Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: vandys@vsta.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Date: 5 Oct 2012 21:14:23 GMT Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <923e0c628f2cd64d742acdea342c91e8@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> <1vCdnRlaMek9UfDNnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@supernews.com> X-Trace: individual.net HqB23i5Ovcj0J9xwL9sktQ6mtyhWO7VbT7wZCDKd/FRsryS78N X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:pNsdZ8KxilqZ62pLPqSQlhYbvYY= User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (Linux/3.2.0-31-generic-pae (i686)) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:15956 rickman wrote: > If you think their chip is suitable for low cost applications, you have > not looked at what it takes to build a board using this device. That isn't what I said. Let me quote my first sentence again: >> I'm certainly not arguing the case for the current chip. You continue: > The irony is that it would be so easy to add capability that would make > this a much better device. I don't know why they don't think it is > useful or needed. I understand that you're frustrated because what they have and what you want are so far apart. -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html