Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #164885 > unrolled thread

Raspberry Pi 3?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Raspberry Pi 3? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-10 16:30 +0100
    Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-10 11:23 -0500
    Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-10 12:36 -0400
    Re: Raspberry Pi 3? artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> - 2016-06-10 09:41 -0700
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-10 18:00 +0100
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-10 18:31 +0100
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-10 18:03 +0000
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-10 11:28 -0700
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-11 10:33 -0500
          Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 14:04 -0400
            Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-12 09:39 -0500
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-06-11 08:01 +0100
    Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-10 17:52 +0100
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-10 18:03 +0100
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-10 19:04 +0100
    Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-10 19:18 +0000
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 20:56 -0400
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-11 11:04 +0200
          Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-11 10:47 +0000
          Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 07:51 -0400
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-11 10:44 +0000
      Re: Raspberry Pi 3? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-11 10:06 +0000
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-11 12:50 +0200
          Re: Raspberry Pi 3? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-12 08:48 +0000
            Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-12 09:37 -0500
              Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-12 09:46 -0700
                Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-12 09:51 -0700
                Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-14 13:07 -0700
              Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-12 18:51 +0200
                Re: Raspberry Pi 3? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 17:04 -0400
              Re: Raspberry Pi 3? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-13 08:04 +0000
                Re: Raspberry Pi 3? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0100
        Re: Raspberry Pi 3? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 12:32 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#164885 — Raspberry Pi 3?

Just been perusing this and marvelling that for Ł35  /  $35 you get a quad 
core
64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)

It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.

Wow!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#164888

"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" wrote:

> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for £35  /  $35 you get a quad 
> core
> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
>
> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
>
> Wow!

500 years is not enough.

1GB is 222e6 36-bit words.  A large main frame had 262K words and no off the 
shelf computer would meet the need.  It would have to be a one off, a la 
government funded Larc or Stretch.  Because of cable length problems you 
would need several adjacent floors in an office building so you could model 
a sphere, to minimize cable lengths.

Lunch is ready so I can't finish this; but consider the net access time of 
an infinitely fast RAM at the end of a cable of a few hundred feet. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164889

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for ?35  /  $35 you get a quad
> core
> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
>
> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
>
> Wow!
>
But that sort of comparison is outdated, already.  The only reason the Pi 
is "slow" is because there are better computers out there (though I keep 
seeing computers in the flyers for a whole lot more that aren't clocked at 
a much faster speed).

Go back forty years, and the comparison isn't as dramatic, but the Pi is a 
whole lot better, and so much cheaper.

Fifteen years ago, I "splurged" and bought a used computer for $150 for 
running Linux, 200MHz Pentium (though it had a socket for a second CPU, I 
never filled it), I think it was 16megs of RAM, and a 1gig hard drive. 
The Pi beats that by 3 more cores, and a faster clock, and lots more RAM.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164890

In article <njemf2$c9r$1@dont-email.me>, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
<no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for £35  /  $35 you get a quad 
> core
> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
> 
> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
> 
> Wow!
> 

That's a four core processor with a GPU. Includes Wi-Fi and BlueTooth.

It also includes all the power and frustration of a full blown Linux
system, delivering a staggering number of bugs per cubic inch, sketchy
unsupported software (oh, but it's "open source" so you can fix it
yourself -- right), levels of obscure detail that should only be
present in Byzantine monasteries, and error messages that make the
ancient Greek Oracles seem transparent by comparison.

Historical aside...

At an ACM convention held in Anaheim CA in the early 1970's, a panel
discussion included both Donald Knuth and Herb Grosch.

Knuth got up and gave a glowing speech on the art we were bringing to
the world, art coupled with science, leaving the audience feeling quite
warm and fuzzy to be involved in such noble pursuits. Much
self-congratulatory applause.

Grosh got up, fuming, about ready to blow a gasket. He glared at Knuth.
He looked at his notes in one hand and threw them over his shoulder. He
looked out at the crowd and called out:

"Gentlemen: we are not an art. We are not a science. We are someplace
between a trade and a racket!"

He sat down.

The crowd roared.

When someone mentions how much progress we've made, I think of Herb
Grosch and that presentation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164892

"artie" <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message 
news:100620160941565915%artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com...
> In article <njemf2$c9r$1@dont-email.me>, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
> <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for Ł35  /  $35 you get a 
>> quad
>> core
>> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
>> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
>> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
>>
>> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
>> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
>> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>
> That's a four core processor with a GPU. Includes Wi-Fi and BlueTooth.
>
> It also includes all the power and frustration of a full blown Linux
> system, delivering a staggering number of bugs per cubic inch, sketchy
> unsupported software

Not for me, as discussed elsewhere, my interest is in the low-level
self-suppoted OSs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164896

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:41:56 -0700
artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

> Grosh got up, fuming, about ready to blow a gasket. He glared at Knuth.
> He looked at his notes in one hand and threw them over his shoulder. He
> looked out at the crowd and called out:
> 
> "Gentlemen: we are not an art. We are not a science. We are someplace
> between a trade and a racket!"

