Slashdot Mirror

Look at the pie charts on this page: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intels-Game-Changer-One-Size-Fits-All-Haswell/?page=4

Notice how the display is quickly dominating the power consumption? The whole ARM vs. x86 power consumption bit is bunk. Intel has proven it can be competitive with ARM, and even if ARM could magically make a chip that uses zero power, your display isn't going to suck down any less juice based on the instruction set of the processor running your device....

You mean like this one?

Your beloved Lenovo is doing it too:

"We should also point out that this memory is actually soldered to the system's motherboard. So whatever configuration you get from the factory, be it 4GB or 8GB, that's what you've got for good, period."[source]

Dude, that is the 5,000 hour bug.

Update the firmware.

http://bit.ly/O1Fvzj

http://hothardware.com/News/Crucial-Acknowledges-Weird-5000-Hour-M4-SSD-Bug-Promises-Firmware-Fix-in-MidJanuary/

http://www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx

I'm talking about the resale rights. The right to resell copyrighted media, such as used books, CDs, and computer games, is well established in law. Modern DRM circumvents that right, since it prevents the user from transferring their used games to someone else. It's also anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition (the used games stores).

That's what modern DRM is really about. It's inefficient against piracy, and it's not there just to fuck with the consumer, it's there to prevent competition from used games. Game producers have tried to sue used games stores, claiming they violate copyright just by buying and selling used games. They want a cut every time a used game is being sold. They claim they lose money for every game that's resold and how used games will kill single-player games,

Personally, I think the industry is biting itself in the ass. People sell their old games to get money to buy new ones, and the knowledge that you can sell your used game, makes it easier to shell out $40 for a new one.

I'm talking about the resale rights. The right to resell copyrighted media, such as used books, CDs, and computer games, is well established in law. Modern DRM circumvents that right, since it prevents the user from transferring their used games to someone else. It's also anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition (the used games stores).

That's what modern DRM is really about. It's inefficient against piracy, and it's not there just to fuck with the consumer, it's there to prevent competition from used games. Game producers have tried to sue used games stores, claiming they violate copyright just by buying and selling used games. They want a cut every time a used game is being sold. They claim they lose money for every game that's resold and how used games will kill single-player games,

Personally, I think the industry is biting itself in the ass. People sell their old games to get money to buy new ones, and the knowledge that you can sell your used game, makes it easier to shell out $40 for a new one.

Your ancestors must have been strongly related to the Titanic Quartet.

• March 2010 lost $1B in quarter
• July 2011 190M loss, declining PS3 sales
• Feb 2012, Lost 1B, PS3 a primary culprit

That was just a few seconds of Googling, and just the first page of results listing the RED in Sony's PS3 area. The only place Sony appears to be getting a profit at the moment is from their remaining stake in Sony Pictures. Sony, the company we've grown to hate, looks like it's heading to the dump. Good riddance.

The UX21A is a strong contender. But is it available for sale yet? I can't find it actually for sale anywhere.

Not entirely sure what is meant by "dominated" - Intel has 59% of the market (source: http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Grabbed-GPU-Market-Share-from-Nvidia-Intel-in-Q4/ ). I think what was meant was something like, "AMD and nVidia have dominated the GPU market for serious gamer geeks". The rest of us running our Latitude work laptops could care less what kind of GPU is in it because they've all been sufficiently powerful for years.

I prefer the apps list in Windows 8 as a list of all programs in one quick spot. It's alphebetized and doesn't include nonsense like uninstall wizards and docs like the start menu does. And it shows all the icons at once so I don't have to read a series of folder names like with the Start Menu.

Well you must not use very many programs. Their ridiculous flat organization method quickly falls apart and looks like crap. Just take a look here (images 3-5 on that page pretty clearly demonstrate). So yeah, you enjoy that needle in a haystack...

Actually AMD had only 2 cores out of 8 running to hit their record speeds.

That said I fail to see the excitement for this news. This is only a record for Ivy Bridge chips and AMD's attempt managed to beat it by more than 1GHz.

You could just click on the print version.

Here. Wish they'd just do that in the summary.

Higher clockspeeds use more power. Intel hasnt gone much above 3.3gHz for years, with 3.7 (i believe) being the top clock rate that they have ever done. You expect them to change that now when the focus is on higher efficiency, more cores, and lower power usage?

