BTW, what is SMC? 184.108.40.206 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I decided to add some commentary worth having to this article. It began with a small edit war in the Cell microprocessor article where I'm bobbling around parragraphs making useless invocations of MIMD/SIMD terminology long past their best-before date. So many people persist in attempting to apply these old concepts to new designs, it's tragic.
When possible, I like to make my writing interesting, esp. if the subject itself is on the dry side. I've had a few of my more interesting contributions to the WP redacted by the aspy types who don't see why Faggin deserves a mention in an article about MIMD/SIMD. Because his line is funny and with just two short sentences invokes the time machine of a twenty-five year shift in design ethos more effectively than any two paragraphs of my own composition. And it's neat history for people to pursue, almost a little Easter-egg of a sort. I don't see why WP shouldn't broaden the reader's interest base when the opportunity arrises to slip something in.
I don't think this article should be explaining these technical four-letter-words to childen (the next generation) without also providing some context as to their original scope of validity. Hopefully people will enjoy my slightly screedish take on the subject and not get too twisted up over POV waking some unsuspecting reader out of their routine stupor. MaxEnt 08:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This screed is wholly inappropriate. If you're going to add POV comments, you have to back them up with verifiable sources. Simply inserting your opinion is not good enough. Ideogram 21:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that File:MIMD.svg is misleading because it shows 2 banks each of 4 processors and suggests that the processors in a bank are all executing the same instruction. This is possible, but usually the processors are independent. I suggest just showing 4 processors each with an arrow from the data pool and an arrow from the program pool. JonH (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)