	So nothing much has changed really, except that I'd claim that at
best we aspire to being a craft.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164897

On 2016-06-10, artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

> In article <njemf2$c9r$1@dont-email.me>, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
> <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for £35  /  $35 you get a
>> quad core 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
>> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
>> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
>> 
>> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
>> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
>> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
>> 
>> Wow!
>
> That's a four core processor with a GPU. Includes Wi-Fi and BlueTooth.

From time to time I glance at a 16GB SD card and reflect that it holds
a thousand times the theoretical memory limit for large IBM 360 machines
(theoretical because not even the largest installations could affort it).
Or that the price of disk storage has fallen by seven orders of magnitude
in that time - and that the above SD card holds more than all the disks
in a large installation of the time.

> It also includes all the power and frustration of a full blown Linux
> system, delivering a staggering number of bugs per cubic inch, sketchy
> unsupported software (oh, but it's "open source" so you can fix it
> yourself -- right), levels of obscure detail that should only be
> present in Byzantine monasteries, and error messages that make the
> ancient Greek Oracles seem transparent by comparison.

At least it doesn't have a Registry.  Nor do the error messages say
things like "Your program cannot run for some reason."  That's right -
"for some reason".  Copied straight from my wife's Macbook.

> Historical aside...
>
> At an ACM convention held in Anaheim CA in the early 1970's, a panel
> discussion included both Donald Knuth and Herb Grosch.
>
> Knuth got up and gave a glowing speech on the art we were bringing to
> the world, art coupled with science, leaving the audience feeling quite
> warm and fuzzy to be involved in such noble pursuits. Much
> self-congratulatory applause.
>
> Grosh got up, fuming, about ready to blow a gasket. He glared at Knuth.
> He looked at his notes in one hand and threw them over his shoulder. He
> looked out at the crowd and called out:
>
> "Gentlemen: we are not an art. We are not a science. We are someplace
> between a trade and a racket!"
>
> He sat down.
>
> The crowd roared.
>
> When someone mentions how much progress we've made, I think of Herb
> Grosch and that presentation.

Good story.  And that was before Microsoft even existed.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164898

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> From time to time I glance at a 16GB SD card and reflect that it holds
> a thousand times the theoretical memory limit for large IBM 360 machines
> (theoretical because not even the largest installations could affort it).
> Or that the price of disk storage has fallen by seven orders of magnitude
> in that time - and that the above SD card holds more than all the disks
> in a large installation of the time.

I just got a 200GB mini-SD card for cellphone. In the past I've had
opportunity to comment that memory access latency measured in terms of
count of processor cycles is compareable to 60s disk access latency
(measured in terms of 60s processor cycles) ... which has given
rise to designs that decompose instructions into risc micro-ops
and out-of-order and speculative execution ... all trying to help
compensate for the (relatively) enormous memory latency.

In the 70s, I had started commenting that disk relative system
throughput was decreasing ... early 80s, I observed that disk relative
system throughput had decreased by an order of magnitude over a period
of 15 years (processor got 40-50 times faster, disks got 3-5 times
faster). part of early 80s comparison chart ... in this old post
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#31

disk division executive took exception and assigned the division
performance group to refute the claims. After a couple weeks they came
back and effectively said that I had slightly understated the
problem. They then respun the analysis (disks increasingly becoming
major throughput bottleneck) for SHARE presentation about how to
configure to improve system throughput ... SHARE 63, Presentaton B874,
some past posts mentioning B874
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#18 AS/400 and MVS - clarification please
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#46 AS/400 and MVS - clarification please
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#3 using 3390 mod-9s
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#68 DASD Response Time (on antique 3390?)
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007s.html#5 Poster of computer hardware events?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#71 308x Processors - was "Mainframe articles"
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#7 My Vintage Dream PC
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009k.html#34 A Complete History Of Mainframe Computing
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009k.html#52 Hercules; more information requested
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#67 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#1 "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article)
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#70 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#31 Wax ON Wax OFF -- Tuning VSAM considerations
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#32 OS idling
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#33 History of Hard-coded Offsets
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#18 Mainframe Slang terms
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#35 CKD DASD
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#61 Speed of Old Hard Disks
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#1 Multiple Virtual Memory
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#5 Why are organizations sticking with mainframes?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#32 Has anyone successfully migrated off mainframes?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#73 Tape vs DASD - Speed/time/CPU utilization
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#39 A bit of IBM System 360 nostalgia
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#62 ISO documentation of IBM 3375, 3380 and 3390 track format
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#72 'Free Unix!': The world-changing proclamation made 30 years agotoday
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014l.html#90 What's the difference between doing performance in a mainframe environment versus doing in others
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#87 Death of spinning disk?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#0 Miniskirts and mainframes
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#110 Is there a source for detailed, instruction-level performance info?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016c.html#12 You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY")
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#21 What was a 3314?


