BTX Halted on X86_64 master

[Bill Hacker]

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
Bill Hacker wrote:

ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core
2' having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')
I've never seen the Pentium D marketed as "Core-D" around here though,
that'd have been awful :).
T'was ever thus in Asia anyway..

Core-D (faster clock, 'fatter' lithography, hungry, slower FSB/RAM

is NE to

Core-2 (the reverse on all of the above)

I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM
gets faster.
Haven't seen those Nano chips in the wild yet, unfortunately.

Dual-core, no. AFAIK, still a demo, if not 'lab' item.

Plenty of the solo's around in Netbooks and STB's though.

Wot the Hey - even the lowly C7 is a surprisingly good performer as a desktop.

All down to the hardware encryption engine and OpenSSL/SSH support for it. So 
very much of what one does on a desktop uses encryption (ssh, scp, sftp, https, 
esmtps(a), imaps, WiFi, rsync, VNC, remote X, remote desktop, distributed fs'en 
 .... etc) that the hardware crypto engine very handily offsets the 
generally-slower-than-CHEAP Intel CPU.

OTOH - as a compiler box? ... NFW!

Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing
lower power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what
Simon & Garfunkel called 'the sounds of silence'.
What about a blindingly fast system, but running in another
(sound-proofed) room? :P
BT,DT,GTTS. 'Challenging' with the pair of laptops I now Globetrot with, and - 
limited by the uplinks - the speed is no longer of much consequence, as anything 
at 1 GHz (G4) to 1.5 GHz (x86) is seldom loaded up.

Btw, your e-mail address bounces.
Looking into that. Taking the headers from your post here, and ass-u-me-ing you 
came off the same 'net from which you post to crater, I don't find any of the 
three 'possible suspects' in my Exim logs as even attempting to attach recently.