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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #34509 > unrolled thread

when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3??

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-19 11:33 -0800
    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-19 17:04 -0800
    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-20 09:30 -0800
      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-20 10:34 -0800
        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-20 13:21 -0800
          Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-20 13:27 -0800
            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 20:56 -0500
              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-20 18:43 -0800
                Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 23:45 -0500
                  Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2014-11-21 09:58 +0000
                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 02:10 -0800
                      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 06:08 -0500
                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 05:57 -0500
                      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2014-11-21 11:37 +0000
                        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 07:07 -0500
                          Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2014-11-21 13:59 +0000
                            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-21 10:46 -0800
                            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 16:45 -0500
                              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2014-11-22 11:39 +0000
                                Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-22 12:38 -0500
                                  Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-22 10:20 -0800
                                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-11-22 21:39 +0100
                                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-22 12:51 -0800
                                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-22 17:55 -0500
              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 02:06 -0800
                Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 16:49 -0500
                Thanks - was (Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3??) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2014-11-22 10:00 -0600
              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-21 19:58 -0500
                Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 22:24 -0500
                  Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-22 01:06 -0800
                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-22 15:40 -0500
                  Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-22 10:14 -0800
                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-22 23:47 -0800
                  Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-22 15:36 -0500
                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-22 18:05 -0500
                    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-23 11:43 +0000
                      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 09:12 -0800
      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-20 13:48 -0800
    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 09:14 -0800
      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 20:38 -0500
        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-11-30 06:48 -0800
          Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-11-30 06:55 -0800
            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-30 17:40 +0000
        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-11-30 12:57 -0800
          Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-30 16:43 -0500
            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-01 19:03 -0800
              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 23:08 -0500
            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 19:16 -0800
            Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 08:06 -0800
              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 12:02 -0500
                Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 11:48 -0800
                Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-08 22:48 -0800
              Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-08 22:48 -0800
        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 19:18 -0800
    Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 19:13 -0800
      Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? farva <joshua.harden@farva.net> - 2014-12-01 19:43 -0800
        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 22:26 -0800
          Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2014-12-06 18:33 +0000
        Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3?? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 22:27 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#34560

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:39:01 AM UTC-8, rickman wrote:

> This is one of those areas where the GA144 was not designed to do a 
> useful task, it was just designed to do *something*.

Well Rick,

It's impossible to do something correctly the first time.  This is especially true when doing something completely new.  They went with a symmetrically parallel processing model.  Forth was always at the forefront of their effort, this is a Forth project done by Forth people.  The cores got very small, as small as they could be.  This let them be very low power.  Now they want to do some more shuttle runs with some improvements to the core, and also with a little bit more static RAM for the supervisory portion.  This may allow them to get some design wins.  This is where computer science and computer engineering cross paths.  Your dissatisfaction with the first iteration is just par for the course.  

I'm sorry if I offended anybody.

Jason

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

#34565

Op Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:20:08 -0800 (PST) schreef Jason Damisch:

> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:39:01 AM UTC-8, rickman wrote:
> 
>> This is one of those areas where the GA144 was not designed to do a 
>> useful task, it was just designed to do *something*.
> 
> Well Rick,
> 
> It's impossible to do something correctly the first time.  This is especially true when doing something completely new.  They went with a symmetrically parallel processing model.  Forth was always at the forefront of their effort, this is a Forth project done by Forth people.  The cores got very small, as small as they could be.  This let them be very low power.  Now they want to do some more shuttle runs with some improvements to the core, and also with a little bit more static RAM for the supervisory portion.  This may allow them to get some design wins.  This is where computer science and computer engineering cross paths.  Your dissatisfaction with the first iteration is just par for the course.  
> 
> I'm sorry if I offended anybody.
> 
> Jason

Completely new?
Forth processors like NOVIX, RTX2000, SC32 came out late 1980's. RTX2000
can even send complete information of a lander on a comet before breakdown.