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164913

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:njevdo0ff1@news6.newsguy.com...
>
>          [snip...]                          [snip...] 
> [snip...]
>
> From time to time I glance at a 16GB SD card and reflect that it holds
> a thousand times the theoretical memory limit for large IBM 360 machines
> (theoretical because not even the largest installations could affort it).
> Or that the price of disk storage has fallen by seven orders of magnitude
> in that time - and that the above SD card holds more than all the disks
> in a large installation of the time.
>

Charlie, at some point the emphasis goes from "see how much progress has 
been made" to "I'm an old coot who worked on junk in the stone age"!!!

Most today will say:  "Yes, we know that things were crummy in the past."

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164918

In article <njhb17$bls$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says...
> 
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:njevdo0ff1@news6.newsguy.com...
> >
> >          [snip...]                          [snip...] 
> > [snip...]
> >
> > From time to time I glance at a 16GB SD card and reflect that it holds
> > a thousand times the theoretical memory limit for large IBM 360 machines
> > (theoretical because not even the largest installations could affort it).
> > Or that the price of disk storage has fallen by seven orders of magnitude
> > in that time - and that the above SD card holds more than all the disks
> > in a large installation of the time.
> >
> 
> Charlie, at some point the emphasis goes from "see how much progress has 
> been made" to "I'm an old coot who worked on junk in the stone age"!!!
> 
> Most today will say:  "Yes, we know that things were crummy in the past."

And that's a problem in itself.  They assume that everything old is 
"crummy".  They don't understand that the flip side is that it's often 
very efficient.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164945

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.31c61cc2cdd8cbb98a23d@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <njhb17$bls$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says...
>>
>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:njevdo0ff1@news6.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> >          [snip...]                          [snip...]
>> > [snip...]
>> >
>> > From time to time I glance at a 16GB SD card and reflect that it holds
>> > a thousand times the theoretical memory limit for large IBM 360 
>> > machines
>> > (theoretical because not even the largest installations could affort 
>> > it).
>> > Or that the price of disk storage has fallen by seven orders of 
>> > magnitude
>> > in that time - and that the above SD card holds more than all the disks
>> > in a large installation of the time.
>> >
>>
>> Charlie, at some point the emphasis goes from "see how much progress has
>> been made" to "I'm an old coot who worked on junk in the stone age"!!!
>>
>> Most today will say:  "Yes, we know that things were crummy in the past."
>
> And that's a problem in itself.  They assume that everything old is
> "crummy".  They don't understand that the flip side is that it's often
> very efficient.
>

ISTM that in the past, the machines did *less* and had *less* power.   The 
programmers *thought* more and took a bigger part in creating efficient 
software to get things done with less memory and CPU power.  Today we have 
more computer memory and more CPU power...  and programmers use *less* 
effort and thought to create what turns out to be substandard software. 
IMHO.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164903

in 666136 20160610 174156 artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>In article <njemf2$c9r$1@dont-email.me>, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
><no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for �35  /  $35 you get a quad
>> core
>> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
>> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
>> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
>>
>> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
>> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
>> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>
>That's a four core processor with a GPU. Includes Wi-Fi and BlueTooth.
>
>It also includes all the power and frustration of a full blown Linux
>system, delivering a staggering number of bugs per cubic inch, sketchy
>unsupported software (oh, but it's "open source" so you can fix it
>yourself -- right), levels of obscure detail that should only be
>present in Byzantine monasteries, and error messages that make the
>ancient Greek Oracles seem transparent by comparison.

Oh dear, frustrated Microsoft fan?
I have 8 RPis, of varying marks, and all are doing useful work, day after day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164891

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100
"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for _35  /  $35 you get a
> quad core
> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
> 
> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.

	Every bit as flabbergasting as being able to get 128 gigabytes of
storage on a thing the size of a fingernail for similar prices.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164893

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20160610175205.9fc4ba5f1f4049312a1ba3d5@eircom.net...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100
> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for _35  /  $35 you get a
>> quad core
>> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
>> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss here
>> should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
>>
>> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point processor
>> is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the 500 years
>> worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in the 1960s.
>
> Every bit as flabbergasting as being able to get 128 gigabytes of
> storage on a thing the size of a fingernail for similar prices.

