🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

Cyrix has announced that their M2 - CPU (with MMX) will be in
production early -97'. Comp. Magazines says it might be better than
Intel's own MMX CPU. :-)

/Nick
> 
> --wally.