Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (162802)	3/22/2002 2:12:50 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "Re: this is the first time you brought this up, how could you say I "keep ignoring" it. >> If our places were reversed, you'd post "liar" in bold italics:" Not at all, Dan. You have never brought up your point before to me. The link you included was a response to Paul. You are telling me that I "keep ignoring" your point, but if I didn't even read your previous discourse with Paul, how could I have "ignored" it? But speaking of ignoring things, I haven't seen you address the point that I brought up in my previous post. Do you feel like addressing it now? "I don't know how Microsoft allocates memory in the Windows OS, but I would assume for performance reasons that they probably do not allocate everything on set-aligned addresses. Do you have reason to believe that they do?" Message 17232958 I'll ask it in a different way: what makes you so certain that the OS will always use the same set-aligned addresses (or LSB bits, as you like to call it)? Wouldn't it be a simple task to, say, allocate memory using prime number based offsets so that cache ways don't fill up so fast? Are you sure that Microsoft doesn't implement these kinds of simple performance optimizations? wbmw