Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:07:37 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: michaelv@MindBender.serv.net (Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com) Cc: chuckr@mat.net, terry@lambert.org, smp@csn.net, james@westongold.com, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: maptable of SuperMicro P6DNH Message-ID: <199705101907.MAA04249@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199705100600.XAA15693@MindBender.serv.net> from "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" at May 9, 97 11:00:10 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> Seriously, the MP boards are typically *better* than the UP boards > >> because they have more hurdles. The UP boards *should* jump the same > >> hurdles -- it would make for faster UP boards, for one thing, and > >> faster generic OS code, for another. I'm surprised there isn't a > >> push for this from MS on the basis of NT... heck, maybe there is? > > And it would make the hardware more expensive. And people wouldn't > buy it. Then you would have SCSI and IDE in motherboard designs. And then they'd move it into the "board chipset" ASIC's. And then, since silicon real-estate is silicon real-estate, no matter if you encode shiity designs or good designs in the dopant, it will cost the same per square millimeter for bot good and bad hardware. And then people will buy the good hardware. And we will all live happily ever after. Why does everyone think "better" means "more silicon". If programmers thought you had to go bigger to get better, then we'd have... well, MS-NT and USL-SVR4. 8-). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705101907.MAA04249>