Why the P4 Rocks

G

Guest

Guest
I have to say, that the biggest inhibition in the computer industry is backward compatability. Although it is needed so you don't have to get a new machine when you get an Office patch, the x86 hardware spec is way out of date. The attempt by intel to move forward with a new design that provides a leap in performance at the cost of backward compatability should be commended. MS should do the same thing. They have the DOS kernal from 83 in Me, and the NT 3.51 base in the 2K kernal. It is old, but compatible. We should look forward, an encourage progression. Ever wonder why the US is the only bunch of morons with 4:3 analog TV as the standard. We cry when our old B/W set doesn't work any more. Sure you paid good money for it, but that was the 50's. I digress.

I think the fact that AMD has put its support behind SSE2 shows us that progression is in order here. I think that change will really come around with the 64bit move, but that might never happen at the rate Merced/Itanium is going.

Let me know if you agree or disagree.
 

agriffin

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
35
0
18,530
In my opinion it's a little deeper then that. Backwards compatability is essential to the software market. When you have software that may have been in development for over 5 years to come up dry because the format is suddenly and drastically changed, you end up with a lot of companies out of business. More over, these companies are the ones that make the content for which people are buying computers in the first place. Granted, someone would step up and fill the gap, but contracts are signed and partners are made...and you shoot yourself in the foot when you kill a friend.

From a different point of view, why is Microsoft going to change things when they're making obsene amounts of money on their current track. Everyone knows that office 2000 is really not that much better then 97. Most users will not be able to even see a difference. The same applies for WindowsME compared to 98. Not a whole lot has changed, just a bunch of updates finally made gold. Until the software companies aren't making money this way, you won't see a change.

Not to mention, I get a real kick out of being able to load up Wolfenstein3D and pegging Nazi's! I couldn't do that if I had a non-x86 processor...or a lot of other programs for that matter
 
G

Guest

Guest
What I want is more speed for less cost. If Intel released a chip which was 2x as fast for 1.5x as much money, I'm happy. But because of the software cost, I don't believe the P4 has this potential for a long time.

Right now, I'm on a two year upgrade path with hardware, and about the same for major software. Every two years I spend ~$2500 for a computer, and within that period I spend $500 for upgrades.

Now the problem with the P4 is that because of Rambus, that system will cost $3500, plus if it is to provide an advantage, I need new software which could run another $3000 depending on whether software makers provide a free/low-cost optimized version or whether (more likely) they release the next version number which is simply the past version optimized for a new processor.

So far, especially since it cannot be put into a dual/quad processor system yet, I am not impressed by the P4 at all.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I have to agree with you on RAMBUS, Intel has made a horrid deal with the devil and screwed up.

The other problem with the P4 is not Intel, but the masses of morons that can think of nothing but MHz. The deep pipeline screws the performance, but allows the chip to be clocked really fast. It is lame. Still the i8x0 chips and the P4 are moving in the right direction. I think the road is tough because they are moving off the beaten path, but I think these are hard steps to a needed future.
 
G

Guest

Guest
or a lot of other programs for that matter
And that's another thing about compatibility or the lack there of. When your computer crashes and you have to reinstall from scratch, you realize how many small programs you depend upon which you usualy don't even think of on a daily basis. Text editors, FTP programs, mail add-ons, grep utilities, old gif animator programs which you use once in a blue moon... they all seem small but replacing them all is a real pain. Even having to redo all your custom settings is a pain. Backwards and overall compatibility is a big reason why I never worked on a mac even though they were better for graphics apps...
 
G

Guest

Guest
You are right in the software arena, but they all need an OS to run, and that OS runs on x86. If you killed x86 you kill windows and all of the apps and drivers that run on it.

It is a circle of logic, but the hardware came first, then the OS is designed to run on it, then apps on the OS.
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
sure i used to be amused to see windows logo on old 486s saying "ms-windows-compatible". hardware designed for sofware?????

but today it seems logical as one has to support a huge installed base of software apps, which are all so much well established in the masses. backward compatibility is MUST!
after a while a reverse turn occurs when the software is designed for newer hardware, and hardware rules, everybody buys new hardware. the cycle will go on, but the issue of backward compatibility stays... i guess its a slow process, and say a third version of all OSs and apps from now will be far off from dos and old windows compatibilty.

girish
 
G

Guest

Guest
While I agree with backward compatability, I also think at some point every 3-5 years, people need to say, "we have found a new and better way," and be able to move forward.

