Multicore processor question
- Thread starter BoyBrutus
- Start date
Quote from gnome:
Well, I've had some BSOD's if that's what you mean. But I've never had any kind of freeze, lockup, or delay (except when eSignal was having problems, of course... and then many subscribers had it) while my trading setup was running. Not even from Java.
My first computer... I guess it was on DOS. I didn't even have a floppy drive.. it ran on a tape drive like a cassette player..My first trading rig ran on DOS 3.1, if I recall.
Yeah, $254 for my trading machine is a bit ridiculous.
My MAIN rig (data, charts, 4-monitors, TV tuner, etc.)... that's different. It was $569.
gnome, I still have my first computer, a Commodore 64 with printer, 1200 baud modem, monitor, cassette data drive and 5.25" floppy! I even have one of the first Flight Simulator versions available for it. The screen updates every minute in flight, and there were lots of wrecks! For k=1 to 1000, next, end! Learned basic, bulletin boards and sprites on it in 1982. Moved on to a Trash 80, then a 286 and Macintosh 512. Amazingly, it still works! I've been offered a grand for all of it, but no, I will keep it.
Higher priority of a process does not mean that specific process is going to be managed by a specific core... affinity is different than priority; that's why I'm asking: why choose a dual-core CPU if with a quad-core you can distribute the allocations of the programs processess 'better' when the software is not multi-thread, etc?
It's a question, clearly for the experts, here.32k of RAM, wow you're set for life with that much...
it's the so-called 'Fat Mac' (because of its 512K RAM vs. his 128K little brother); I had it, too!
Quote from Bernard111:
Higher priority of a process does not mean that specific process is going to be managed by a specific core... affinity is different than priority; that's why I'm asking: why choose a dual-core CPU if with a quad-core you can distribute the allocations of the programs processess 'better' when the software is not multi-thread, etc?
I agree with you Bernard. If our priority programs (trading and charting) can be on dedicated cores and Bill Gates' trash "processes" can be on other cores, it just might give us what we paid for for the first time in history, and that is, a computer doing what we pay it to do without being bogged down by unnecessary bullshit.
Does anyone have fewer then 25 processes running at any given time?
I go to msconfig and and deselect normal startup. I also go to Add/ Remove Programs --> Remove Windows Components and remove all the crap not associated with trading, and I still get 25 processes running.
Does anyone know where to get the utility that saves the core dedication past reboot? You'd think that since these are "computers" they would be able to accomplish the objective... Where's that guy with a brain that Gnome said was actually workign on software? We need him on this!
