montrealsoon said: >>Also on the in-order and out-of-order processing. In-Order processors could easily be stronger if software was coded to work In-Order like the Mac OS.<<
I don't see this at all. My understanding is that "out of order" processors have extra silicon to lower the "cost" of jumps made by non-predicted decisions (comparisons), whereas "in order" processors have to make the expensive flushing of the pipeline to continue down the unexpected path.
OUT OF ORDER: faster for decision making IN ORDER: better for strictly processing (copy's, math's, etc)
An OS won't make decision handling disappear...
|
Think about this for a second, out brians work in-order, if our brians worked out of order we wouldnt be able to make a choice to actually do something, so how does it make sense that Out-of-Order is better for decision making? In-Order processing is way better at branch processing because it takes all variables present and chooses the best way to accomplish set task.
Take Windows XP and OSX Tiger
Windows XP boots up out-of-order meaning whatever program hits the processor first when pulled out of the HDD randomly has to be processed. Thats why during boot up theres higher chances of blue-screens or Explorer.exe crashing. This also makes it so that the computer has to re-process data while booting up programs and the OS itself.
OSX Tiger runs in-order making it so that during boot up it goes one part of the OS at a time making it so that it starts software it a precise order. The OS loads all the none visual components before starting the main GUI(theme). So when you start a number of programs at the same time, lets say GAIM, Xfire, and Firefox. The program you clicked first will start first. This stops all hiccups in the overall processing of the data. Even though now OSX can run on Out-Of-Order (well since early to mid-2006) processes the OS forces the data through in-order.
At pixelsword - dont bother I ripped it apart already.