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.