Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:45:22 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <7g56fjpaucnvveje5r62ivbto6s5s8d3el@4ax.com> References: <%dAHO.54667$S9Vb.39628@fx45.iad> <4f84910a01d7db353eedadd7c471d7d3@www.novabbs.org> <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com> <6577e60bd63883d1a7bd51c717531f38@www.novabbs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3333241"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="h5eMH71iFfocGZucc+SnA0y5I+72/ecoTCcIjMd3Uww"; User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2341 Lines: 27 On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 07:50:36 +0200, Terje Mathisen wrote: >MitchAlsup1 wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 7:53:36 +0000, Michael S wrote: >> >> Prior to multi-CPUs on a die; 99% of all x86 systems were >> mono-CPU systems, and the necessity of having a well known >> memory model was more vague. Although there were servers >> with multiple CPUs in them they represented "an afternoon >> in the FAB" compared to the PC oriented x86s. > >When I started writing my first multi-threaded programs, I insisted on >getting a workstation with at least two sockets/cpus: > >Somebody wiser than me had written something like "You cannot >write/test/debug multithreaded programs without the ability for multiple >threads to actually run at the same time." > >Pretty obvious really, but the quote was sufficient to get my boss to >sign off on a much more expensive PC model. :-) > >Terje Many moons ago, there existed people who actually understood the difference between "multi-programming" and "multi-processing". Such people today are few and far between.