🚀 go-pugleaf

minister@rinet.ru (Dmitriy Veremeev) wrote:

>craig.procter@dsto.defence.gov.au wrote:

>>In article <DrtwE0.2AF@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>  (dexter) writes:

{asks when the Pentium Pro will drop in price as he will either get a
P166 in 2 months, or wait until December for a Pro]

>As for me, I decided to buy P5 now (just wait for a few weeks for
>P5-200) and don't  bother about MMX AT ALL. Because the software
>support for MMX is MUCH more important than hardware implementation.

That is an interesting point. I am not sure what the performance
comparison is for code optimised for the P5 but not for the MMX.

>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.

The first step is for the compiler writers to produce compliers which
can target the new processors and build optimised code for them.

I would tend to agree with your approach. I tend to stand off from the
technology and wait for it to drop in price, rather than going for the
latest wiz bang specials which are not supported by opimised software
when the arrive on the scene.

>Sorry for poor English.

Thank you for your contribution.

Cheers

Ian