It doesnt represent a problem at all, and for the record all of the benchmarks ive seen on hothardware (linky) show it as being faster than sandy bridge, so theres that speedup youre complaining about.

They never said that there would be a clock boost-- id be interested to see what your source is for that statement.

According to the first link in your linked article, the iPad2 beat the Tegra 3 by a very good margin: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Asus-Eee-Pad-Transformer-Prime-Preview/?page=7

We recently saw a graphics benchmark of the A5 vs the Tegra3 posted to /., and the A5 beat the Tegra in real-world-ish benchmarks, and more than doubled it's score in fill rate.

The A5X is basically just the A5 with twice as many GPU cores, and graphics problems tend to be embarrassingly parallel, so unless it scales up really poorly with those extra cores (due to shared bandwidth limitations, or poor geometry scaling) it should have no problem beating the Tegra 3 by 2x, especially in terms of fill rate.

And when you quadruple the number of pixels on your screen, as Apple just did, which measurement matters? Fill rate.

One also has to consider that the older iPad 2 smeared the floor with the Tegra 3, why would they think that twice the performance is 'meaningless'? Considering Apple typically doesn't play too lose with the marketing statistics for metrics like battery life, real world performance, etc, then I don't find this to be a stretch. I will be interesting to see the real world benchmarks when the hardware arrives.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Asus-Eee-Pad-Transformer-Prime-Preview/?page=7

From the article, open them in different tabs and switch between. Wow. I always wondered why the DVD image quality and colors sucked so badly, that explains it nicely.

DVD

BluRay

The bluray shot makes the DVD image look like a photo after it's been ran through the wash.

From the article, open them in different tabs and switch between. Wow. I always wondered why the DVD image quality and colors sucked so badly, that explains it nicely.

DVD

BluRay

The bluray shot makes the DVD image look like a photo after it's been ran through the wash.

This article has an informative diagram.

It's not web based, it's real Office running on ARM. Of course, if you want to actually edit something, you'd do much better with keyboard+mouse. Scrolling around with touch, though, isn't hard to add.

When Nvidia puts out a $500 card, it's attractively priced. When AMD puts out a faster card for 10% less, it draws complaints about the price from the same reviewer. What gives?

To be fair, that review you linked is from November 2010. Perhaps second-hand 580s are better value or something.

When Nvidia puts out a $500 card, it's attractively priced.

When AMD puts out a faster card for 10% less, it draws complaints about the price from the same reviewer. What gives?

Can anyone tell me what the chart in the article is actually measuring? The x-axis is labeled "Packet Loss Rate" and goes from 0% to 2.5% and the y-axis is labeled "AvgPLT" and goes from 500 to 3,500. I'm assuming the testers introduced artificial packet loss at the percentages on the x-axis and then measured how each protocol (HTTP and SPDY) responded to these conditions. But what the heck is "AvgPLT" and what exactly was their test? Was it requesting one page with 30 components each around 500KB, or 100 page requests with 20 components of 100KB, or 5,000 requests for 5MB files? or what?

He wants a media server not a HTPC.

then pretty much any old PC with a bunch of 3.5" drives would work.

I googled "build a media server" and found several guides. Here's one for $300 with six 3.5" bays and here's a 4U rackmount server case with twenty 3.5" drive bays for roughly $1,000

Ballpark figures, this isn't exact, redo it with your preferred constants, I'm just trying to explain my reasoning against huge enclosures with > 10 drives,

Standard drive idle usage (W) ~ 10W [1]
Low-power (green) drive idle usage (W) ~ 5W [1]
Cost of power ~0.20 $/KWH
Cost of an older drive per year = $17
Cost of a green drive per year = $8.50
Replacing 6x500GB older drives with one 3TB green power savings = $95/yr

So think about that for a sec. At $150[2] for a 3TB drive, you cover the price in power savings in 18 months. That's assuming that there is zero fixed-cost per drive. At the point where you are talking about adding SATA controllers or fancy multi-bay enclosures or, worse, external enclosures with their own PSUs (and fans!), the turnaround-point for older drives is far sooner.