Just my thought.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The problem I see is although you are correct in what you say about backward compatability holding us back it is kind of a necessary evil.
If you look at most users they will upgrade several times until the PC will no longer run at any kind of decent speed and then replace the whole box and start again. The same thing happens with the software but not in teh same time cycle.
if you change the base product so much that nothing will work then you have to get the user to upgrade both cycles together you will push almost any system out of budget. It is a shame but most people don't place the same value on this kind of thing as us techs do.
It's a shame but users are hard to control.

M


one of the first UK T-Bird users....
 
G

Guest

Guest
I think x86-64/SSE2 will probably be the way, it's a smooth transition from x86. Not much better but I'll take what I can get.

I'd say it's time for something brand new every 10 years or so.

I AM Canadian.
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
i agree.
net-burst (nothing really related to the net) might not seem to be promising right now, will sure evolve into a better architechture in time to come. x86-64/itanium are too a major leap forward.

i guess it will always take some time for new technology to break free of the legacy. a fresh runner needs to run with his predecessor for a while before taking over the baton.

girish
 

74merc

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
631
0
18,980
kind of off subject here, but...

could a DOS emulator or such not be made? There are Nintendo emulators, PSX, Genesis, etc...
why not create somewhat of a HAL that is based upon the old hardware/software made to run in Win2K, Win64 or whatever. The system may not be x86 compatible, but if it has the awesome processing power to be worth upgrading every computer related item you use, it should, at the very least, be able to emulate the older stuff.
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
actually its a good idea
why not make a 64 bit DOS emulator, a proper 64 bit application that will run all the binaries and legacy shells? let it perform at levels we are used to today, making it less time-critical. i guess there is nothing to loose on that.

girish
 
G

Guest

Guest
Well my thought is that what needs to be done is a whole new architecture - with unified memory and sockets for a cpu and a gpu. similar to the sgi Nt workstations a couple of years back, but standardised more. if the whole system was designed a bit better perhaps all the bottleneck crap wouldnt be such an issue - if you want a new gfx card - well you'd buy a new graphics processor to plug in - but perhaps this is just wishfull thinking. - With so many manufacturers it will be doubtfull things will ever become so standardised. Anyway coming to think of it - ANY computer we use or even think about is going to look like a ZX81 when quantum computing becomes available ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
I came across a guy who wanted to run 2 video cards so he could play dos games, backward compatibility is good to a certian extent, but if Windows did not have to be backward compatible then it would probably be 1/2 the size it is, I would like to see a time when Win is only compatible to the previous version, say Win 95B or win 98, but I guess you would alienate too many people and companies
 
G

Guest

Guest
This is the problem, it would be great if we could get away with just supporting the last version but Companies such as KLM uk have only moved onto win 95 within the last year....
allin all it this kind of company/person that holds us back from scrapping the old systems.
I do agree with the a post from above saying we should write emulators , it's not as if the CPU's can't take it these days.

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
thats tru for too many companies around, especially in europe and asia. they are too slow to move on to newer systems. even today we recieve latest versions of apps that are win3.1 compatible (in short - 16 bit) why is that?
i guess the companies are saving on development costs rather than trying to be omni-compatible.

here in India, we even some of the famous products run on DOS in their latest version.

newer systems must stay with those who dont bother to keep up. thats the irony.

girish
 
G

Guest

Guest
That would be in the hands of the programmer to create an emulator, or a VM that handles all of the old hardware calls.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The market has shown over and over again that backwards compability is prefered over better performance.

And i would certainly not install any future MS OS if it didnt support old DOS apps.

//warhawk
 

broggiemonster

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
98
0
18,630
Progression is fine..but there is absolutely no acceptable excuse for the p4's naff FPU. I'd like to run todays applications as well (and as fast) as tomorrows, P4 won't let me do that (yet), over to intel.
 
G

Guest

Guest
See, that is the problem. People like you inhibit progression. If it doesn't run better, don't buy it until you need it. You have your P3 and your Athlon, buy them, and run your applications on them. Meanwhile, the software programmers will begin writing to the new technology, and in a year, the new technology will be what you want, and not Pac-man on a P4.