View Single Post
  #95   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Wayne.B Wayne.B is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,492
Default Here come da Judge...

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:24:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and
Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider
path' sound pretty similar!

===

There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to
send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is
presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density
and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into
multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like
converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle
more cars.


In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many
forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the
time it is used.

In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The
higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same
"road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency"
and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased
correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required
several physical roads can be combined into one also.

The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical
paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing.


You still have to keep those pipes full and the only way they can do
it is with a bunch of processors because they have hit the wall on how
fast they can go,

That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore.
They just talk about how many "cores" they have.


===

Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using
those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job
supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably
always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct.