Where can I buy a large analogue meter?...

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 11:06:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 17/04/2022 00:20, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

In terms of power consumption, yes, but is that the be all and end all
of \'efficiency\'?

Indeed, my phone and (not that I have one) Raspberry Pis, and also GPUs are very power efficient but they lack the number of programs they can run.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:38:34 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

True, but possibly not the way you meant it. AMD is partnered with TSMC
and the Zen 3+ design on TSMC 6nm capabilities is currently kicking
Intel ass.

I have Zen2 (an AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT) and that\'s also TSMC, but 7nm.

The equivalent CPU on Zen3 (Ryzen 9 5900X) is also 7nm.

Yes, very fast.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

RISC designed like Atmel\'s AVR products are a lot more fun to program in
assembler even if it does take more lines.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 11:09:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 17/04/2022 01:38, rbowman wrote:
On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to
improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they
can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and
a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

True, but possibly not the way you meant it. AMD is partnered with TSMC
and the Zen 3+ design on TSMC 6nm capabilities is currently kicking
Intel ass.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

RISC designed like Atmel\'s AVR products are a lot more fun to program in
assembler even if it does take more lines.

I\'ve not found any ARM will beat a late model Intel yet, but there is no
reason why ultimately it shouldn\'t. After all most CISC processors are
RISC processors with microcode.

But the point here is that Apple didn\'t \'design\' the chip any more than
it designed the 6502, 6800, power PC or Intel chips.

So the high speed is just magic then?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:56:39 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krswpr1mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

Indeed, my phone and (not that I have one) Raspberry Pis, and also GPUs are very power efficient but they lack the number of
programs they can run.

Not so sure, maybe a few MS windows program
but the open source Unix / Linux world has likely an often better version, free at that, and a lot more choice.
https://howchoo.com/pi/run-windows-raspberry-pi
I never feel limited on Linux.
And what does not exist I can write.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:01:30 +0100, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:56:39 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krswpr1mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

Indeed, my phone and (not that I have one) Raspberry Pis, and also GPUs are very power efficient but they lack the number of
programs they can run.

Not so sure, maybe a few MS windows program
but the open source Unix / Linux world has likely an often better version, free at that, and a lot more choice.
https://howchoo.com/pi/run-windows-raspberry-pi
I never feel limited on Linux.
And what does not exist I can write.

Most people have trouble using Windows, nevermind Linux.

Anyway, I run a lot of science research programs (see Boinc) and I think out of about 40 projects, only 5 run on ARM. They just don\'t see the point in recoding everything.

 

[Scott Lurndal]

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:

On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:


Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

Come now, risc processors have been used for three decades now,
the compiler guys are really really good at generating quality code
for all of them.

As for the \"more ram\" for code, that\'s not necessarily true either,
as all risc instructions are fixed (2 or 4 bytes depending) while
the intel instructions can be much longer than 4 bytes; plus the
variable length instructions on x86 complicate instruction decoding
and make out-of-order execution more complicated.

Fact is that the Apple Aarch64 processor is better than the intel
processors in almost every way, including performance per watt.

 

[server]

Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> wrote in
news:jCC6K.1645035$8b1.785549@usenetxs.com:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:40:41 +0100, Max Dumb, the REAL dumb,
notorious, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:


So not a slide rule. Either or both of you are in the company of
Sam Cooke: #\"Don\'t know what a slide rule is for.\"#

HE\'s regularly in the company of the men in the white coats, you
troll-feeding senile ASSHOLE!

Goddamn! Shut the fuck up, CHILD!!! YOU BLOODY FUCKING RETARD!

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:05 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:01:30 +0100, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:56:39 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krsw...@ryzen.lan>:

Indeed, my phone and (not that I have one) Raspberry Pis, and also GPUs are very power efficient but they lack the number of
programs they can run.

Not so sure, maybe a few MS windows program
but the open source Unix / Linux world has likely an often better version, free at that, and a lot more choice.
https://howchoo.com/pi/run-windows-raspberry-pi
I never feel limited on Linux.
And what does not exist I can write.