I'm a hobbyist, I understand that it's really cool to make do with older hardware and feel like you aren't letting anything to go waste but sometimes using old hardware instead of buying new is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Spending money on increasing how many hard drives you can accommodate instead of just buying newer high-capacity lower-wattage drives is absolutely batty; especially when you get into the price for anything remotely good in the RAID dept.

My advice, move everything to the largest capacity drives that are reasonably priced (after the flood damage is sorted). Replace the drives when you can do between 4:1 and 6:1 replacement -- should be every 3-4 years. Live happily, quietly and simpler. Save money on power transparently.

[1] http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Western-Digital-2TB-Caviar-Green-Power-Hard-Drive/
[2] I bought some Hitachi 3TBs before the Thailand floods at $130 on Newegg. Of course you would be silly as heck to buy hard drives now for your hobby storage project before they at least fall back to pre-flood level.
[3] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182221
[4] Older drives need not go to waste, they can become offline storage with a simple USB dock[3] -- make a backup, throw it in an anti-static bag, leave it at your relative's house when you visit!
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

Funny that article shows it's on ANDROID phones thus, it's an ANDROID (& other smartphones') problem (& thus, a Linux problem too, because ANDROID'S A LINUX). I don't see it running on my Windows PC here, for instance...

APK

P.S.=> And to "continue the trend"? Here's MORE Android security issues (8 at a time only: /. won't let me post more links than that):

http://blogs.computerworld.com/18659/cyberthugs_love_smartphones_and_leaky_sneaky_mobile_malware

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/15/6475834-skype-android-app-can-expose-your-personal-information

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17785/sensory_malware_android_app_listens_then_steals_credit_card_data

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/11/1620222/New-SMS-Trojan-Found-In-Android-Markets

http://hothardware.com/News/Malware-For-Android-Users-Increases-In-Frequency-And-Sophistication/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/11/android_marketplace_malware/

http://blogs.computerworld.com/18755/killer_android_app_allows_the_clueless_to_hack_pwn_like_a_pen_tester

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17899/hacked_android_app_racks_up_huge_texting_charges

Would you like MORE? I have PLENTY of them...

... apk

Print link

The Tegra 3 chip that's showing up in phones this spring and Transformer Prime tablet now is about 7.2 GFLOPs. That's more than enough to be top 10 in 1993. Current ARM architectures might go all the way up to fast enough to take that number one spot in reference sample designs now but they consume too much power to go in your pocket on retail shelves as yet. Maybe in a year or two.

Mali T658 and PowerVR are two to watch here. Mali is supposed to go up to 350 GFLOPs. It still amazes me that in 1993 that machine cost about $70 million in today's money and you can almost match it today for under $500.

http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item19377/Wireframes1.jpg

Rounded corners - check
Grid of icons - check
Incoming lawsuit...

Yes, after further research i found this: http://hothardware.com/News/Microsoft-Windows-8-GUI-Will-Be-Just-Another-App/ I hope they provide both and not drop one -or make it a $100 add-on

One could conceivably argue the the content of the drive being worth $5 million is art in that it's an artistic statement.

Well yeah, that's the point.

But if you want to make a more interesting artistic statement, why not go whole hog and make it performance art?

Also do not miss the fact the drives have throughput topping 160TB per second. These drives are fast. o_O

http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1712/3tb_roundup_atto_read.png

Link to print-friendly article: http://hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=1712

Assume by "stacking" they are referring to (and the article alluded to) something similar to Intel's Tri-Gate transistors?

http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-Announces-New-22nm-3D-Trigate-Transistors/

And not simply stacking and interconnecting like this?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/rochester-3d-processor,6369.html

I think it already has that.

http://hothardware.com/News/Android-at-48-Market-Share-in-Q2/

And that pisses off apple to no end.

Except that what Microsoft got with the Nokia deal was a company whose products are now basically on hiatus, as it takes a year to transition to the already-failed WP7 platform (WP7 has 1/48 the smartphone market share of Android). In other words, a total waste of money.

Moto, on the other hand, sells Androids ... and Android, at 48% market share, is 50% more than Apple, RIM and WP7 combined.

Over the long term, the acquisition should help grow Google's bottom line as both smartphones and tablets supplant "regular computers". And it's not like Moto isn't worth something right now, so the only "risk" is the premium over the stock price, which is worth it from a patents point of view, going forward.

lol... and you really think that tri-core Phenom isn't just a quad-core with a non-functioning or disabled core? You pay tri-core prices for tri-core functionality. You're not getting screwed in either scenario here (well... with regards to enabled/disabled features).

