Re: performance of hardware dynamic scheduling
- From: nmm1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Nick Maclaren)
- Date: 3 Apr 2008 15:29:22 GMT
In article <op.t81ixz1gss38k4@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"Ken Hagan" <K.Hagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|>
|> So the vendor has to guess what will be implementable just as much as they
|> have to guess what will be desirable. They can be wrong on either front.
And often are, especially on the former.
|> In any case, we're not talking about a completely free market here. There's
|> a considerable barrier to entry and only a handful of current players. If
|> they are all making similarly over-cautious decisions, how would we know?
We're here because we're here because we're here ....
Yes. See below :-(
|> >> The markets aren't infallible either.
|> >
|> > They don't have to be: they *define* demand (though are certainly often
|> > able to be influenced in that definition).
|>
|> But they *define* demand only several years after the vendors have
|> committed to what they will supply. At the time the supply decisions
|> are being made, the punter isn't putting up any money at all.
Right. But it's not true that the market defines demand, anyway, for
the reasons you give above. If a category of product isn't practically
available (for any reason, including excessive price), the markets will
say there is no demand whether or not the customers are screaming for it.
As an example, in the late 1970s, many people said that there was a major
demand for workstations for program development and similar work in
research environments - I was attacked quite viciously for saying so,
from both the "mainframes rule" camp and the "IBM PC" one. I said then
that the key price was 5,000 pounds and the key functionality was that
of a simple but tolerably reliable Unix system. For over 5 years,
people pointed out that the "market" said I was wrong - and then the
functionality and price was delivered. The rest is history :-)
|> In addition, both vendor and market are probably fairly conservative.
|> It makes little sense for vendors to bet billions of dollars on something
|> *very* different from tried and tested, and uninformed punters will almost
|> always ask for "more of what I have now".
And uninformed and unimaginative 'experts' :-( :-( :-(
|> > I guess I must have missed the clamor, then: could you direct me to
|> > evidence that the market is demanding that trade-off for *existing*
|> > products (rather than anticipating that it will make possible some
|> > interesting new ones)?
|>
|> That's not a reasonable request. The fact that new products are possible
|> is part of the clamor. If you restrict your survey to those you are already
|> selling to, then once again you'll get the answer "more of the same".
|> For example, people looking for a fanless PVR probably don't even consider
|> themselves as part of the market for x86 chips.
In any case, he could find it if he could be bothered to look. I was
perhaps the first person to use the measure performance/watt in an HPC
procurement, but it isn't all that rare now. You have to read the
actual procurement documents to see, as the number of terms used is
legion.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: www.sicortex.com
- Next by Date: Re: Need of "Precise Exceptions"
- Previous by thread: Re: performance of hardware dynamic scheduling
- Next by thread: Re: performance of hardware dynamic scheduling
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
