Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 15:16 Please stop feeding this Patent troll thinking the has has invented any new here. Tom Serface wrote: > Nice concept. I think one of the challenges will be how to restrict or > track "uses". You may have that all worked out though. > > Tom > > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:mIWdnZAOJL5pejHWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >> I was going for something more like a dime per use, pay at least a >> buck in advance, your account remains open indefinitely. > > -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 15:19 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23BF%23oYRzKHA.5288(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> The experts are telling me that my real-time process does >> not need to be memory resident. > > Once again, you are lying to suit your needs. You really > don't understand how the Intel chip and Preemptive and > Protected Mode operating systems works which you explained > over and over again, and even provided LINKS for your > reading and verification. > > If I had to guess, the reason why you don't understand any > of this is because you are clueless of the history of the > INTEL chip starting with its Memory Segmentation Model to > the introduction of Real Mode vs Protected Model hardware > and operating systems, starting with DMPI. Introduced with the 80386, with the 80286 being the prequel. > Start reading about the Intel Chip, Memory Segmentation, > Protected Mode Operating Systems and then maybe, just > maybe, but I extremely doubt it, you will get some > inkling of whats going on. > > -- > HLS Red Herring! It does not address my need to keep my real time process memory resident. Its just a bunch of extraneous details intended to bypass rather than address the point.
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 15:22 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23naqbiRzKHA.2436(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Oh brother. A patent troll then, a patent troll today! > Its all vapor! You continue to use the term "patent troll" cluelessly. > > Liviu wrote: > >> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote... >>> You're not going to get anything done because you don't >>> have >>> the capacity to do so. You haven't yet in what 2-3 >>> years? >> >> "I filed a provisional patent last August" - Peter >> Olcott, 12/14/2001 >> >> (message #584 in thread of 881 at >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/f8161ee71a584326?hl=en) >> >> >>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote... >>>>> Of course, the real ultimate question is if you will >>>>> finished by the >>>>> time your patent expires. >>>> The latest improvements would likely qualify for >>>> another patent, thus >>>> extending the term, plus there is a whole other >>>> invention of using >>>> this technology to provide an easy to use universal >>>> graphical user >>>> interface scripting language. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > HLS
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 15:40 Peter Olcott wrote: > Red Herring! It does not address my need to keep my real > time process memory resident. Its just a bunch of extraneous > details intended to bypass rather than address the point. That is the third time you said that. Do you think you got your 'Ah ha'? First of all, you never mentioned you were running this this vapor process of yours in real time priority status. You were told you can raised the thread and process classification but that DOES NOT, I REPEAT IT DOES NOT stop the process from being preempted. So it DOES NOT have 100% running status. It CAN NOT PHYSICALLY BE POSSIBLE with all the THREADS running. This has been one of the key points that continues to go over your head. It just has higher a priority classification under the Windows Scheduling logic. This is why I told you you would be better off running DOS under a SINGLE CPU system? 2nd, the issue was NOT your process, but your DATA. That was the focus. 3rd, you haven't tried to any of this (because you don't have software, just vaporware) to show that a hog in normal thread classification, might be a monster hog in Real Time classification. That is why it is NOT recommended and you only do so when you are nopt creating others pressures in the system. A Real Time process is NOT to kill others, it has to appear like its running all the time without interrupting anything else. So please. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 15:42
Peter Olcott wrote: >> Oh brother. A patent troll then, a patent troll today! >> Its all vapor! > > You continue to use the term "patent troll" cluelessly. You don't have a product - you are a PATENT TROLL. -- HLS |