Slashdot Mirror

XBox and playstation do. The proof is here in applications were cost REALLY counts. Where are ALL the game systems? Thats right PPC.

As for the notebook/power issue lets take a look:
P4 3.2 GHz = 6.3 GFLOPS (82 watts)
Pentium M 1.6 GHz = 3.6 GFLOPS (24 watts)
PPC970FX 1.6 GHz = 6.3 GFLOPS (22 Watts)

P4 and 970 benchs from Top500.com. Pentium M from scaled comparison with P4.

So what is apple talking about? Well Pentium M Speedstep probably has better power management to turn the clock down dynamically during occational use (like a word processor). Other than this add-on feature the pentium family has NO advantage other than market clout. The PPC gets P4 performance with pentium M power draw.

Lots of good tech has died because of stronger competitors with weaker products.

It's because x86 allows execution of anything in memory, while the Power architecture keeps data and executable code separate.

Newer x86 processors have (or will have) the Execute Disable bit (or whatever AMD calls it), allowing data/stack regions to make marked "not executable", which the POWER-family machines already allow.

Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

Apple have just issued a press release fully detailing the transition to Intel.

Intel also have a press release about the Apple/Intel collaboration

Late Friday afternoon, C|Net News published an extremely valuable trade secret about Apple and Intel, days before Apple was scheduled to announce it ( Apple to Ditch IBM, Switch to Intel Chips ). So, where's the friggin' lawsuit against C|Net to find out who leaked? Where is the judge who is going to claim that what C|Net published was "stolen property"?

From: http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/2005/06 /05/apple_intel_wheres_the_lawsuit_against_cnet.ph p

You value battery life, but you bought a "mobile" Pentium 4 laptop instead of a Pentium M or Celeron M laptop at the end of 2004? It's not like the power-saving features of Centrino haven't been publicized and hyped since March 2003.

Initially, Pentium M/Celeron M notebooks carried a notable price difference over Pentium 4/Celeron notebooks. But by the end of 2004, Pentium M technology had made its way all the way down to sub-$1000 notebooks (Celeron M). By that time, only "desktop replacements" (and older discontinued models) were using Pentium 4 CPUs. For the same price as that Toshiba Pentium 4-based notebook, I think you would have been much better off (with much longer battery life) with a Pentium M-based, or even Celeron M-based, notebook.

You value battery life, but you bought a "mobile" Pentium 4 laptop instead of a Pentium M or Celeron M laptop at the end of 2004? It's not like the power-saving features of Centrino haven't been publicized and hyped since March 2003.

Initially, Pentium M/Celeron M notebooks carried a notable price difference over Pentium 4/Celeron notebooks. But by the end of 2004, Pentium M technology had made its way all the way down to sub-$1000 notebooks (Celeron M). By that time, only "desktop replacements" (and older discontinued models) were using Pentium 4 CPUs. For the same price as that Toshiba Pentium 4-based notebook, I think you would have been much better off (with much longer battery life) with a Pentium M-based, or even Celeron M-based, notebook.

They're still working on putting out a chip based on LongRun2, which reduces transistor leakage. This is very important for cutting power consumption and increasing CPU speed. They've also licensed the technology to Fujitsu, NEC and Sony, none of which have released a product based on it yet.

It's quite possible, though apparently unlikely, that Transmeta will turn things around and manage to survive. However, Intel is already all over the leakage problem, so this may well be the end of Transmeta.

really? 27w is a power hog? man you are pretty strict there.

There's the Celeron M will find boxed Celeron M processors selling for less than $100.

If the CNET article is correct and the Mac mini is one of the first to adopt Intel chips (in 2006), then I'm sure it will use the Celeron M. By early 2006, the Dothan-based Celeron M will be previous-generation technology, just like the G4 is today. Apple should have no problem fitting the Celeron M into the tiny form factor for less than $500.

All of the cities in India that have a Coke plant blame part of their water shortage on Coke.

Coke in India has toxins in it.