Most people have trouble using Windows, nevermind Linux.

Possibly true, but totally irrelevant. Most people can\'t do differential calculus either.

> Anyway, I run a lot of science research programs (see Boinc) and I think out of about 40 projects, only 5 run on ARM. They just don\'t see the point in recoding everything.

You are one of the volunteers who runs other peoples programs on your computer. The people who write the programs write them to run on the most popular hardware, rather than the most powerful hardware, because there\'s more of the popular hardware around.

I\'ve got a Windows partition on my computer which gets much more heavily used than the Linux partition - hardly anybody I know uses Linux, and what we swap around is what everybody can use.

For years I had the gEDA circuit design program running on my Linux partition, but then KiCAD came out, which also runs under Windows. I haven\'t done much with either program, but it was comforting to have them there against the possibility that an interesting problem might crop up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 16:08:45 +0100, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:


Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

Come now, risc processors have been used for three decades now,
the compiler guys are really really good at generating quality code
for all of them.

No modern programmer is good at anything, especially tight coding. Give them a computer from the 80s and they\'d have trouble writing a calculator program to fit into 64KB.

As for the \"more ram\" for code, that\'s not necessarily true either,
as all risc instructions are fixed (2 or 4 bytes depending) while
the intel instructions can be much longer than 4 bytes; plus the
variable length instructions on x86 complicate instruction decoding
and make out-of-order execution more complicated.

Fact is that the Apple Aarch64 processor is better than the intel
processors in almost every way, including performance per watt.

 

[rbowman]

On 04/17/2022 12:55 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Apr 22 20:31:39 UTC) it happened Jimmy Farley
jimmy.farley@fake.id> wrote in
yCPhHhTpuqyZjmKLJmgwJTVvZQiJtetO@news.usenet.farm>:

On 4/16/2022 3:05:09 PM, Jock wrote:
And modern cars require far less tuning and are
much more reliable than one that is 50 years old.

In 1979, my wife and I bought a new Ford Mustang. On the way home from the dealer, the engine stalled at every stoplight.
Lemme see, around 1973 I had a Ford Mustang V8 Cobra Special
Never stalled at stoplights,.. Out of there fast

I had a \'73 but after I piled it up one foggy morning I switched to
Camaros and Firebirds. The 2nd generation of Mustangs were Pintos with
lipstick. It took Ford a long time to get back to a real car.

 

[rbowman]

On 04/17/2022 07:03 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 11:09:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 17/04/2022 01:38, rbowman wrote:
On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid
wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to
improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked
any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they
can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and
a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

True, but possibly not the way you meant it. AMD is partnered with TSMC
and the Zen 3+ design on TSMC 6nm capabilities is currently kicking
Intel ass.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

RISC designed like Atmel\'s AVR products are a lot more fun to program in
assembler even if it does take more lines.

I\'ve not found any ARM will beat a late model Intel yet, but there is no
reason why ultimately it shouldn\'t. After all most CISC processors are
RISC processors with microcode.

But the point here is that Apple didn\'t \'design\' the chip any more than
it designed the 6502, 6800, power PC or Intel chips.

So the high speed is just magic then?

https://www.pcmag.com/news/intel-hires-apple-engineer-who-helped-develop-m1-mac-chips

There\'s a guy who must have NDA\'s up the wazoo...

 

[rbowman]

On 04/17/2022 07:03 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I have Zen2 (an AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT) and that\'s also TSMC, but 7nm.

The equivalent CPU on Zen3 (Ryzen 9 5900X) is also 7nm.

Yes, very fast.

I\'ve got a 5500U in my laptop. It\'s a 7nm Zen2 unlike the 5600U Zen3 but
I have no complaints for a $700 laptop.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:31:56 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krxbi2lmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:01:30 +0100, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:56:39 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krswpr1mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

Indeed, my phone and (not that I have one) Raspberry Pis, and also GPUs are very power efficient but they lack the number of
programs they can run.