About the smallest you could make a single bistable flipflop with individual
components even if you used SMD !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164899

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:03:17 +0100
"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
> news:20160610175205.9fc4ba5f1f4049312a1ba3d5@eircom.net...
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100
> > "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for _35  /  $35 you get a
> >> quad core
> >> 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM documentation
> >> for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things we discuss
> >> here should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia?  :-)
> >>
> >> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point
> >> processor is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of
> >> the 500 years worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such
> >> power in the 1960s.
> >
> > Every bit as flabbergasting as being able to get 128 gigabytes of
> > storage on a thing the size of a fingernail for similar prices.
> 
> About the smallest you could make a single bistable flipflop with
> individual components even if you used SMD !

	You'd never get it anywhere near as thin as the micro SD card.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164900

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> Just been perusing this and marvelling that for £35  /  $35 you get a
> quad core 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM
> documentation for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things
> we discuss here should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia? 
> :-)
> 
> It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point
> processor is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the
> 500 years worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in
> the 1960s.

The comparison I like stems from the old joke about the bandwdith 
provided by a van loaded with magtapes.

These days it's a van (keeping the playing field level) loaded with 
microSD cards! Or a 747...

I'm not going to attempt the calculation as it will only lead to more 
pointless discussion.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164901

In article <ds0i3aFc6elU48@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx 
says...
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 
> > Just been perusing this and marvelling that for £35  /  $35 you get a
> > quad core 64 bit ARM architecture and aslo studying the ARM
> > documentation for that architecture makes me wonder whether the things
> > we discuss here should get the NG renamed to alt.pointless.nostalgia? 
> > :-)
> > 
> > It's flabbergasting that 1Gb or RAM and a 64-bit floating point
> > processor is available for 1/10th of weekly take-home pay instead of the
> > 500 years worth of take home pay it would have cost to get such power in
> > the 1960s.
> 
> The comparison I like stems from the old joke about the bandwdith 
> provided by a van loaded with magtapes.
> 
> These days it's a van (keeping the playing field level) loaded with 
> microSD cards! Or a 747...
> 
> I'm not going to attempt the calculation as it will only lead to more 
> pointless discussion.

Or consider a containership.  Latency's a bitch though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164904

In article <MPG.31c52bdca9d3d48798a237@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <ds0i3aFc6elU48@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx 
>says...
>> 
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The comparison I like stems from the old joke about the bandwdith 
>> provided by a van loaded with magtapes.

That was a thought experiment by Andrew S Tanenbaum, network theorist.

>> These days it's a van (keeping the playing field level) loaded with 
>> microSD cards! Or a 747...
>> 
>> I'm not going to attempt the calculation as it will only lead to more 
>> pointless discussion.
>
>Or consider a containership.  Latency's a bitch though.

A 747 should be able to tranmsit about 100 terabytes/second with
4 gram 128G SD-cards, at a rtt of a day. 

About the same as TAT14, the biggest transatlantic cable. But that
has a rtt of around 73 milliseconds.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164907

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:04:40 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote:

> In article <MPG.31c52bdca9d3d48798a237@news.eternal-september.org>, J.
> Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <ds0i3aFc6elU48@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>>says...
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The comparison I like stems from the old joke about the bandwdith
>>> provided by a van loaded with magtapes.
> 
> That was a thought experiment by Andrew S Tanenbaum, network theorist.

That was in 1981, and not new then. I first heard it about ten years 
earlier.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164910

In article <8q0t2d-edt.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, 
first@last.name.invalid says...
> 
> In article <MPG.31c52bdca9d3d48798a237@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <ds0i3aFc6elU48@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx 
> >says...
> >> 
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:30:40 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The comparison I like stems from the old joke about the bandwdith 
> >> provided by a van loaded with magtapes.
> 
> That was a thought experiment by Andrew S Tanenbaum, network theorist.
> 
> >> These days it's a van (keeping the playing field level) loaded with 
> >> microSD cards! Or a 747...
> >> 
> >> I'm not going to attempt the calculation as it will only lead to more 
> >> pointless discussion.
> >
> >Or consider a containership.  Latency's a bitch though.
> 
> A 747 should be able to tranmsit about 100 terabytes/second with
> 4 gram 128G SD-cards, at a rtt of a day. 
> 
> About the same as TAT14, the biggest transatlantic cable. But that
> has a rtt of around 73 milliseconds.
> 
> -- mrr

Triple-E containership San Fran to Yokahama would be about 1.5 
petabyte/sec with 8 tb Seagate drives in retail packaging, but rtt would 
be around 20 days (neglecting loading and unloading time).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web