Someone at green arrays must have dozed off ;-) The 144 cpu's play fine
with each other and have a nice instruction set, but seem to have no
sufficient (i.e. fast enough) contact with the environment.

-- 
Coos

CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications
http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html 

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

#34566

Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> writes:
>> This is one of those areas where the GA144 was not designed to do a 
>> useful task, it was just designed to do *something*.
> It's impossible to do something correctly the first time.  This is
> especially true when doing something completely new. 

But this isn't the first time.  Chuck did multiple earlier generations
of MISC processors including the SEAForth whose parallel programming
model was basically the same as the GA.  And before the MISC processors
he did the Novix and a few others.

> Now they want to do some more shuttle runs with some improvements to
> the core, and also with a little bit more static RAM for the
> supervisory portion.  This may allow them to get some design wins.

That sounds cool, it can be an improvement.  What do you mean by
supervisory portion--do you mean they're going to add a chunk of ram to
the nodes running the polyforth vm?  Nice, though it would help if they
made some deeper changes to the basic architecture.  E.g. Jeff Fox once
said it would be easy for them to add diagonal connections between the
nodes, so there would be a lot more inter-node connectivity.  Better
still would be some long-distance connectivity like FPGA's have.  A
128-node version with hypercube connections might be more interesting
than the current 144 nodes with rectangular connections.

As Rickman says, they also should do something about timers.  Yes you
can use a node to run a timing loop, but since each node has 1000's of
gates, it burns a lot more power than a typical MCU's dedicated timing
circuit that has maybe a dozen gates.  

Maybe more problematically, the fundamental vision behind the GA144, to
do everything with an endless sea of identical mini-blocks, seems to do
poorly against evolved solutions we see in other chips, that use several
kinds of more specialized blocks.  Think of a modern FPGA that among all
the CLB's also has chunks of block ram, DSP multipliers, SERDES, and
sometimes (Zynq) even very powerful ARM microprocessor cores.

An interesting use for the F18 technology might be to offer it as a
"mini cpu" block for use inside an FPGA.  There could be a bunch of them
aboard the FPGA sort of like the multiplier blocks, so you'd get some
programmable control capability more efficiently than you'd get by
synthesizing cpu's to do the same thing, in situations where on-chip
ARM-class cpu's are overkill.

> This is where computer science and computer engineering cross paths.
> Your dissatisfaction with the first iteration is just par for the
> course.

I don't know how many more iterations they can afford to do, and the
rest of the world isn't standing still either.

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

#34567

On 11/22/2014 1:20 PM, Jason Damisch wrote:
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:39:01 AM UTC-8, rickman wrote:
>
>> This is one of those areas where the GA144 was not designed to do a
>> useful task, it was just designed to do *something*.
>
> Well Rick,
>
> It's impossible to do something correctly the first time.  This is especially true when doing something completely new.  They went with a symmetrically parallel processing model.  Forth was always at the forefront of their effort, this is a Forth project done by Forth people.  The cores got very small, as small as they could be.  This let them be very low power.  Now they want to do some more shuttle runs with some improvements to the core, and also with a little bit more static RAM for the supervisory portion.  This may allow them to get some design wins.  This is where computer science and computer engineering cross paths.  Your dissatisfaction with the first iteration is just par for the course.

This is my point.  What you are describing is tweeking the design in 
ways that might make sense, but still is not targeted to any particular 
application.  One of the big problems with the GA144 in most 
applications is the 1.8 volt I/O.  That is fine for inclusion in dense 
telecom equipment or if your main goal is to interface to low voltage 
memory.  But an embedded processor nearly always needs 3.3 volt I/O if 
not 5 volt I/O.

Yes, you can add external circuitry to deal with this.  I can also add 
external memory, external USB and even an external MCU!  In the end a 
chip like this needs to figure out what market to pursue and orient the 
features to that market.  Currently it is a great design without a purpose.

