«

Chris Hills schrieb:

> When people come here to ask "the experts" they don't expect them to
> behave like self righteous pompous twats.

All right. But don't you see, that one and the same person (altough
under different gmail accounts) keeps asking questions here, one more
stupid and meaningless than the previous one? I'd not be surprised if
it turns out to be a robot.

Or maybe somebody needs some data for some psychological study.

In article <. com>, Ingo
Menger <> writes
>
>Chris Hills schrieb:
>
>> When people come here to ask "the experts" they don't expect them to
>> behave like self righteous pompous twats.
>
>All right. But don't you see, that one and the same person (altough
>under different gmail accounts) keeps asking questions here, one more
>stupid and meaningless than the previous one? I'd not be surprised if
>it turns out to be a robot.

Point taken.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris Hills" <> wrote
>>Most computers nowadays are fast enough, and a good program is one that
>>does
>>what it says and is easy to use, not one that responds quickly.
>
> Most computers on the planet are 8 bit micros with 256 RAM and 64K code
> space..... At one time there were 3 or 4 in every PC.
>
Those aren't computers. A computer has backing store, which most embedded
microprocessors don't have. They still execute programs, but normally only
one
in their useful life.

In article <dlmne4$8d9$>, Malcolm
<> writes
>
>"Chris Hills" <> wrote
>>>Most computers nowadays are fast enough, and a good program is one that
>>>does
>>>what it says and is easy to use, not one that responds quickly.
>>
>> Most computers on the planet are 8 bit micros with 256 RAM and 64K code
>> space..... At one time there were 3 or 4 in every PC.
>>
>Those aren't computers. A computer has backing store,

Where did you get that odd definition from. Try suggesting that in
comp.arch.embedded

>which most embedded
>microprocessors don't have.

It depends.... many do. They use everything from memory cards through to
hard drives. Most have a "backing store" of flash memory. I have seen 8
bit MCU that have ha hard drive attached.

> They still execute programs, but normally only
>one
>in their useful life.

Not at all. Many are upgradable on the fly.

Most smart cards (and phone sims) are 8051 and they get updated often
and have a full file system.

I think you are well out of touch with embedded computing.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Mark McIntyre" <> wrote
> I have a serious problem at work with programmers assuming unlimited
> resources - about 2% of our overnight processing now consumes more
> than 4GB of memory. If you've ever tried sourcing 16GB of memory for a
> new Sun server, you'll know that this is an expensive mistake...
>
16 GB at 10 cents a megabyte, come to about 1600 dollars.
I would expect that amount of money to be available if I asked for it.

Of course you are right, temporarily it might be the situation that you
cannot just plug more memory in, and a program has to execute with the
resources it has got, not the resources you think it should have. But if Sun
cannot produce servers that can address 16GB of cheap memory, then they will
quickly be replaced by companies that can.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:06:52 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
<> wrote:

>
>"Mark McIntyre" <> wrote
>> I have a serious problem at work with programmers assuming unlimited
>> resources - about 2% of our overnight processing now consumes more
>> than 4GB of memory. If you've ever tried sourcing 16GB of memory for a
>> new Sun server, you'll know that this is an expensive mistake...
>>
>16 GB at 10 cents a megabyte, come to about 1600 dollars.

hahahaha!!!!!
You have /clearly/ never tried to buy memory for a Sun.

>I would expect that amount of money to be available if I asked for it.

Multiply by twenty, and you're in the right ballpark.

>Of course you are right, temporarily it might be the situation that you
>cannot just plug more memory in,

Indeed. Often this is plain impossible. Not many retail PC mobos
support more than 2GB, for instance. And then there's the OS to
consider...

>But if Sun
>cannot produce servers that can address 16GB of cheap memory, then they will
>quickly be replaced by companies that can.

Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
4GB.

No cheating and using Osen not yet released, already defunct, or
requiring big iron.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mark McIntyre <> writes:

> Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
> 4GB.


Linux?



--
/myr

In article <>,
Espen Myrland <> wrote:

>> Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
>> 4GB.

>Linux?

All the main free unixes, I think, and MacOS X. Though I've heard
that MacOS X doesn't have 64-bit versions of its user-interface
libraries.

-- Richard

On 20 Nov 2005 02:14:12 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <>,
>Espen Myrland <> wrote:
>
>>> Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
>>> 4GB.
>
>>Linux?

Nope. Not unless you wander over into Linux64 territory, which is
still problematical.

>All the main free unixes, I think,

Mostly have an upper limit of 4GB for any user process.

>and MacOS X.

You're right about this one. Not much penetration into the real
computing world tho
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mark McIntyre wrote
(in article <>):

> On 20 Nov 2005 02:14:12 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
>> In article <>,
>> Espen Myrland <> wrote:
>>
>>>> Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
>>>> 4GB.
>>
>>> Linux?
>
> Nope. Not unless you wander over into Linux64 territory, which is
> still problematical.

Strange comment, since I've been using it for years, and it
works like a champ, up to and including 64GB, 8 CPU hardware
configurations. It's been running without any troubles at all
on a much simpler 64-bit notebook for the last year or more
also.

>> and MacOS X.
>
> You're right about this one. Not much penetration into the real
> computing world tho

That's changing, and rightfully so. It's basically the best of
the UNIX variants today, including Linux, is 64-bit capable down
deep, but the GUI still runs 32-bit.

Also not mentioned, is Win64, which is barely functional,
particularly for peripheral drivers at this point.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw