Re: Hardware has finally outrun bloatware?

On Feb 5, 5:59 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <muthafu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:01:39 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <rbmyers...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Good thing I got my public lampoon of his the past is the way it
should always be attitude in before I could be accused of being in bad
taste.  

What about being accused of flunking hi-school English? :-)

I have a collection of Knuth's original journal articles, which I read
with fascination. Respecting his abilities where they deserve respect
is different from giving credence to prophecies that are driven by his
own perspective, not the least of which is the limited durability of
much of his corpus. It happens to everyone.

It may or may-not do *you* a world of good: it doesn't for the
average desktop user. And won't for a long, long time, if ever.

I'm not interested in average desktop users.


That there are also many things that are not understood at all is
pretty common knowledge, and a frequent subject of public discussion.
Just not here.

This is not your private domain. Any subject possibly relevant to
computing with Intel products is valid in this forum, and the simple
fact that many compute processes are by their nature serial can be
very, very relevant.

You are announcing things that have been pretty well beaten to death
elsewhere by people who've been around for a long, long time.


Computer "science" and software "engineering" are embarrassments to
science and engineering.  

Only occasionally.

That's a matter of opinion. Clearly, we disagree. It's an open
question as to what the net impact of computers has been, outside the
sciences. I see a world of self-justifying and endlessly multiplying
complexity with self-assured promoters like you thrashing away at the
expense of everyone else.

If you're going to defend them and be snotty
at the same time, I suppose it stands to reason you wouldn't be
posting under your real name.

I wasn't being snotty. Merely expressed a totally different outlook on
what you're doing and why. As for names, all names are "real names", or
"false names", or whatever you like in this milieu.

That's the nice thing about namespaces.

Tell the truth. You mostly just wanted to brag about your slick new system.

Mostly people have not talked about Core i7. The fact that a nearly
top-of-the-line quad core system can be had for cheap is interesting.
It's *possible* that applications that could use multiple threads will
remain so heavily single-threaded, but I doubt it seriously. People
do a lot of work on PC's. As to wanting to brag about my system, get
real.

You should have at least followed up and reported on the video problem so as
to convey full info. Who do you think handed you your 4-core funtionality
if not Computer "science" and software "engineering"????

Electrical engineering, before all this other stuff happened. Well,
and Physics and Mathematics. Maybe Materials Science. Computer
science and software engineering just collected a bunch of camp
followers with bad attitudes, of which you are an example.

Multi-core is a valid approach to server technology. Intel is shoving it down
desktop users throats so they won't have to invest in 2 materially differing
R&D and production approaches. And their marketing-droids are going wild with
it.

Marketing droids are at least as respectable as software droids.

And now I'm Gone, Gone, Gone, Gone, never to return (to this thread).

mmhmm. Poop on the carpet and leave.

Robert.
.

Relevant Pages