Re: First WinModem for Linux

Carlo M. Arenas Belon (carenas@chasqui.LaRed.net.pe)
Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:14:50 -0400 (EDT)


> > I understand the problem, but I think the solution is all backwards.
> > The problem being that (DSP) chip vendors charge too much for their
> > product. So, if you want a "real" modem you are going to have to pay
> > (you say) $50 to include it in a computer. The issue though is that
> > you can apparently include a CPU that is sufficiently powerful enough
> > to do HSP and not have to pay for the DSP on the modem. How can this
> > be? How can Intel, AMD, whoever produce a CPU that is so powerful yet
> > so cheap that it makes more sense, economically, to move the 'SP
> > functions from a dedicated DSP chip inside the host CPU? The answer is
> > simple, the DSP chip vendors are charging way too much for their
> > products. When one technology (generic function CPU) can perform the
> > work of another (special function DSP's) at a lower cost overhead it is
> > obvious, from a capitalist supply and demand viewpoint, that the DSP
> > vendors are overcharging.
>
> Nope. Today the base machine is something like a Celeron 350MHz or so,
> _way_ overpowered for the average home use: Running Word (or whatever) or
> browsing. There is plenty CPU left for the modem to use. Not enough for a
> freak who runs several applications at once needs, though...

i can't get the point on both comments, we are all talking on a wintel
perspective of the problem.

actually, generic function CPUs were born as a way to handle different
tasks on the same hardware device.

this would make implementing "especial" features easier since all this
features should be done giving instructions for a single multi purpose
hardware, for sure Software was born.

the problem here is not on the paradigm design, but on the fact that
current microprocessor architectures don't scale.

that is why specialized DSPs are used for, a "Software DSP" is not an
efficient design because of the flaws of current hardware.

BTW, the Oxygen Project is working just on fixing that
(http://www.cag.lcs.mit.edu/raw)

also, an not less important, "Software DSP" are not good on OS Design
perspective, because hardware should be OS-agnostic, if we all want to put
all the work that should be done on "satellite" devices into the main core
of a computer design/OS we are just going to need a bigger (and more
expensive) central processor than we normaly need and a single point of
failure (more probability of system crash)

for this last point, i've found a nicer article on this address
http://www.byte.com/column/Be_View/BYT19990727

Have a nice day

Carlo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/