Coke's defence is, well it is a drought, and the USDA doesn't have a problem with what we are selling. They have never challenged (to the best of my research) the fact that their is lead in the soft drinks, just the fact that it is unsafe

Coke is trucking water into the villages that it has plants, as a good will gesture

Coke offered Coke as fertilizer to farmers, but it turned out to have lead in it that made the land unfit for farming.

How can we "use up" the earth's water? It all remains here doesn't it?

Most farmers vote on a single issue. Water rights.

So yes we will not run out of water, but we may well wind up with far less potable water than there is demand for.

As a bit of indirectg evidence that Humans are the problem. The only place on the planet that has a healthy eco system of large mammals is in the areas of Cambodia that have so many land mines that pochers refuse to go, and large crocs only exist in the war torn regions of Africa.

The statement that there are enough resources for humans, falls apart if you asume that we are to be living in an ecosystem and not trying to manufacture everything we need.

Back to water. Have you noticed the number of public drinking fountains lately? They were everywhere thirty years ago. Now They are almost extinct. Do you pay a water bill? Have you pulled on up from twenty years ago?

Why do you think that Intel recycles 3 million gallons of water a day, and puts it on their website?

I am not someone who is anti-development. 500,000 people are going to move to California next year, and I am one of those lobbying that we should be building housing for these people, and that the new housing should be near the city centers.

Yes, many of the Indians that are objecting to Coke are Marxists, and Coke is doing a lot to sanitize thier image. But, that does not change the fact that their is a big fight over potable water, indicating the potable water is indicating that it is a limited resource.

The article doesn't state exactly which Intel chips they'd be using... Is X86 a foregone conclusion, or is it possible Apple could be migrating to Itanium? Or is it possible that they want Intel to manufacture a PowerPC clone chip?

You forgot Poland^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe i960. Apple's probably going to come out with a completely new line of computers, with 960's in them, just to surprise the hell out of people. Maybe it'll be a revival of the BiiN machines?

Either that, or - again, just to surprise the hell out of people - Intel will be licensing MIPS, and it'll be MIPS-based. An OS X port with an IRIX compatibility layer should let it run a bunch of SGI graphical apps.

Or maybe they'll be using some of the single-chip z/Architecture processors, so you can run all your creative apps and CICS transaction processing at the same time, with OS X and z/OS running on z/VM.

Intel has tried to come out with a way to move beyond x86's limitations

You mean like "implement a 99 44/100%-compatible version of x86-64"?

There's the Celeron M, which is based on the current Pentium M core (Dothan). A quick Froogle search will find boxed Celeron M processors selling for less than $100.

If the CNET article is correct and the Mac mini is one of the first to adopt Intel chips (in 2006), then I'm sure it will use the Celeron M. By early 2006, the Dothan-based Celeron M will be previous-generation technology, just like the G4 is today. Apple should have no problem fitting the Celeron M into the tiny form factor for less than $500.

Yeah, when this topic came up with the non-working model, I posted a link to the Intel pages where they showed something that looked similar to a Mac Mini.... in 1998. I'll post it again... Here it is

And here comes lip-reading tech to bypass the noise-canceling box: http://www.intel.com/research/mrl/research/avcsr.h tm

From what little information is available, the following appears to be the case:

