🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ohjbc$qt4@cisu2.jsc.nasa.gov>, wally@nirvana.jsc.nasa.gov (Walter B Kulecz PhD) says:
>
>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.
>
>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).  
>

I have to disagree with your disagreement.  Intel may be bright, but they're not that
bright.  The cautious consumer in me says "I think I'll wait 'til MMX-DX2 is released".

The proliferation of CPU architectures released by Intel smacks more of marketing 
hype than substance.  I�m sure it looks good on paper, but then, so did 3D video about
a year ago and just how many working "products" have made it to market?  Without broad
based *software* support from vendors these extensions go nowhere.  Developing that 
foundation requires experience with the domain (read time).  With Intel pulling the 
rug out every three months or so, how do these vendors cope?  IMO they use conservative 
designs that work on a increasingly tight development schedule.

To add another log to the fire, the cynic in me thinks: "yeah right, if Microsoft doesn�t
support it - its dead meat". 

The only thing certain in this business is change - and if you have a lot of spare 
change you can afford to buck up for every new twist that WIntel throws out on the 
street.  Until it settles down I�m happy with my DOS based WFWG 3.11 AMD5x86-160 system 
and the software that I have.  When I want to watch TV I turn on the television.  Call
me a throwback but it works for me (and that's where I want to go today).