On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:41:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:31:55 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:30:47 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > > > > > > > But, I see no
> > > > > > > > > > reason that it doesn't suit a stack machine.
> > > > > > > > > What I mean is that this is science fiction technology at the moment.
> > > > > > > > > If it becomes viable for microprocessors, then it would presumably be
> > > > > > > > > fine for stack machines, but also for non-stack machines.
> > > > > > > > I agree, but I think the real issue is why chase pie in the sky implementations at 10s of THz when just a few GHz would be a significant improvement? It is normal for technology to proceed in steps rather than great leaps forward.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general the world has rejected stack machines for many, many years. What stack machines really need is a stack machine application, not a stack machine implementation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > I'm not saying that they should do a Thz processor. I'm saying that QDCA is a descent bet. That they should look at the 500mhz+ advances and do a few GHz version. When the Thz, if it ever does, gets worked out,, they can move onto that. No science fiction involved, it's what scientists are actually working towards. It's business, you plan for the future and take a bet on which direction to start taking steps into. It's often not clear when using external innovations.
> > > > > > You talk about planning as if it were inevitable these things will get designed and built. Where does the money come from? With no track record to speak of the hard part is finding someone who wants to start spending millions and millions of dollars on totally unproven design ideas.
> > > > > Wherever it:s conventional silicon or not, it requires money. It's about where they will be in time, even 5. It's about commerce survival, and having the edge. They have to have something in offer for people to buy.
> > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying, literally.
> > > It's pretty simple. The spell auto corrector trashed the sentence without me realising. Maybe where they will be in 5 years. About commercial survival. That's all.
> > Still not following. "Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence, no verb. Who's commercial survival???
> Rick, you ok?

I'm fine. Are you a native English speaker?

> GA is the only one we are talking about. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" . Is a sentence. It does not require a verb.

"Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" is a sentence and it has a verb, "It's" means "It is" and "is" is the verb of that sentence, but the sentence is poorly constructed and makes little sense. "About commercial survival." is also not a sentence.

What's wrong with using clearly constructed sentences?

> It refers back to previous sentences, and "will" is good in place of a verb, it can be used as a verb 'too will something to be". As long as the correct information can be understood correctly, by a correct person, it's fine.

I suppose I'm not a correct person.

> > > > > > > Stack machines aren't the problem. Shboom, and rtx went on to have success. It's implementation we are concerned about.
> > > > > > What success? They may have found a few design wins. I think the RTX gets used in space apps because it is rad hard (very hard to come by in general). There's nothing about this pedigree that would attract the sort of investor who will pay for such grandiose chips.
> > > > > Those where significant designs of their day. Again, there is only normal level design being talked about at this stage. If they earn money, then they can advance to better designs. At the moment, its not optimal, so something has to change to continue.
> > > > Significant to whom? They were tiny blips on the RADAR screen. I'm still waiting for someone to show any real world advantages to stack processor chips in the real world of today.
> > > Well, objectively they were out there and successful
> > > That's it.
> > Were they? I don't know what definition of "successful" you are using. I suppose you could call the RTX successful in that they sold more than a handful, but what happened with the Shboom that would be called "success"???
> > > > The GA144 attempted to be the universal peripheral laden MCU, but failed in being an MCU at all. The proponents talked about how low power the individual processors were and the low power when not processing, but the programming was so complex they came up with a virtual machine implementation that negated the power savings. In fact, everything they provided was a dollar short of being useful to a user.
> > > Now, that is a historical blip. What you say is true.
> > > > Partly, the problem of the GA144 was overcoming the entrenchment of conventional processors, but that is the world at this point. Talking about some power savings or speed advantage or even the flexibility of peripherals is not of much use if it solves a problem the users don't have while creating problems users don't have with conventional solutions.
> > > They have been operating on presenting solutions to businesses. So, for them. In that way, it has been an employment opportunity. The businesses hi neatly have seen a potential there, and we wouldn't even know if it was in the bionic eat, or their hearing aids here.
> > I wasn't aware that anyone at GA was actually an employee in the sense of drawing a significant salary. If the company were selling any real quantity of parts, they would report the sales even if not the customer. I think they bought some thousands of chips and are still working on selling those..
> You know under NDA, they can report very little, if at all. You know that's how it works.

NDAs do not prevent reporting of activities of a company such as profit or sales reports. They just can't mention the customer. As I said, there is no indication GA has ever bought a second batch of chips. How long has that been, 10 years? More? Sorry, GA has never been a viable, functioning company by any realistic measure. I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit. Based on what we know of GA, my company would be considered a more viable company. At least it has sales and reports them on income tax forms.

> > > > So how would money be made from such designs?
> > > What they have been doing, yes, but it is scary design for people, and the regular arm is more comfortable. In the 1980's, it would have been a great design, even in the 1990's, but it really needed the 18 bit 640kB address space, even back then. At least one processor with access, if not most or all of them. Now. I wonder why for nearly two decades. I remember, you talked about doing software radio with it, but it was just st too our there and restrictive for a modern high datarate format. My recent designs proposals are suitable for that, but this needs to work at lower data rates. Where a custom asic can dominate it. I am concentrating on how changing tac might produce a better marketable product.
> > In the 1980s feature sizes crossed 1 um. The GA144 would have been a much larger chip (around a square inch) and run much more slowly.
> >
> > The GA144 could implement a software radio easily. It samples at software determined rates up to MHz. You might be able to tune the FM band, but the AM band for sure. I don't recall the frequencies used for hand held unlicenced radios in the US, but they are probably in the UHF, so not as practical.
> I get you, you are talking about about an actual radio. I thought that you meant a data radio. Then DAB might be an application.

What is transmitted means nothing. For a direct conversion the carrier frequency is probably limited to 100 MHz or less. That would require a significant input signal with good SNR.

> > To create a product you typically start with the requirements and look for technology to implement it. The GA144 was a technology experiment to see what the chip could do with no application in mind. Maybe the device being designed now by another company will have a purpose.
> Look, if they had a main CPU with 18 bit memory with direct access, they would have made things a lot easier for themselves. I couldn't expect to make my projecting game device with something that people needed to program a very slow forth emulator running on a cpu most couldn't program. A normal address space CPU would have allowed people to adapt while they learn to use the array, which could be used by subroutines to do tasks, supplied with a development system. I knew what it was from the first time I understood what the layout was. For my other personal device too, I absolutely needed the low energy, but again, the programming. Same for the 8k-32k projection devices. I waited for something better, but non were coming. So, frustrating.. Now, like you, my peak ability diminished. A waste of life. This is my 5th rodeo where the bull killed the performer called chip..

The idea of a F18A like device with an 18 bit address space, fully populated by memory is a contradiction. The speed of the F18A is due to every part of the device using optimal structures, often very different from what is used in most designs. Give it a 256 kW memory and it would run much slower.. Even with a 4 kW memory it would be slower.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209