-- 

Rick

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

#34537

On Friday, 21 November 2014 01:57:07 UTC, rickman  wrote:
> When I am done with my present project I might try doing a GA144 
> project.  I looked at it some time back and just using the coding 
> environment seemed a bear.  But I might be willing to deal with that to 
> get an idea or two tested.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

Excamera (James Bowman) has a solution to the GA144 IDE.
Try here: http://excamera.com/sphinx/index.html

He gave a presentation at one of the SVFIG meetings, so you'll
probably find the video of it online. I may have enven uploaded
it to YouTube myself. Can't remember.

The FIG website has a video section, as i'm sure you know.

Mark

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

#34546

On 11/21/2014 5:06 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Friday, 21 November 2014 01:57:07 UTC, rickman  wrote:
>> When I am done with my present project I might try doing a GA144
>> project.  I looked at it some time back and just using the coding
>> environment seemed a bear.  But I might be willing to deal with that to
>> get an idea or two tested.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick
>
> Excamera (James Bowman) has a solution to the GA144 IDE.
> Try here: http://excamera.com/sphinx/index.html
>
> He gave a presentation at one of the SVFIG meetings, so you'll
> probably find the video of it online. I may have enven uploaded
> it to YouTube myself. Can't remember.
>
> The FIG website has a video section, as i'm sure you know.

When you say "solution" are you talking about a simulator?  That rings a 
bell.

I haven't seen many of the SVFIG videos.  I watched a few live and found 
it difficult.  Their goals are to have a local meeting and some of the 
technical difficulties make it very hard for me to hear what is being 
said.  I'm not trying to knock them.  After all, it is great that they 
are trying.  But I just haven't been able to use that resource.

-- 

Rick

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

#34557 — Thanks - was (Re: when greenarrays desktop pc? with firefox? vga? usb3??)

Mark Wills wrote:
> *SNIP*
>
> Excamera (James Bowman) has a solution to the GA144 IDE.
> Try here: http://excamera.com/sphinx/index.html
>
> *SNIP*

A fascinating collection.
Also a good link to demonstrate how good commenting style eases 
reading of FORTH code.

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

#34552

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't  
> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*  
> market.

The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?


Rod Pemberton

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

#34554

On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
>> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
>> market.
>
> The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
> when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
> market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?

That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever product 
it sees as best.  I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but 
certainly there can be room for improvement.  The only question is 
whether the lowRISC will be able to be better or even as good.

As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will never 
be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that should 
just give up and go home.

-- 

Rick

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

#34555

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 3:24:41 AM UTC, rickman wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
> >> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
> >> market.
> >
> > The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
> > when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
> > market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?
> 
> That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever product 
> it sees as best.  I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but 
> certainly there can be room for improvement.  The only question is 
> whether the lowRISC will be able to be better or even as good.
> 
> As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will never 
> be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that should 
> just give up and go home.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

... I am just imagining my washing mschine with Embedded Pentium ...
There are loads of other architectures - and for a good reason - optimized for certain applications

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

#34564

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 04:06:42 -0500, JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 3:24:41 AM UTC, rickman wrote:
>> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
>> >> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
>> >> market.
>> >
>> > The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
>> > when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
>> > market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?
>>
>> That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever product
>> it sees as best.  I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but
>> certainly there can be room for improvement.  The only question is
>> whether the lowRISC will be able to be better or even as good.
>>
>> As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will never
>> be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that should
>> just give up and go home.
>>
>
> ... I am just imagining my washing mschine with Embedded Pentium ...
> There are loads of other architectures - and for a good reason -  
> optimized for certain applications
>

No, that's too expensive a solution.  It's cheaper to connect your
washer to the internet and use an x86 processor in a server farm
somewhere, or the "cloud", e.g., 56K dial-up modem connected to
your home broadband via VOIP.  That way, the washer only needs
enough hardware to follow the commands sent to it and send settings
to the internet.

I bet you think I'm joking ...


Rod Pemberton

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

#34559

On Friday, November 21, 2014 7:24:41 PM UTC-8, rickman wrote:

> As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will never 
> be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that should 
> just give up and go home.

