what is vmware thinking

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:12:57 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have an AMD Athlon(tm) 64-bit X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+. The thing
> has two cores ("two cpus" if you will), and one can be executing one
> process while the other is executing another. This IS parallel
> processing, simultaneous execution of two or more processes -- whether
> you like the exact meaning of the English language words or not.[/color]

Except that these terms have technical meanings that are used for clarity
and precision (a foundation of science and critical thought). Redefining
parallel execution as random execution of tasks on different cores on the
same chip simply leaves us without a term for actual parallel processing.

Why do you need to insist they are the same? Is it an ego thing, so one
can insist that one's machine is doing parallel processing. Isn't this
the same as Intel's fantasy clock speeds?

Mark Madsen wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:12:57 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I have an AMD Athlon(tm) 64-bit X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+. The thing
>> has two cores ("two cpus" if you will), and one can be executing one
>> process while the other is executing another. This IS parallel
>> processing, simultaneous execution of two or more processes -- whether
>> you like the exact meaning of the English language words or not.[/color]
>
> Except that these terms have technical meanings that are used for clarity
> and precision (a foundation of science and critical thought). Redefining
> parallel execution as random execution of tasks on different cores on the
> same chip simply leaves us without a term for actual parallel processing.
>
> Why do you need to insist they are the same? Is it an ego thing, so one
> can insist that one's machine is doing parallel processing. Isn't this
> the same as Intel's fantasy clock speeds?[/color]

It is an English language thing. I have a distinct aversion to
people attempting to remake the English language and the
long-established meanings of words just because they would like to
have something a little different, or because they do not want to be
bothered with learning the rules of grammar and the meanings of words
established.

There may be some technical writer somewhere who is certain (in his
mind) that two processes running simultaneously on two cores of
a dual-core processor does not constitute "parallel processing."
He is either ignorant of the meaning of the terms he is using, or
intent on changing the language to no useful purpose, and further
encouraging "creation of language as you go" a la Alice in Wonderland
that serves no one well.

I know and freely acknowledge that a dual-core processor has one
large memory space serving both cores, and that scheduling of which
processes to run when/where is done in linear sequence, and this
logically, technically, and otherwise implies the two processes are
not completely independent and fully parallel in all respects. E.g.
if data needed by the process running on core 1 is also
simultaneously needed by the process running on core 2, parallelism
can go to Hotel in a handbasket quite quickly, but this is a tiny
imperfection in parallelism rather than something forcing us to a
recharacterization at odds with conventional use of the English
language.

FWIW, my aversion to "creativity" in assigning new meanings to
English words and grammar extends to that practiced by politicians
and by members of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not just a technical
thing, but a matter of plain language understandable (or otherwise!)
and consistent in meaning over time. Without it, we cannot even
discuss our problems intelligently, because no one can be sure he can
understand what others are talking about!

No cheers.

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:18:44 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
[color=blue]
> It is an English language thing. I have a distinct aversion to people
> attempting to remake the English language and the long-established
> meanings of words just because they would like to have something a
> little different, or because they do not want to be bothered with
> learning the rules of grammar and the meanings of words established.[/color]

You seem to be saying exactly what I am saying, yet the tone you use is
one of disagreement. This smacks of indecision.

Mark Madsen wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:18:44 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It is an English language thing. I have a distinct aversion to people
>> attempting to remake the English language and the long-established
>> meanings of words just because they would like to have something a
>> little different, or because they do not want to be bothered with
>> learning the rules of grammar and the meanings of words established.[/color]
>
> You seem to be saying exactly what I am saying, yet the tone you use is
> one of disagreement. This smacks of indecision.[/color]

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about, which is one
of the problems I have with many people who would rework English to
fit their personal preferences.

To make the distinction between what I said and what you said about
parallel processing simple, clear, and blunt, I say the AMD
Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor in my machine has two cores that
execute processes simultaneously, and that is parallel processing.

Your claim is that it is not parallel processing.

To take one simple example from your verbiage:
"...[P]arallel processing requires completely different hardware and
different ways of writing the code. There are no true parallel
processing systems available to the consumer."

'Nuff said?

No cheers.

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:20:11 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
[color=blue]
> Apparently you do not know what you are talking about, which is one of
> the problems I have with many people who would rework English to fit
> their personal preferences.[/color]

You've stated your opinion clearly enough here. In your opinion I know
nothing about the subject, and your AMD dual-core is doing parallel
processing.

I accept as fact that those are your opinions. I also note there is a
pattern, since we have had disagreements here before, that you have a
preference for ad hominem argument.

Since I don't consider a discussion based on mud-slinging considerations
to be sufficiently civilised, and since you have effectively stated that
your opinion will be held regardless, there seems little point in
continuing.