🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9103011038.AA15028@perisl.uucp> Rangachari Anand writes

>In article <9103011038.AA15028@perisl.uucp> al@perisl.UUCP (Al Schuilenburg) writes:
>>lies.  Ever thought what would happen when the limits of nature were
>>reached and single processors could be made to run no faster?  Man's
>>desire for faster, better and better would soon turn to "put more on
>>the job".  However, enough idle chatter.....
>
>Such statements are undoubtedly correct in the long run, but I point
>out that there seems to be no slowing down of increases in processor
>speeds. I draw your attention to the new RS6000 series, the unannounced
>HP machine (said to be a screamer) and the 100 MIPS SPARC processor from
>TI. The real danger in parallel machines is that they seem to get
>obsolete alarmingly fast.

With reference to the lack of slowing of processor speeds, imagine the
power you would have with 256 (why not ?) or so of RS6000 series or the
100 MIPS SPARC processors working in parallel.  A hell of a lot faster 
than one.  Also I would disagree with you about parallel machines becoming
obsolete alarmingly fast.  Most of the resonably large parallel machines I
know of are still in regular use.  Maybe their individual processors are 
coming to the end of their sequential lives, but not their parallel ones.
When this happens the prices of the parallel machines drop, making it
cheaper to build bigger ones and more accessible to the researchers
requiring the power.

However, one must not forget Amdahl's Law...............

Alex
al@perisl.uucp