🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rmcassid-1608950847010001@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) writes:
:Except that we were comparing systems with the performance of a P5-75 or a
:603-75. I think that already assumes that a 386 isn't enough oomph for ya.
:If you want to build a used machine that matches the performance of a
:P5-75 or PMac 5200, fine, but it needs to be comparable. To reduce the
:argument to 'Well, if a 386 is enough for you, then PC's are cheaper',
:then I'll reduce the argument to 'Well, if a Mac Plus is enough for you
:than Macs are cheaper' since you can usually take a Mac Plus off of
:someones hands for free.

Long ago did we hear about P6, PPC630, Alpha AXP, but how come we hear
little about their future succesors today? Are all CPU developers
banging the wall already? Difficult to get faster devices? Sure we
hear a little about them now and then, but not a fragment of what they
told us about pentium and PPC601 years ago.
Perhaps we should start to get ready for parallel computing ASAP to
be able to get our annual increase in computing speed.
Do I need to tell which one of Unix, Win95 and MacOS that we be the easiest
to rewrite for parallel computing? If two of these will be insufficient
in a few years, why should I bother with it today and have a lot
portability trouble in a not too far future?
Well, for those who wondered whioch one that would be easiest, the answer
is Unix because it have been running parallel for years already...

/Henrik