Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<b1b9a0206e254ee8e93c60cf4c150e4a@novabbs.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:31:39 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <b1b9a0206e254ee8e93c60cf4c150e4a@novabbs.org>
References: <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com> <memo.20240923213912.19028R@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vdd72k$23gqs$2@dont-email.me> <b247f82656cbcd9a3a4c43c579e4b1eb@www.novabbs.org> <20240930114911.00001a73@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4180982"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$YrXm7AddGdMZ6Hyc7Ck5a.xtomX4hAaiDYIeqC3xCjoOQhzIY8DAq
Bytes: 2215
Lines: 29

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 8:49:11 +0000, Michael S wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 05:42:05 +0000
> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 3:48:36 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:39 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>,
>>>> already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?
>>>>
>>>> Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and
>>>> far more software started using multiple threads.
>>>
>>> Another interesting factor is that proprietary server software that
>>> had been licensed by number of CPUs mostly changed to licensing by
>>> number of CPU *sockets*.
>>
>> This is one of the reasons one of my employers stayed with 6 YO
>> software rather than switch to SOLARIS....
>
> I fail to see relationship between comment of Lowrence D'O and your
> response.

Change in licensing terms caused us not to move forward--while
we could afford SW licensing on SunOS we could not under Solaris
on the very same server.