• AMT is implemented by some small auxiliary processor in the network controller. It's not, apparently, firmware that runs in system management mode. But that's not entirely clear.
• AMT for clients is basically an implementation of Alert Standard Format, a remote management interface which previously required installing a special plug-in board. This probably means that it uses Remote Management Control Protocol (RCMP) to talk to the client. This uses UDP datagrams on ports 623 and 644. Sending an RCMP Presence Ping on port 623 to any machine with RCMP enabled should result in a reply. Port 644 has a reasonable security system, requiring a key exchange at the start of each session. Messages are cryptographically signed, but not encrypted. If properly configured, only harmless functions should be enabled on port 623. If improperly configured...
• The general idea is that a new computer must enroll in the system by doing one good boot of the OS and talking to the remote system administration machine for an initial key exchange of 160-bit keys. Once that's been done, secure sessions are possible. It's not clear what the initial state of a new system is. One would hope that this stuff comes up disabled. But Intel isn't telling.
• Key-setting appears to be done through normal OS operation. It doesn't apparently require an external hardware device to be plugged in, which would be far more secure.
• Some RCMP functions of interest:
  • Unconditional Power Down
  • Force Hard Drive Boot
  • Force CD/DVD boot (may be redirected to net)
  • Lock Power/Reset/Sleep buttons.
  • Lock Keyboard
  • Blank Screen
  • User Password Bypass
  • Remote Control Device Action (control peripherals)
  There are also, of course, many functions for examining the state of the target machine.
• One very real possibility is that spyware, worms, or viruses might set the RCMP keys and enable RCMP on a machine. If it does that, the machine is 0wned. Really 0wned. If an attacker can set the keys, an attacker can not only reboot the system remotely, they can disable the keyboard, power off button, sleep button, and reset button. Of course, you could pull the plug. Maybe. Visualize this happening on a WiFi enabled laptop.

This system is not all that badly designed, provided it stays turned off except in corporate environments that really want it and understand its implications. But if implemented dumbly (with, say, the same keys on all machines, or an insecure administration machine) it opens huge security holes. For example, if all the help desk machines have the master RCMP keys to all the machines in the organization, it's almost inevitable that there will be a leak. Compare Kerberos, where there's a central machine that has to be physically secured, but all it does is key management.

Linux support for all this is possible; the interfaces are documented. And definitely, someone needs to explore RCMP messages on port 623 and find out what is enabled at by default.

And if anybody breaks into your corporate help desk machine, they 0wn the company.

I'd like to get off the grid in a different way... one that still lets me use /.

I've found Yurts to be an interesting architectural endeavour, and very affordable... not to mention the interesting psychological/environmental changes that one would experience living in a round building.

In a few years I plan to take advantage of Composting toilets, solar and exercised charged deep-cycle battery power, Solar Cooking, Efficient wood cooking and heating and whatever other kinds of natural/off-grid lifestyles I can find...

Let's not forget Intel's WiMAX technologies that should let me get my /. fix out in the sticks...

Luckily I should be aquiring 5 acres of land for free or cheap in the next few years, which makes this whole thing much more feasible.

No, but I think there are very few of us. I think most of the people who want ECC RAM for their desktop PCs want it for their "workstations," not "mainstream desktops." Heck, even some "workstations" don't support ECC RAM.

I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.

Not only Intel's server chipsets. Intel's 955X chipset supports ECC RAM and it's a "performance desktop/workstation" chipset. Unfortunately, 955X motherboards seem to carry about a $100 price premium over their "mainstream" counterparts. The ASUS P5WD2 Premium supports ECC RAM and costs $230 at Chiefvalue (Newegg's sister site). You can even put a lowly Celeron D in it.

That is incredibly difficult to believe for many reasons. Let me count the ways....

