> You guy's krack me up... :-)
Hey, I hadn't even SENT that Fiber thing! (The latency is down, though
originallylike a packet's going to wait 150ms for 10k of requests to fill up.
Only 1GB/s so far; 2GB available if you have lots of fiber junk and another $100
around. Don't make me slap you with the 3MB RAM needed for an iMac
screen capture....)
> ...Fibre has such latency that you can smoke a
> fat doobie waiting for your data.
and yet..."advised for low-latency"http://www.ednmag.com/reg/1998/040998/08cs.cfm
--crossbar configuration allowed, 70 vendors listed, and the bestest is that
if you HIT the machine the drive can be far far away. As for Mac PCI
drivers, these are I2O-solid.
> Totally unacceptable for something like
> drives.
>
> So all your Dr's where is the discussion of 1394? Clearly the future is
> drives with embedded 1394 controllers.
Agreed for sake of pricepoint, but it can't quite choke down even 1 HDchannel, much
less in 16:7. Will ResEdit be ready to handle any
multichannel drivers that don't act right?
> As far as RAM on CPU, we already have that in a sense with CPU cache
More so with the furtherment of stacking chips beyond the famousTI chip-enlargement
clamps; and hey, who bought Exponential's cache
compression stuff? (Feel the Olduvai Schema Love, GriseWood !)
http://zipper.infotechsys.com:80/@YsfW5S1HN65tJLmGYIovwWzJwWLv9m2Cr0dsk4dtT3ZhaiccX0Zcp4BVTEBpbhBZ42hZQ2hAOn9w48Jk42hZO0dsk4dtT3ZhaicLZXdyw49hrhZjbn2hPTIoOTw0B8dsk4dtT3ZhaicQw49hrhZjbn2hP2BhZ0jvb42fT42u9GDCB8hUUCcXZ4BykXRhrhZjbn2hPU28bmVjZo==?