4 posts • joined 13 Feb 2007
back to the future
Am I mistaken, or didn't Intel have a fusion-type processor way back when with the I860? The difficulty in getting the most bang for the buck (as a supercomputer type part) was in actually getting to use the graphics instructions effectively. I think that the VLIW instructions were an effort to move in that direction.
not good at arithmetic ...
it's a good thing you don't make your living using arithmetic: a period of 278 hours is a frequency of about 1 microhz. A frequency of 100-5000 microhz is period of from 3 minutes to 3 hours
The Math Doesn't Agree
2.5 billion songs at $1/song means $2.5 billion over 4 years. The labels get 70%, which is $1.75 billion, and Apple get 30% which is $750 million. If there are 4 or 5 labels sharing the income that means about $100 million/year per label in royalties. Not quite chicken feed. Apple's take is $175 million per year, which is a lot of money for marketing and overhead expenses and should generate some hefty profits. The $1/iPod or iPhone doesn't come close to matching the income from music sales. Unless the numbers in the article were wrong (not an unusual event, unfortunately), it makes no sense for the labels to think that hw royalties are where the real money is.
what's old is new
There is already a parallel-processing language with well-developed compilers, etc. The language was occam, originally developed for the transputer. Inmos also produced a version of C which was in some ways easier to use than native occam. Occam and the transputer provided parallel execution threads and simultaneous/independent processing and i/o. Parallel processing is not new, and it is does not need a new programming paradigm, it's more a matter of thinking of old problems in a new processing topology.