🚀 go-pugleaf

wally@nirvana.jsc.nasa.gov (Walter B Kulecz PhD) wrote:

>In article <31ab1f2f.4414157@news-win.rinet.ru>, minister@rinet.ru says...
>>P5-200) and don't  bother about MMX AT ALL. Because the software
>>support for MMX is MUCH more important than hardware implementation.
>>Just like P5's and P6's new operands - they probably could speed up
>>some applications, but nobody use them just not to do their code not
>>capable of running on 486, P5 clones or something else. So even when
>>MMX processors will be available, you won't be able to use their
>>features - software companies shouldn't make software that wont work
>>on 99% processors. It's a waste of money for them. And this situation
>>is going to continue for a couple of years. IMHO, of course.
>>Sorry for poor English.
>
>I have to disagee here.  I expect the MMX to catch on and quickly lead to a 
>situation analogous to floating point coprocessors.  An emulator library is 
>written to support "old" hardware without MMX so software auotmatically detects 
>MMX and uses it, otherwise it calls the library code to accomplish the same 
>result (although slower).  
>
>Anyone who runs real calculations (fft's, matrix algebra, etc) doesn't consider 
>a machine without FP hardware (this has been true since the XT), so people 
>serious about multimedia won't consider machine without MMX asuming the 
>hardware actually delivers the improvements promised.  I expect it will.
>
>Don't forget, AMD has licensed this from Intel already, Cyrix will have to or 
>else modify its existing extensions to be compatable.
>

And, still there are very many programs that better use FPU, but can't
just for case of CPU w/o FPU or with incompatible one.. So the same
will be with MMX - there will be 5-7 applications supported it -
probably XING, maybe something like Photoshop, etc... But only a few!

BYE.
Yours, 
LodeRunner. E-mail: minister@rinet.ru