BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Poquito Loco

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:50:08 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:21:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote:

There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a
286, particularly if you had the math co processor..
We went to the moon with slower machines.
It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed.

Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on
Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though.

The requirements are for the user interface, not the math.

Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of
games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari?

I just understand that "math" is one of the least intensive things we
do on computers. A no name MP3 player uses more computing power than
it took to do the computations to land on the moon. I have been in
this business for 40 years and I know the most successful operators
always ran at least a generation of software off the bleeding edge.
Pioneers get all the arrows.

Harry just wants the newest thing so he can brag about it.
XP is far from an antique, as are the machines I am running it on.
I read today in one of the IBM groups that over 30% of the x86
platforms are still running XP.

If it works, why **** with it?

I like my XP. Can see no reason to change. I really can't see why knocking 25% off the time it takes
to bootleg a DVD would be important, unless one was mass producing them to send to Belarus.