LOL

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

#34569

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:14:17 PM UTC-5, Jason Damisch wrote:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 7:24:41 PM UTC-8, rickman wrote:
> 
> > As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will never 
> > be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that should 
> > just give up and go home.
> 
> LOL

why?

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

#34563

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:24:03 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
>>> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
>>> market.
>>
>> The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
>> when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
>> market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?
>
> That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever product  
> it sees as best.

I agree.  However, the only products which survive long-term are the
cheapest solution to the problem.  The only exceptions to that "rule"
are Intel processors and Microsoft software because both have monopolies,
and the SCSI interface which just won't die.

> I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but certainly there can be
> room for improvement.

ARM as a company almost died too.

> The only question is whether the lowRISC will be able to
> be better or even as good.

How many successes can you name who pushed aside market incumbents?

Inmos? No.  Transputers were a market failure.
Harris Semi.? No.  None of their processors have been a success.
AMD? No.  They're hurting financially competing against Intel.
Transmeta Co.? No.  Market failure.
ARM? No.  Although, they did manage to barely survive and become
   successful dominating a new market: mobile.
...

> As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will
> never be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that
> should just give up and go home.

So, you don't think Mitch Bradley will push for use of a Forth
processor like Chuck Moore's GA144 in the OLPC project?  Interesting.

This page indicates OLPC laptops currently use AMD Geode LX (x86)  
processors:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Hardware_specification


Rod Pemberton

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

#34568

On 11/22/2014 3:36 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:24:03 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
>>>> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
>>>> market.
>>>
>>> The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
>>> when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
>>> market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?
>>
>> That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever
>> product it sees as best.
>
> I agree.  However, the only products which survive long-term are the
> cheapest solution to the problem.  The only exceptions to that "rule"
> are Intel processors and Microsoft software because both have monopolies,
> and the SCSI interface which just won't die.
>
>> I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but certainly there can be
>> room for improvement.
>
> ARM as a company almost died too.
>
>> The only question is whether the lowRISC will be able to
>> be better or even as good.
>
> How many successes can you name who pushed aside market incumbents?
>
> Inmos? No.  Transputers were a market failure.
> Harris Semi.? No.  None of their processors have been a success.
> AMD? No.  They're hurting financially competing against Intel.
> Transmeta Co.? No.  Market failure.
> ARM? No.  Although, they did manage to barely survive and become
>    successful dominating a new market: mobile.

Toyota and Honda.


>> As for the GA144, it addresses a totally different market and will
>> never be a desktop computer replacement.  Anyone who can't see that
>> should just give up and go home.
>
> So, you don't think Mitch Bradley will push for use of a Forth
> processor like Chuck Moore's GA144 in the OLPC project?  Interesting.
>
> This page indicates OLPC laptops currently use AMD Geode LX (x86)
> processors:
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Hardware_specification

???

-- 

Rick

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

#34572

In article <op.xpqt6gcvmk81un@localhost>,
Rod Pemberton <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:24:03 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
>>>> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
>>>> market.
>>>
>>> The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
>>> when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
>>> market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?
>>
>> That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever product
>> it sees as best.
>
>I agree.  However, the only products which survive long-term are the
>cheapest solution to the problem.  The only exceptions to that "rule"
>are Intel processors and Microsoft software because both have monopolies,
>and the SCSI interface which just won't die.
>
>> I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but certainly there can be
>> room for improvement.
>
>ARM as a company almost died too.
>
>> The only question is whether the lowRISC will be able to
>> be better or even as good.
>
>How many successes can you name who pushed aside market incumbents?
>
>Inmos? No.  Transputers were a market failure.
>Harris Semi.? No.  None of their processors have been a success.
>AMD? No.  They're hurting financially competing against Intel.
>Transmeta Co.? No.  Market failure.
>ARM? No.  Although, they did manage to barely survive and become
>   successful dominating a new market: mobile.
>...

