From:	Veskrashen veskrashen@*******.com
Subject:	A few new questions...
Date:	Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:58:49 -0600

Schizi@***.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/21/99 1:39:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> veskrashen@*******.com writes:
>
> > From what i remember, a cyberdeck (even a MPCP1) has a great deal
> > more processing pwer than a regular computer. at least, that's what it
> > implied in a reference to personal computers in the equipment section,
> > if i remember right. and besides, if a cyberdeck had to run VR and
> > brain-modifying type programs all the time, it probably has at least a
> > little more oomph than a desktop.
>
> Sure it will be much better than a desktop, but do they use a desktop for such
> an application? (making nav-chips) Look at the size of the "IC" utilities,
and
> wonder how many mP is taken up by true IC on a mainframe or network. These
> systems would be the processers that I am comparing to.

Well, yes, you have a point in that most rendering systems would need
more oomph than a regular desktop machine, but even today 3d rendering
and computer graphics are done on what ammounts to little more than
high grade desktop systems. even the type of rendering they were doing
2-3 years ago for commercials and such can be done on laptops today.
And given the complexity of the man-machine interface, and dealing
with it on a constant basis, i'd have to believe that they'd be up to
the task. Especially since VR2 states that such systems are
essentially low grade tortises, and all tortise type decks are limited
to MPCP 4, so a C2 deck of MPCP 4 or higher should be able to run
anything they can, right?

Which reminds me, is there any limit to the rating of a program any
certain MPCP rating can run, aside from memory requirements?

-Mojo