1) 99% of today's software runs on x86. Nobody wants to dump all of their software and migrate to a new ISA. Why else would CPU manufacturers continue to support legacy x86 even at the cost of up to 10% of their area and power budget just to decode x86 CISC instructions to RISC u-ops
2) There is an enormous business infrastructure built around this. It would all but KILL microsoft's reputation in the business world
3) The vast majority of Microsoft's revenue is on x86 software. It would be suicide for them to "theoretically begin to endorse" a new PC architecture that a) does not have the capacity and credibility to supply the world with enough PCs (ever wondered why Dell doesn't source from AMD???), b) does not have enough software to satisfy the demand, c) doesn't even have an owner stepping up to the plate (didn't IBM just sell off its PC business to Lenovo), d) can't provide the lowest prices
4) Nature abhores a vacuum. Any number of software vendors would love to get a crack at the x86 market that Microsoft vacated. Again, this would be suicide for Microsoft.
5) Intel has plenty of internal software, drivers, development tools, etc, not to mention an absolutely enormous amount of open-source win32 software and linux software
6) Every consumer service provider and hardware vendor in the world supports WIN32 on x86. Microsoft would be starting a platform from scratch that nobody would buy because the market does not sell anything for it: a) IO devices, b) broadband/VoIP/VPN, c) all the software and games they are used to
7) Even IBM would be a fool to think they could survive without x86 platforms to install their software and services onto
8) Not to mention that what you are saying is far from original -- the market has been saying for YEARS and YEARS that Intel is doomed due to a narrow focus. And yet just last quarter, Intel reported record revenue and profit. Their stock is taking off as investors expect great future growth. More than ever before, even more than during the dot.com hayday. The continue to beat down AMD to lower market share. They have pommelled TMTA and Via into oblivion. Please tell me how lack of diversity has been hurting them. Their margins are still in the 60% range, they went through the entire dot-bomb without posting a single quarterly loss (unlike ANY other large tech company I can think of), they are the first to 30cm wafer production, first to 65nm geometry in volume
9) And they do diversify. They have revolutionized the laptop platform, all but taken over the high-performance (i.e. high-margin) PDA and portable computing marketplace. They are a market leader in NOR flash (again beating out AMD to the point where they must sell their flash devision, not the same definition of "do very well" you must be thinking of). http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 050302net_a.htm
http://news.com.com/AMD+expects+flash+memory+to+hu rt+revenue/2100-1006_3-5521587.html
They are pushing WiMAX to the market as a viable competitor to both cellular technology and cable/dsl broadband, and they are the first to bring wimax silicon to the market http://www.intel.com/ca/pressroom/2005/0418.htm They have a single-chip cellular GPRS baseband and high-performance application processor for entering the phone/PDA market. http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/252336.ht m
10) Time and time again, Intel has proven its marketing and execution genious, bringing to market products that are not necessarily the most academically superior, but certainly

AMD made a great presentation for WinHEC ex

That is incredibly difficult to believe for many reasons. Let me count the ways....

1) 99% of today's software runs on x86. Nobody wants to dump all of their software and migrate to a new ISA. Why else would CPU manufacturers continue to support legacy x86 even at the cost of up to 10% of their area and power budget just to decode x86 CISC instructions to RISC u-ops
2) There is an enormous business infrastructure built around this. It would all but KILL microsoft's reputation in the business world
3) The vast majority of Microsoft's revenue is on x86 software. It would be suicide for them to "theoretically begin to endorse" a new PC architecture that a) does not have the capacity and credibility to supply the world with enough PCs (ever wondered why Dell doesn't source from AMD???), b) does not have enough software to satisfy the demand, c) doesn't even have an owner stepping up to the plate (didn't IBM just sell off its PC business to Lenovo), d) can't provide the lowest prices
4) Nature abhores a vacuum. Any number of software vendors would love to get a crack at the x86 market that Microsoft vacated. Again, this would be suicide for Microsoft.
5) Intel has plenty of internal software, drivers, development tools, etc, not to mention an absolutely enormous amount of open-source win32 software and linux software
6) Every consumer service provider and hardware vendor in the world supports WIN32 on x86. Microsoft would be starting a platform from scratch that nobody would buy because the market does not sell anything for it: a) IO devices, b) broadband/VoIP/VPN, c) all the software and games they are used to
7) Even IBM would be a fool to think they could survive without x86 platforms to install their software and services onto
8) Not to mention that what you are saying is far from original -- the market has been saying for YEARS and YEARS that Intel is doomed due to a narrow focus. And yet just last quarter, Intel reported record revenue and profit. Their stock is taking off as investors expect great future growth. More than ever before, even more than during the dot.com hayday. The continue to beat down AMD to lower market share. They have pommelled TMTA and Via into oblivion. Please tell me how lack of diversity has been hurting them. Their margins are still in the 60% range, they went through the entire dot-bomb without posting a single quarterly loss (unlike ANY other large tech company I can think of), they are the first to 30cm wafer production, first to 65nm geometry in volume
9) And they do diversify. They have revolutionized the laptop platform, all but taken over the high-performance (i.e. high-margin) PDA and portable computing marketplace. They are a market leader in NOR flash (again beating out AMD to the point where they must sell their flash devision, not the same definition of "do very well" you must be thinking of). http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 050302net_a.htm
http://news.com.com/AMD+expects+flash+memory+to+hu rt+revenue/2100-1006_3-5521587.html
They are pushing WiMAX to the market as a viable competitor to both cellular technology and cable/dsl broadband, and they are the first to bring wimax silicon to the market http://www.intel.com/ca/pressroom/2005/0418.htm They have a single-chip cellular GPRS baseband and high-performance application processor for entering the phone/PDA market. http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/252336.ht m
10) Time and time again, Intel has proven its marketing and execution genious, bringing to market products that are not necessarily the most academically superior, but certainly