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Phenom-X3-8750-TriCore-Processor/

Sorry you don't like that particular article I picked. Here's another:

http://hothardware.com/News/Microsoft-Continues-To-Bleed-Mobile-Market-Share-Despite-WP7/

Sony's already doing that (or will be, this fall) with the Playstation TV. Two people will be able play a multiplayer game, and (using 3D glasses) both see separate pictures on the same display. It's basically a standard 3D TV, but in multiplayer mode the interleaved frames are meant for different viewers rather than different eyes. I see no reason this couldn't work on a non-Playstation-branded TV as well, though it's possible it may require a firmware update on the TV should Sony choose to support it.

That's not a laptop anymore, when it's that big and heavy.

But I am scared that at some point my SyncMaster 2493HM may go out, because where the hell can one get a good screen on this planet again with 1920x1200 resolution, good contrast, tiny pitch, every port one ever thought of for a screen?

Looks more like a photograph from a satelite by Google Earth, rather than a Photoshopped image. See for yourself, http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item18029/Orochi.jpg

X4 - 157 to 252 watts
i5-2500 - 91 to 164 watts.

In other words, it will cost between $20 (normal use, cheap electricity) and $140 (24/7, expensive electricity) per year extra. Spending the extra $10 to get the faster i5 is a no-brainer.

Anyone notice that weird benchmarks TFA uses for the gaming performance evaluation? TFA compares several processors against the X4 980 by running a pair of games at low quality with minimal quality to "isolate out the graphics card:"

we drop the resolution to 800x600, and reduce all of the in-game graphical options to their minimum values to isolate CPU and memory performance as much as possible. However, the in-game effects, which control the level of detail for the games' physics engines and particle systems, are left at their maximum values, since these actually do place some load on the CPU rather than GPU.

I find it hard to believe that the guys at "hothardware.com" know enough about 3d game architecture to have any understanding of what places a load on the CPU and what places a load on the GPU. Anyone have any thoughts?

http://hothardware.com/News/Walmart-Scaling-Back-Electronics-Department-to-Make-Room-for-Fishing-Poles/

http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/04/wal-mart-shrinks-electronics-space-adds-items.html

Surprisingly, NVIDIA can't catch AMD's dual-GPU card with their new GTX 590: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-590-Dual-GF110s-One-PCB/

Even in heavier DX11 titles, the cards are not quite up to par with the Radeon HD 6990: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-590-Dual-GF110s-One-PCB/?page=8

Surprisingly, NVIDIA can't catch AMD's dual-GPU card with their new GTX 590: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-590-Dual-GF110s-One-PCB/

Even in heavier DX11 titles, the cards are not quite up to par with the Radeon HD 6990: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-590-Dual-GF110s-One-PCB/?page=8

Core i7 2600K numbers have been added and are listed in the piece. Also can't agree with that broad statement you're making. In all but lightly threaded workloads, the six-core chips dominate.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i7990X-Extreme-Edition-Crazy-Fast-Got-Faster/?page=8

If you want 95% of the performance for almost half the price, go with a Core i7-970.

There is cheaper stuff out there, with less performance, although it still blows SATA out of the water.

And Google should be very careful not to turn Android into another highly complex and confusing OS with an desktop-like interface. This is exactly what most people are running away from. They want something plain, pretty and "magic". There's only a very small part of the population wanting widgets and full customization abilities. For *these* users tablets may well be a fad anyway.

Well, we will see.

That's really what Apple "got" from day one, that their competitors are still working towards. Whether its as simple as making sure that scrolling and panning "just works" instead of "mostly works" on a mobile device, or making sure that playing a DVD just happens on a Windows/OSX device, the Apple user experience really is a bit nicer. Its nothing that their competitors don't do, but ....

There was a recent story about the new Streak 7. While the reviewer was quoting gigahertz numbers you could actually see the device's screen lagging ~1/3 of a second behind his finger. I'm sure that its processor has great specs, but figuring out that nobody (for most values of body) gives a rat's ass about the numbers while everybody (same proviso) cares about responsiveness is a Big Deal.