|
|
|
|
I said, rather clumsily,
>rather than binary or hexadecimal directly, which is incomprehensible unless you can memorise every single little opcode directly -- and on a modern Pentium processor, there are hundreds of them.
Well, you can of course look them up. But it wastes an awful lot of time. Assembly code is much more readable, and essentially the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
No Message Body
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your absolutely right. cause what were getting is an understanding of how the chip interprits the instuctions. there are people takin gadvantage of quicker more precise instrucktions. Microsoft is so bloated, it is slowing things down really bad. Look at red hat. compact fast and gets the job done. they actually mihgt be gainning some ground. People are starting to write more an more programs fot it. Oh and in the voice recognition thingy. they are developing a device that can take common spoken commands, and covert them to machine code. the new Microsoft windows is supposed to be going back to the win98 interface, and they are supposed to be cuttin ga lot of the bloat out of it. Be interestin gto see when it comes out.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>there are people takin gadvantage of quicker more precise instrucktions.
Yes, there are. But these days, getting as close as possible to the processor is not always the answer. For example, there are some interpreted languages that run on a much higher level than conventional compiled C and C++ programs (e.g. Perl, Python, Java), and because everything written in one of those languages passes through a single interpreter, that interpreter can be very carefully optimised itself, so one does not need to optimise the programs that run on it so carefully. I know Java is generally slow, and that is partly due to the huge number of layers of abstraction, and possibly its "design by committee", but I have known Perl and Python programs that run as fast as C -- and if they take advantage of innovative methods of programming (and it is easier to do that in high level code than in ones closer to the processor) they can actually run much faster than equivalent programs compiled directly to machine code.
>Look at red hat. compact fast and gets the job done.
Well... it depends how you define "compact". Red Hat is not a single piece of software. It is a "distribution" of thousands of pieces of software: the Linux kernel, lots of GNU software, development libraries, huge numbers of pre-compiled Linux applications, and so on. A full installation takes up gigabytes of space, but you do get a lot more than you would with a full Windows installation -- office suites, desktop environments, multimedia applications, web browsers, email programs, console tools, and so on. The problem is that it can't really decide whether it wants to be a desktop or server operating system, and it ends up installing masses of stuff you'll never use. So, to be honest, I'd personally disagree that it's compact. I find that Red Hat has become too filled with "cruft" (by which I mean programs I don't use, not bloated programming) for my liking. I use Debian, which is a more "expert" Linux distribution. It has just as many programs -- far more, in fact -- but it doesn't force them on you. If you want them, you tell it and it fetches them off the Internet and installs them automatically. You do need to know what you want, before you can use it, though.
>[Microsoft] are developing a device that can take common spoken commands, and covert them to machine code.
I doubt they are converting them to machine code. Converting anything directly to processor instructions is a recipe for disaster. What they are probably doing is converting them to an intermediate set of instructions, which are then interpreted by another piece of software which checks they make sense before they are let anywhere near the processor. Most windows commands are handled like that, incidentally.
>the new Microsoft windows is supposed to be going back to the win98 interface, and they are supposed to be cuttin ga lot of the bloat out of it.
Dunno where you heard that, but the next version, Vista, from what I hear, will have an all-new, very graphics-intensive interface. Course you can turn it off (thank God) if you want to, but you've been able to do that in all of versions of Windows since 1998. I always run my machines with a Windows 2000-like interface, which itself is simpler than Windows 98's interface (which tried to press onto you things like "Active Desktop" which slowed the whole computer down).
I don't know how bloated Vista will be. But given that they are putting in a hell of a lot of new functionality, and still remaining compatible with old versions, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't at least 50% larger than Windows XP. Of course, if those are genuinely useful new features, then they can't be classified as junk. But Microsoft has a penchant for that sort of thing: Excel 1997 had its own flight simulator built in. (I don't know about more recent software, as I don't use Microsoft products any more. Not even Windows, except when there is no choice.)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ive heard of Vista, but there is another one in the workd called Arizona. this is the one that is supposed to be really good. I havent heard when its supposed To be realeased, could be forever or never.
We also had a software engineer give a talk and they are actually looking at organic chips that can for their own connections in other word learn. Probably wont see that in out life time. also told us about bubble chips, but they arnt anywhare near.
who knows next year it may all be obsolite.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13828
|
|
|
Ah the Aston Martin. Ford, I'm afraid, like Jaguar, and even that Swedish delight, the Volvo.
A British car...... Well I think Maclaren make no road cars now, though they do produce a red hot taxicab (opps, sorry, mercedes)
We did make them, once. BMC. Stood for British Mechanical Catastrophe. The only decent one was the mini, but that was badly designed and badly put together.
Actually we make a lot of Nissans and Toyotas and Hondas.
We do make most race cars that are successful, though CART/Indy etc.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mm, I know Aston Martin aren't really British any more. But they have kept their British branding more than American-marketed cars like the (ugh) Bentley.
McLaren are based close to where I live, and my brother did some work experience there; that's why I know a little about them. They are pretty much British, even though they use Mercedes engines.
Some manufacturers, foreign owned but based in the UK, "almost" count as British: Vauxhall, Jaguar, Land Rover, many Fords, etc. Rover was the last British-owned manufacturer, but that's gone now, unfortunately.
I don't know much about the politics of the British manufacturing industry. The French, for example, support their industry more than the British government does -- it's a matter of national pride -- and hence have more authentically French car manufacturers such as Citroen, Renault, Peugeot; but then again, the French economy is floundering and ours is not.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cant believe this thread got more than 86 replies. Whats the record anyway?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
No Message Body
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
29803509280289305892305982305 or so
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