AMD made a great presentation for WinHEC ex

That is incredibly difficult to believe for many reasons. Let me count the ways....

1) 99% of today's software runs on x86. Nobody wants to dump all of their software and migrate to a new ISA. Why else would CPU manufacturers continue to support legacy x86 even at the cost of up to 10% of their area and power budget just to decode x86 CISC instructions to RISC u-ops
2) There is an enormous business infrastructure built around this. It would all but KILL microsoft's reputation in the business world
3) The vast majority of Microsoft's revenue is on x86 software. It would be suicide for them to "theoretically begin to endorse" a new PC architecture that a) does not have the capacity and credibility to supply the world with enough PCs (ever wondered why Dell doesn't source from AMD???), b) does not have enough software to satisfy the demand, c) doesn't even have an owner stepping up to the plate (didn't IBM just sell off its PC business to Lenovo), d) can't provide the lowest prices
4) Nature abhores a vacuum. Any number of software vendors would love to get a crack at the x86 market that Microsoft vacated. Again, this would be suicide for Microsoft.
5) Intel has plenty of internal software, drivers, development tools, etc, not to mention an absolutely enormous amount of open-source win32 software and linux software
6) Every consumer service provider and hardware vendor in the world supports WIN32 on x86. Microsoft would be starting a platform from scratch that nobody would buy because the market does not sell anything for it: a) IO devices, b) broadband/VoIP/VPN, c) all the software and games they are used to
7) Even IBM would be a fool to think they could survive without x86 platforms to install their software and services onto
8) Not to mention that what you are saying is far from original -- the market has been saying for YEARS and YEARS that Intel is doomed due to a narrow focus. And yet just last quarter, Intel reported record revenue and profit. Their stock is taking off as investors expect great future growth. More than ever before, even more than during the dot.com hayday. The continue to beat down AMD to lower market share. They have pommelled TMTA and Via into oblivion. Please tell me how lack of diversity has been hurting them. Their margins are still in the 60% range, they went through the entire dot-bomb without posting a single quarterly loss (unlike ANY other large tech company I can think of), they are the first to 30cm wafer production, first to 65nm geometry in volume
9) And they do diversify. They have revolutionized the laptop platform, all but taken over the high-performance (i.e. high-margin) PDA and portable computing marketplace. They are a market leader in NOR flash (again beating out AMD to the point where they must sell their flash devision, not the same definition of "do very well" you must be thinking of). http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 050302net_a.htm
http://news.com.com/AMD+expects+flash+memory+to+hu rt+revenue/2100-1006_3-5521587.html
They are pushing WiMAX to the market as a viable competitor to both cellular technology and cable/dsl broadband, and they are the first to bring wimax silicon to the market http://www.intel.com/ca/pressroom/2005/0418.htm They have a single-chip cellular GPRS baseband and high-performance application processor for entering the phone/PDA market. http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/252336.ht m
10) Time and time again, Intel has proven its marketing and execution genious, bringing to market products that are not necessarily the most academically superior, but certainly

AMD made a great presentation for WinHEC ex

What most have failed to consider is the fact that Intel doesn't just make CPUs.

