Gigger Hertz

Banned
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Gigger Hertz

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    Point well taken Gigger Hertz. The newer processors are basicallty a sham. Pentium Pro up to Pentium 3 are vastly more efficient. Than you, sir! I've never understood this fascination with performance/cycle. If you have one CPU that does 1x performance for each cycle, then so what if a new CPU only does 0.75x performance, if it has twice the cycles? Would be like making an ant farm run the mail. They may be able to carry alot compared to their weight, but you need a truckload of them to move the same weight as a puny human. But this thread has been very entertaining none the less When I grew up, efficiency counted for something. Getting work done the best way possible mattered. We liked to take thing a little slower and knew how to handle anything. One thing we didn't know how to do was go and run to the latest gizmo just because it was new. We stuck my trusted technology. What happened to that? Mindless consumerism, whipping up brainless dunderheads with slick advertising, that's what. That and the influx of people not tech-savvy into the technical world.
  2. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    Point well taken Gigger Hertz. The newer processors are basicallty a sham. Pentium Pro up to Pentium 3 are vastly more efficient. Than you, sir!
  3. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    and your reasoning is? Bloated, inefficient pieces of cr*p. How is it that a 1.3 GHz Pentium III performs about as well as a 1.75 GHz Pentium 4? Because the 786 is geared for clockspeed, which kills performance/cycle.
  4. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    If there were a way to get a 4x motherboard for four Pentium M processors I would consider it. Not only are they fast, but they're ultra-efficient since they were made to be mobile. What was their top speed? 2.0 GHz? I won't touch anything from the 80786 family (Pentium 4 and derivatives).
  5. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    So instead of using the extra 8 bits as memory bandwidth, they're doing error correction in them instead? Why do such errors occur, and how is it my system runs fine with non-ECC RAM and only rarely crashes?
  6. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    And you know, I am still waiting on someone to explain to me how that 64/72-bit works. Apparently it doesn't mean extra bandwidth but you wouldn't know why from the way people are around here: "You're wrong, you're an idiot, etc." is all you get instead of someone stepping off of their high f*cking horse to try to set you straight. Maybe "elite" is the problem on these boards. from http://xtronics.com/memory/how_memory-works.htm Parity is a simple mathematical calculation that provides a check to determine if the value of a byte (made of 8 bits) has been corrupted. In PC memory, a 9th bit or parity bit is set according to how many 1's there are in the byte. If you are using 'even parity' and there is an even number of 1's the parity bit is true or set to a '1'. If there is an odd number of '1's in a byte the parity bit is set to a 0. Even Parity example: 01011101 has a parity of 0 10101011 has a parity of 0 10111111 has a parity of 0 10101000 has a parity of 0 01010101 has a parity of 1 10101010 has a parity of 1 10111110 has a parity of 1 10001000 has a parity of 1 Parity is NOT a foolproof method. A close examination shows, that if we flip two bits in a byte, we will have correct parity with a corrupted value. You can thus have memory problems that can 'lock up' a system without getting a parity error. When a memory location is written to, a hardware parity generator generates a parity bit that is stored in an extra memory chip. This extra or 9th bit on a SIMM strip stores the parity bit for later use. When a location is read the parity generator calculates a new value and compares it to the value stored, if they don't match a parity error is generated. Some SIMM strips (with a pseudo or fake parity bit) contain parity generators on them instead of the extra 9th bit memory chip. This is done to save some cost in a memory strip. The false parity bit can cause timing skews that can cause problems on some systems. ECC is a bit more complex than parity, and will correct single bit errors and detect double bit errors. Some 8 proc servers want ECC dims in groups of 10, and have logic to correct double bit errors (as well as hot-swap Dimm modules). I hope that this clears things up. Thank you for your time, Frank Russo Not even slightly. If the extra bit-paths aren't for bandwidth, then what are they for and why is it slower with them then without them?
  7. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    Oh my god, is he still offering it? I'll take the thing!!!
  8. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    And you know, I am still waiting on someone to explain to me how that 64/72-bit works. Apparently it doesn't mean extra bandwidth but you wouldn't know why from the way people are around here: "You're wrong, you're an idiot, etc." is all you get instead of someone stepping off of their high f*cking horse to try to set you straight. Maybe "elite" is the problem on these boards.
  9. Gigger Hertz