Not so sure, maybe a few MS windows program
but the open source Unix / Linux world has likely an often better version, free at that, and a lot more choice.
https://howchoo.com/pi/run-windows-raspberry-pi
I never feel limited on Linux.
And what does not exist I can write.

Most people have trouble using Windows, nevermind Linux.

Anyway, I run a lot of science research programs (see Boinc) and I think out of about 40 projects, only 5 run on ARM. They just
don\'t see the point in recoding everything.

Well, I have written loads of programs for x86 in C for Unix / Linux
Ported all I use to Raspberries..
The breaking point is sometimes the libraries,
I try to avoid linking in libraries anyways if possible, I had to port some existing ones and change those.
So its work, but everything I normally use now also runs on raspis.
My PC is off these days, 5 raspberries in the room, 3 on 24/7, 1 on all day as router, and 1 for experiments.
Only time PC is on is for adjusting satellite dish and HAM radio QO100 stuff
that software has already been recompiled on the raspi, needs a new USB DVB-S2 tuner compatible with the Linux kernel.
Low priority.
Surviving WW3 comes first ?
Anyways one big EMP and all those cellphones and puters and electric power are no more.
Then you need an abacus

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:25:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/17/2022 07:03 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 11:09:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 17/04/2022 01:38, rbowman wrote:
On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid
wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to
improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked
any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they
can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and
a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

True, but possibly not the way you meant it. AMD is partnered with TSMC
and the Zen 3+ design on TSMC 6nm capabilities is currently kicking
Intel ass.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

RISC designed like Atmel\'s AVR products are a lot more fun to program in
assembler even if it does take more lines.

I\'ve not found any ARM will beat a late model Intel yet, but there is no
reason why ultimately it shouldn\'t. After all most CISC processors are
RISC processors with microcode.

But the point here is that Apple didn\'t \'design\' the chip any more than
it designed the 6502, 6800, power PC or Intel chips.

So the high speed is just magic then?

https://www.pcmag.com/news/intel-hires-apple-engineer-who-helped-develop-m1-mac-chips

There\'s a guy who must have NDA\'s up the wazoo...

So if he makes an Intel chip based on ideas in Apple, how do they prove it? It\'s like saying that song sounds a bit like that one.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 16:46:46 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1kr0r8vvmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 16:08:45 +0100, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:


Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

Come now, risc processors have been used for three decades now,
the compiler guys are really really good at generating quality code
for all of them.

No modern programmer is good at anything, especially tight coding. Give them a computer from the 80s and they\'d have trouble
writing a calculator program to fit into 64KB.

What\'s a modern programmer? One that uses that snake language \'python\' or so?
I like to code in asm for Microchip PIC micros, there is a lot you can do with 256 bytes RAM and 16 kB ROM.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/scope_pic/
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/index.html

from the eighties, CP/M clone:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/z80/index.html

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:39:40 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/17/2022 07:03 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I have Zen2 (an AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT) and that\'s also TSMC, but 7nm.

The equivalent CPU on Zen3 (Ryzen 9 5900X) is also 7nm.

Yes, very fast.

I\'ve got a 5500U in my laptop. It\'s a 7nm Zen2 unlike the 5600U Zen3 but
I have no complaints for a $700 laptop.

That\'s 0.4 of the speed of my desktop. Laptops suck.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:41:10 +0100, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:31:56 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krxbi2lmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:01:30 +0100, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:56:39 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1krswpr1mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

Indeed, my phone and (not that I have one) Raspberry Pis, and also GPUs are very power efficient but they lack the number of
programs they can run.

Not so sure, maybe a few MS windows program
but the open source Unix / Linux world has likely an often better version, free at that, and a lot more choice.
https://howchoo.com/pi/run-windows-raspberry-pi
I never feel limited on Linux.
And what does not exist I can write.

