[apollo11]

I posted a question some time ago when I wondered why we need a seperate modem when perhaps the CPU could do the job of the modem.

I was informed that the computer would be so slow when it did its' modem thing that it would be difficult to use.

I doubt my MBP uses both cores much at all and I wonder if one of them could be used to do the job of a modem?

[Big Mac]

No. That makes just about zero sense. You'd be essentially wasting a core that way, even if it were possible. If you don't think your MBP makes use of both cores, then open up Activity Monitor (/Applications/Utilites/Activity Monitor) and take a look the CPU usage graphs. Besides, recent Apple "modems" are mostly software modems anyway, if my understanding is correct.

[apollo11]

Does the activity monitor inform how many cores are in use? I note no softwrae modem in my or any other system I have seen. All have a hardware modems.

I think that in 4 and 8 core systems throwing a core for modem use is a great idea that only modem manufactures would worry about , c'mon think about it more deeply , I am correct.

[Doofy]

Why on earth would you want to put your outlying security barrier inside your machine?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by apollo11 

Does the activity monitor inform how many cores are in use?

Yes.

I note no softwrae modem in my or any other system I have seen. All have a hardware modems. I think that in 4 and 8 core systems throwing a core for modem use is a great idea that only modem manufactures would worry about , c'mon think about it more deeply , I am correct.

When I say software modem, I mean that while there's some hardware circuitry to support the modem, it's mostly based in the OS. And I doubt the software used to power a modem would take at most a few percentage points of a modern CPU core's time, let alone the entire thing.

[OreoCookie]

I got my first WLAN router for not even 20 €. Why would I want to save 3 € and make the proper operation of my network dependent on my main machine?

[Doofy]

€3 ? €3 ? You can't even buy a penny chew for €3 these days!

[The Godfather]

Are we talking about 56kbaud modems here?

[turtle777]

What's a modem ?

-t

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by apollo11 

Does the activity monitor inform how many cores are in use? I note no softwrae modem in my or any other system I have seen. All have a hardware modems.

I think that in 4 and 8 core systems throwing a core for modem use is a great idea that only modem manufactures would worry about , c'mon think about it more deeply , I am correct.

WTF? You would want to swap out a CPU core to use it as a modem?? A modem costs about $15, a core costs a heck of a lot more than that. Aside from the obvious fact that the core is way to powerful to use as just a stupid modem (which is generally software based anyway and already uses your CPU to do its work).

Worst idea ever.

Maybe this is a joke?

[goMac]

Because the processor for your modem/ethernet card is far cheaper than your CPU's core.

Why tie up a $200 core to do the job of a $3 processor?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Because the processor for your modem/ethernet card is far cheap than your CPU's core.

Why tie up a $200 core to do the job of a $3 processor?

This.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

€3 ? €3 ? You can't even buy a penny chew for €3 these days!

But still, it's like 10 dollars, isn't it?

[tooki]

But, um... in both the Mac and PC worlds, standard dialup modems for years and years now have been "soft" modems with only minimal hardware. Pure hardware modems are now rare, expensive, external-only beasts. Same with ethernet cards, you have to spend [a lot] extra for fully-hardware cards.

Soft modems were feasible with 66MHz CPUs. The CPU load on today's processors is trivial. But it's usually not quite as well-performing as a hardware modem. It would never tie up a whole CPU, the modem signal processing is simply a CPU task like any other.