are welcome. I wasn't one of the bit gods, but I was
the one who greased their axles so they could to the real
work. Every developer had 5% of their projects which they
never got around to doing. I picked up that 5% in addition
to a lot of other work that nobody wanted to do.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Just challenge him with a modestly difficult puzzle, he will run fast
enough.

OK. Here is one. Zero all of core with one instruction, including
the ACs. On the PDP-10, one guy managed to get them all zeroed with
the exception of one bit. I can no longer remember which bit....
IIRC, bit 0 of word 0 but I'm not sure.

and I can't remember the guy's name. Gruen?

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Not very efficient, it would be a return to the bad old days of
master-slave

Which will cause every system to grind to a halt. think about
networking.

or asymmetric multiprocessing.

Which will still require one CPU to be "boss".

The problem usually isn't
the CPU anyhow, it's memory corruption, and multiple cores don't solve
this problem.

The problem is scheduling. Memory corruption would be isolated to an
app address space, not the monitor's.


/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

1 for the OS
3 for the GUI
50 for DRM
9 for WGA
1 for the apps

Based on what I've just heard, 1000 for the file system arranger.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Excuse me ... if I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have
farted!

You are such a boring child. Can't you produce a real flame?

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

I think you're right - it was likely the TI Silent 700. I used to
take one home from the office to connect to National CSS via the
integral acoustic coupler.

There was a name for it. Do you remember what it was?

/BAH

 

[Walter Bushell]

In a few years, when most any decent CPU has 64 or so cores, I suspect
we'll have one of them run just the OS. But Microsoft will f*** that
up, too.

John

Why only one? Surely the kernel will be multithreaded.

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Why should it be? All it would do is set up memory management and
schedule tasks, so it wouldn't be very busy. Things like file systems
and device drivers and network ports could have their own CPUs. If
every task in turn has its own CPU, there would be no context
switching in the entire system, so there's even less for the
supervisor CPU to do.

The simpler it is, the less likely that it can crash. In fact, the OS
core should never crash and viruses should be flat impossible.

You seem to be assuming a microkernel, with the other functions in other
programs. But at this level of description, that's really a variation
on the "multithreaded OS" theme.

Windows has become a major threat to national security. We need a new
approach.

I'm not sure we need a "new" approach, but we certainly need an approach
other than Windows. Coincidentally, I'm typing this on a Linux box.

 

[Richard Cranium]

There was a name for it. Do you remember what it was?

/BAH

Not sure what you're referring to. IIRC the overall machine was
simply called the Texas Instruments Silent 700 Electronic Data
Terminal. I don't recall the acoustic modem and thermal printer
having any special designation.

 

[Richard Cranium]

You are such a boring child. Can't you produce a real flame?

/BAH

Sorry sweetness, you are the one who made the initial derogatory
comment. The thread was light and not a flame war at all.

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

If
every task in turn has its own CPU, there would be no context
switching in the entire system, so there's even less for the
supervisor CPU to do.

Wheee it's MP/M all over again.

 

[Peter Flass]

Efficiency wouldn't be hurt much if 1/64 of your immense compute power
goes to management.

Of course, it would only help reliability if the cores were truly
hardware-protected from one another. But Intel will f*** that up, too.

John

The other way 'round. If you dedicated a core to the OS, it would have
to single-thread. If any core can execute any thread the OS can get
whatever it needs. It's tempting to just dedicate something, but OS
developers decided years ago that the more scheduling flexibility you
have, the better.

 

[Bill Pechter]

The "home terminal" with the roll of thermal paper. I used one of those
too. I'm trying to remember the name of the hardware, but the best I'm
coming up with is that it began with a "T." I also recall that that paper
tended to do bad things if left exposed to sunlight. It faded even if
stored away from light too.

- Bill

TI Silent 700 Series...

Bill

 

[Peter Flass]

Are you are that there is a Trollope group on yahoogroups?

As long as it isn't filled with Trollops booted from CraigsLiost.

 

[jmfbahciv]

Why only one? Surely the kernel will be multithreaded.

You meant to say reentrant.

/BAH