Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 23:49:44 09/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 1999 at 01:25:25, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On September 26, 1999 at 00:47:44, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>
>>On September 25, 1999 at 23:20:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On September 25, 1999 at 12:47:38, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think we agree here. That's why I prefer not to use them, as they require 64
>>>>processors. I like the idea that my program can take advantage of any processor
>>>>I compile for, even if it's not a 64 bits one.
>>>>
>>>>There are hundreds of millions of 16 and 32 bits PCs in the world today. How
>>>>many 64 bits PCs? NONE, ZERO, NIL, NADA.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>this is wrong. Ask bruce as he owns a PC with a 533 mhz alpha in it, made
>>>by Polywell. There are several such machines. PC magazine has even covered
>>>them in detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It will take several years (maybe 10) before the number of 64 bits PCs becomes
>>>>larger than the number of 16 and 32 bits ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>>folks were saying that about the 386 not replacing the 286 for most businesses
>>>too. Care to guess how many 286's are left? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And whether you like/believe it or not, 64 bit machines
>>>>>are coming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem is not if I like it or not.
>>>>
>>>>It's crazy to ask millions of people to change their computers to exploit a 64
>>>>bits chess program, when they already have a superb 300 or 400MHz PC that in
>>>>many countries costs much more than a month of salary, and that is able to give
>>>>them master-level analysis...
>>>>
>>>>And it is misleading to tell them that they will have better chess programs when
>>>>64 bits processors are out just because bitboard programs will exploit it. Non
>>>>bitboard programs will be stronger too on this architecture and you won't make
>>>>the difference just with bitboards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And they will be the standard PC in a few more years. 10 years
>>>>>ago, people were using your same words, with the target divided by 2: "Why
>>>>>would I ever throw away my 16 bit 286 cpu? Those 32 bit machines are only
>>>>>useful for high-end applications..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You live in a country where only a fraction of your monthly salary is enough to
>>>>buy a new powerful personal computer.
>>>>
>>>>Of course you know it's not the case everywhere in the world.
>>>>
>>>>So maybe you can easily erase 16 and 32 bits computers from your memory as soon
>>>>as Intel produces a 64 bits processor, but there are many people in the world
>>>>who will stick to 16 and 32 bits for 10 years or more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>that is crazy. How many people do you know with 286 computers? they are
>>>10 years old. How many do you know with 486 computers? They are 5 years old.
>>>How many do you know with p5 pentium machines? they are 4 years old. How
>>>about pentium pros? 3 years. Pentium II? 1.5, pentium III? < 1 year.
>>>
>>>People replace technology _all_ the time. I don't know of _anybody_ that
>>>doesn't have at least a pentium CPU. Which means _no_ machines I know of are
>>>over 3 years old. These are home computers. Office computers. Business
>>>computers. Game computers. Etc.
>>
>>Vast majority of the machines at my job are 486s, which are getting replaced
>>gradually. There are about 100 PCs hooked up on our WAN. With the the exception
>>of a few "hotrods" (P2s, P3s) , which we have because they are sometimes useful
>>(graphics processing by marketing, special long running reports & database
>>rebuilds), only the servers & citrix boxes use the latest and the greatest
>>hardware (like quad xeons, etc). Unlike what you would like to think, businesses
>>are not fond of throwing away money for nothing.
>>
>
>
>of course not. But computers are cheaper than people. By a factor of almost
>100.
This is wrong in many countries. That is a terrible thing to say, but it's the
reality. In many countries, the price of a computer represents several months of
salary.
>Makes a lot of sense to improve an expensive person's productivity by
>upgrading a computer.
It is true that everytime you make the mistake of installing a new version of
Windows your productivity decreases tremendously, unless you upgrade to a faster
computer. :)
But let's be serious. And let's face it, in a business environement, generally
you get almost no gain in productivity by replacing a computer by a faster one.
You might get some gain in the universities of in selected business tasks, but
generally you get nothing.
Think that most people use computers to write texts, send faxes, use an
accounting or stock management software.
Or play Winmine at the office. :)
All these tasks can be done with an acceptable ease of use by 5 years ago
computers.
In fact, changing the computer is generally needed because the new operating
system you install will force you to have a faster computer. Or your usual
software will not work anymore, so you'll have to get a version for the new OS
and it will be so slow that you'll have to change the hardware.
Let's face it. There is little rationality generally to computer upgrades.
People buy faster computers because:
* Slower computers are not sold anymore
* The OS (Windows generally) is DESIGNED ON PURPOSE to use more hard disk space
and CPU resources
* Software editors want you to re-buy software and argue that the new software
is necessary because of the changes in the OS
* And finally because they don't want to look stupid. Their friends all have the
latest available software and hardware: "What? You are still using Windows 95?!"
Sorry Bob, I'm slowly going off topic. I'm so upset by this crazyness...
>We just had 50+ computers donated to a networking lab we
>have. These machines were everything between P5/90 to pentium pro/200's. They
>were donated because the business using them was upgrading to PIII/600's.
>
>
>The point is that at least in the USA, 486's are _not_ being used heavily.
There is life outside the USA, you know. :)
Here (Guadeloupe) we have something like:
40% -> 486
25% -> Pentium or Pentium MMX
20% -> PII or K6
5% -> PIII or more.
I would say that Guadeloupe (which is a part of France) is right between well
developped countries (USA, Europe, parts of Asia, Australia, parts of
South-America...) and countries that are behind (the rest of the world).
>They are nearly impossible to find. UAB will sell you a pallet full of them
>by the pound, as our warehouse is full of retired 386/486 and even older
>pentium machines, by the hundreds. Coming out of academic departments, out of
>the hospital, out of the business offices, etc.
Can you imagine the number of schools that would be able to make good use of
these old computers???
How many thousands children could have access to the computer technology just
with these obsolete computers?
>As far as chess goes, I can't
>begin to count the number of PIII machines on the chess servers... and these
>are machines ie people's homes. We are buying PIII/600 boxes for under $1500
>now...
>
>Ask Intel how many chips they have sold. That will give you a perspective on
>how many older machines are being replaced. The number is _huge_.
There is no doubt that there is a huge number of people out there that
ABSOLUTELY need a PIII-600 to run their favorite word processor.
And they will switch to 1GHz computers as soon as they become available. And in
5 years will we all have a good laugh at these crappy PIII-600.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.