Think twice. Is that a market failure or a failure of the capitalist
system at present? IMO more often that not the system fails to
accomplish its purported goal, letting the best win in a freely and fair
competing market.

(Not that I think that GA144 deserves to win in a fair, competitive
market).

>Rod Pemberton

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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

#34688

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:43:39 AM UTC-5, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <op.xpqt6gcvmk81un@localhost>,
> Rod Pemberton <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:24:03 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2014 7:58 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:56:28 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> The real issue with the GA144 is that it was driven by the "wouldn't
> >>>> this be cool" factor rather than any market.  So it addresses *no*
> >>>> market.
> >>>
> >>> The market has two really good processors, x86 and ARM,
> >>> when it really only needs one ....  So, what does the
> >>> market need the GA144, MILL processor, or lowRISC for?
> >>
> >> That's a silly way to look at it.  The market will use whichever product
> >> it sees as best.
> >
> >I agree.  However, the only products which survive long-term are the
> >cheapest solution to the problem.  The only exceptions to that "rule"
> >are Intel processors and Microsoft software because both have monopolies,
> >and the SCSI interface which just won't die.
> >
> >> I think the ARM is doing a very good job, but certainly there can be
> >> room for improvement.
> >
> >ARM as a company almost died too.
> >
> >> The only question is whether the lowRISC will be able to
> >> be better or even as good.
> >
> >How many successes can you name who pushed aside market incumbents?
> >
> >Inmos? No.  Transputers were a market failure.
> >Harris Semi.? No.  None of their processors have been a success.
> >AMD? No.  They're hurting financially competing against Intel.
> >Transmeta Co.? No.  Market failure.
> >ARM? No.  Although, they did manage to barely survive and become
> >   successful dominating a new market: mobile.
> >...
> 
> Think twice. Is that a market failure or a failure of the capitalist
> system at present? IMO more often that not the system fails to
> accomplish its purported goal, letting the best win in a freely and fair
> competing market.
> 
> (Not that I think that GA144 deserves to win in a fair, competitive
> market).
> 
> >Rod Pemberton
> 
> Groetjes Albert
> -- 
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

capitalism never fails

monopoly and depressions are government meddling, as is inflation

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

#34522

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:30:49 AM UTC-8, JUERGEN wrote:

> Is there an application note showing a largish program as example?

That would be using the Polyforth VM on the GA.  You could get largish, for Forth, in that.

> The low-power aspects would not be relevant anymore 

Actually, the less power it uses the better, especially when your probe uses
solar energy and you are far out from the sun, for example, in orbit of
Jupiter.
 
> So - we should push to have GA144 included in the LUNAR1 Mission
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30102343
> ... and see the result in another 10 years time

Well, first GA needs to be rad-hardened.  Who knows if it's possible to get
the right people to talk to each other to find out if it is feasable or not?

Jason

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

#34689

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:33:12 PM UTC-5, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> when?

vga 
web browser that can use aol mail
html5 is fine if dont like flash
1% the code
no unix heritage baggage
openssh
desktop can be browser based
porn movy player

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

#34701

On 11/29/2014 12:14 PM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:33:12 PM UTC-5, the_gavino_himself wrote:
>> when?
>
> vga
> web browser that can use aol mail
> html5 is fine if dont like flash
> 1% the code
> no unix heritage baggage
> openssh
> desktop can be browser based
> porn movy player

I wired up my Schmartboard yesterday and have the webbrowser working!  I 
don't have flash and am working on HTML 5 at the moment, so no real 
video as yet.  Schmartboard has a link to the HTML 2 code and I am 
upgrading it to HTML 4 as we speak... well, write.  The output is HDMI, 
not VGA.

With very careful coding and a *very* high factoring rate I managed to 
do it all in the internal RAM of the GA144, no SDRAM needed!  I really 
could use a 145th processor though...

What's this about porn?  Is that what this is about, a virus resistant 
browser for watching porn?

-- 

Rick

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web