    Oc My G3

    Why is that Mahx? Apple dropped support for the Power Mac G3 (Beige) line in Panther. Everything needed to run on these systems still exists in Mac OS X v10.3, so it looks like Apple is forcing the issue with my system. XPostFacto allows installs of Mac OS X on unsupported systems by copying the boot files off of the CD to the hard drive and adding extensions for the model, allowing Mac OS X to boot and install.
  10. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    ...which is why I still use a P2-400 for quite a few things...so clearly your assumption that I've been seduced by Intel & Co. is completely and totally baseless. I don't disagree with you that the vast majority of people could probably do just great with a 400-500 mhz processor, but I DO disagree with you that seven hundred dollars to upgrade a dual p266 system is worthwhile. Fine, then why waste seven hundred dollars making them work as you want them to when you could have picked up an extremely efficient PIII tulatin core with a very stable 815 motherboard for far less? The system would draw less power, have more processing power by a LONG shot, and you wouldn't even come near $700 on that upgrade. Again, why in God's name would you spend seven hundred bucks on your computer if this is the case? I can understand pet project, but you're trying to haggle with me as though this was practical or pragmatic, when it just isn't. Yeah, and slapping a turbocharger in a Geo Metro is equally pragmatic. Look, if you want to go out and buy every latest trend that Intel and friends throws your way, go ahead. One year it's MMX, the next it's HyperThreading. Why instead of making up new garbage can't they refine the tech they have? Windows could be 100x faster if instead of feature-bloating Microsoft optimized their code. I understand that maybe I could get "faster" processors or "better" performance, but that's not the principle that I'm striving to improve upon. My ideal is to push the technology that I have as far as it can go, instead of abandoning it for some new-fangled gimmick, whether it costs me $7 or $7,000. Is this so hard to understnad?
  11. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    This is another example of the mindset I am talking about. Have you ever given pause and realzied how ridiculous it is to have to upgrade hardware for software? Microsoft is putting more in for the sake of more. What did users really gain in the jump from Windows 2000 to Windows XP (Windows NT 5.0 and Windows NT 5.1, respectively)? A new GUI that needs turned back to the classic look in order to perform acceptably? If snake-oil salesmen like Apple can actually come out with operating systems that do more, and go faster on the same hardware, doesn't it make you question how honest our vendors are being to us? Now don't say ugly things like Mac Sorry I had to drag that out but it served as a good example. Of course sorry for the one I just made above too. java script:emoticon('')
  12. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    Clearly not a cost to performance efficiency, since you're spending seven hundred bucks to upgrade hardware that doesn't hold a candle to the current lineup of processors. Couldn't be power efficiency, since there's better chips out there that consume comparable power and complete more work. You've been seduced by the computer industries marketing lies to its consumers. Most peoples' needs were met with 400 MHz Pentium II or 500 MHz Pentium III system. There is no reason a non-professional needs the power in a Pentium 4, let alone the Pentium Extreme. I know better, and know that I can be happy with two 266 MHz/1MB Pentium Pros. All I do is MS Office-type work and listen to MP3s sometimes. I am not a gamer and I do not simulate nuclear explosions. The same things applies to suckers buying Apple's new dual 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5s. Who on Earth thought that any user needed two IBM mainframe chips in their Mac? No one, they were just selling what they had led consumers to believe they needed. Yeah, like I need a Corvette to get to work every day. Oh, thank you. With your permission now granted to me, I can continue on with this thread. Please.
  13. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    I don't see where they specifically state a version number regarding that, so stop blowing smoke up my ass. That's a false argument. It's also moot, since it looks like QNX might be the way to go now anyway.
  14. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    What do you define as a RTOS? I would consider QNX one of the best RTOS out there... QNX was designed as a RTOS, unlike RTLinux which is a hack. PS. Gigger Hertz, definately give QNX a try, but be warned, it does lack the driver support of other OSs. Well I've tried QNX 6.2.1, the latest version, but apparently my system of two 266 MHz 1 MB Pentium Pro chips with a gig of RAM is not powerful enough. I am downloading the QNX 6.1 ISO as we speak and hope that the hardware requirements are not so stringent (re: ridiculous). You'd be better off with v4.x, (runs well on a single P55C@266MHz w/256MB Ram). As Honold and Frank said QNX is not a desktop OS, it's a workhouse rather than a play thing... I do suggest you give it a try as a comparison between a workhorse and a toy... and for general desktop usage the toy OS may suite you better... PS. QNX is normally used in embedded environments running mission critical stuff, and QNX (the company) provide a x86 version to assist developers code for the embedded environments on the same OS as the target environment. For a developer QNX offers a fantastic working environment, but if you want to play games, use office, etc don't bother with it... (I used it for a stint on several boxes as a data logger, dumping serial port to a text file, which it performed the job very well, but later moved them to Linux due to better SMB network and NIC support). Well I've done my checking and QNX 4.x seems to be almost a decade old and very, very expensive. QNX 6.x, by contrast, is updated every 12-18 months and comes at the right price (free), is downloadable and a snap to set up. QNX 6 has SMP support and above all else is very efficient – I am all about efficiency. Also, the P55C was a Pentium chip, of the 585 core. My dual Pentium Pros are the first iteration of the 686 generation, just to clear that up, though I am sure that QNX 4 would love a sweet spot like my dual overclocked Pros to run on.
  15. Gigger Hertz

    Pentium Pro-blems Redux

    What do you define as a RTOS? I would consider QNX one of the best RTOS out there... QNX was designed as a RTOS, unlike RTLinux which is a hack. PS. Gigger Hertz, definately give QNX a try, but be warned, it does lack the driver support of other OSs. Well I've tried QNX 6.2.1, the latest version, but apparently my system of two 266 MHz 1 MB Pentium Pro chips with a gig of RAM is not powerful enough. I am downloading the QNX 6.1 ISO as we speak and hope that the hardware requirements are not so stringent (re: ridiculous).