Most people have trouble using Windows, nevermind Linux.

Anyway, I run a lot of science research programs (see Boinc) and I think out of about 40 projects, only 5 run on ARM. They just
don\'t see the point in recoding everything.

Well, I have written loads of programs for x86 in C for Unix / Linux
Ported all I use to Raspberries..
The breaking point is sometimes the libraries,
I try to avoid linking in libraries anyways if possible, I had to port some existing ones and change those.

How much work is it? And can everything be ported? You could do a lot of good on the boinc projects.

So its work, but everything I normally use now also runs on raspis.
My PC is off these days, 5 raspberries in the room, 3 on 24/7, 1 on all day as router, and 1 for experiments.
Only time PC is on is for adjusting satellite dish and HAM radio QO100 stuff
that software has already been recompiled on the raspi, needs a new USB DVB-S2 tuner compatible with the Linux kernel.
Low priority.
Surviving WW3 comes first ?
Anyways one big EMP and all those cellphones and puters and electric power are no more.
Then you need an abacus

Some people backup to optical just in case.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:51:47 +0100, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 16:46:46 +0100) it happened \"Commander
Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in <op.1kr0r8vvmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 16:08:45 +0100, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
On 04/16/2022 05:20 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:


Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

When comparing RISC to CISC you have to be careful to specify what area
you\'re comparing for efficiency. Power consumption has been where RISC
has shone. It took a while for compilers to catch up to create optimized
code. Code size is necessarily greater, hence more RAM.

Come now, risc processors have been used for three decades now,
the compiler guys are really really good at generating quality code
for all of them.

No modern programmer is good at anything, especially tight coding. Give them a computer from the 80s and they\'d have trouble
writing a calculator program to fit into 64KB.

What\'s a modern programmer? One that uses that snake language \'python\' or so?
I like to code in asm for Microchip PIC micros, there is a lot you can do with 256 bytes RAM and 16 kB ROM.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/scope_pic/
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/index.html

from the eighties, CP/M clone:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/z80/index.html

You sound like a real programmer. As it happens I\'m having a lot of problems with Python. Some idiot managed to make the program require AVX, when 50% of the users had CPUs predating that.

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:03:59 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.

Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.

But I wonder how well and how long Apple\'s new M1 architecture will be
able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
I\'m using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)

I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.

So a speed change but no compatibility? Bit of a bugger to change every program\'s coding.

Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can\'t it be improved out of the mess?

Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.

Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
market research firms to run focus groups sessions, one of which I was
in. One long wall of our meeting room ad a very large mirror, one
that looked a bit odd. It was half-silvered, and there were observers
watching the from behind that \"mirror\".

The questions wandered around, then eventually converged. We all knew
that Apple was moving to Intel, as this had bee reported extensively
in the trade press. The question to be answered was if there had to
be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that\'s
exactly what happened.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 18:11:56 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:03:59 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, \"The Natural Philosopher\"
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
Like aircraft and cars in general.

Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they\'re
constantly proved wrong.

They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
is add more cores.


The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
the power used by an Intel equivalent.

That by itself, says nothing
A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.

It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1

I prefer things designed for adults.

I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.

It\'s not Apple vs Intel it\'s TSMC vs Intel.

Apple\'s processor is an ARM so it\'s going to be more efficient than
intels X86

The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.

Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.

But I wonder how well and how long Apple\'s new M1 architecture will be
able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
I\'m using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)

I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.

So a speed change but no compatibility? Bit of a bugger to change every program\'s coding.

Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can\'t it be improved out of the mess?

Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.

But below you say you can emulate.

Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
market research firms to run focus groups sessions, one of which I was
in. One long wall of our meeting room ad a very large mirror, one
that looked a bit odd. It was half-silvered, and there were observers
watching the from behind that \"mirror\".

The questions wandered around, then eventually converged. We all knew
that Apple was moving to Intel, as this had bee reported extensively
in the trade press. The question to be answered was if there had to
be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that\'s
exactly what happened.