...and that they make non-x86 processors.

That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chip might be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.

For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.

That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chip might be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.

For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.

That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chip might be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.

For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.

That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chip might be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.

For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.

1. Intel's PXA family. These are mid-rage embedded processors targeted at applications that require very low power consumption but a decent amount of compute power. Assuming that Apple is not likely to bring Newton back, the obvious target would be a video iPod kind of device.

2. To be able to run a iFlix Movie Store, Apple needs much more bandwidth to end customers. Even if this is a background service where customers maintain lists (similar to Netflix) and top few items from the list are downloaded in the background, phone and cable companies that own the last mile will not just sit back and watch Apple make money by using their precious bandwidth. At least in metropolitan areas, one way to bypass Cable and DSL providers is WiMAX. WiMax is especially suiatable for broadcasting (or multicasting) content. Intel is one of the leaders in the WiMax effort and was one of the first vendors to come up with WiMax silicon.

1. Intel's PXA family. These are mid-rage embedded processors targeted at applications that require very low power consumption but a decent amount of compute power. Assuming that Apple is not likely to bring Newton back, the obvious target would be a video iPod kind of device.

2. To be able to run a iFlix Movie Store, Apple needs much more bandwidth to end customers. Even if this is a background service where customers maintain lists (similar to Netflix) and top few items from the list are downloaded in the background, phone and cable companies that own the last mile will not just sit back and watch Apple make money by using their precious bandwidth. At least in metropolitan areas, one way to bypass Cable and DSL providers is WiMAX. WiMax is especially suiatable for broadcasting (or multicasting) content. Intel is one of the leaders in the WiMax effort and was one of the first vendors to come up with WiMax silicon.

Intel has had a factory in Penang, Malaysia for 30+ years now. http://www.intel.com/jobs/malaysia/sites/penang.ht m

In addition to this, there are also assembly factories, using the finished cores and packing them up in for example Costa Rica and Malaysia.

This was more or less from the top of my head, so there may be some errors and significant omissions here. I don't remember offhand, for example, if there are any significant East-Asian Intel semi fabs. I also found this Intel marketing site which might provide some more information.

For example, Intel's fabs are in Costa Rica, the Philippines among other places.

According to Intel, both Costa Rica and Philipines sites are assembly / testing facilities, no Fabs. The actual Fabs are in New Mexico, California (possibly), MA (the old DEC facility I think), Oregon, Ireland and Isreal.

For example, Intel's fabs are in Costa Rica, the Philippines among other places.

According to Intel, both Costa Rica and Philipines sites are assembly / testing facilities, no Fabs. The actual Fabs are in New Mexico, California (possibly), MA (the old DEC facility I think), Oregon, Ireland and Isreal.

Let's not forget the FDIV bug. Here's another article that discusses the details of that problem.

The Intel D875PBZ is a very simple rock solid motherboard. It does come stock with an Ethernet port; however it does not have audio or video onboard. Other features include: 533/800mhz fsb, up to 4gb DDR-400, etc. Here's the link: http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bz/

Completely false.

Pretty much all of the new on-board audio supports multiple channels (OS drivers may be another story!). The bleeding edge on-board audio even supports High Definition Audio.

Most of the high-volume motherboard chipset vendors -- Intel (the big fish), AMD, NVIDIA, SiS, ULi, VIA, ... -- all implement the same advanced features in their chipsets: SATA2 NCQ, USB 2, HD audio, gigabit ethernet, and more. Just wait 3-6 months, and a new-and-spiffy ethernet/SATA/USB/audio feature will appear for free on a modern motherboard. If its a mass-market feature, of course.

Blindly choosing "no on-board devices" is rather silly. Today's mass market motherboard contains on-board devices, which means the cheapest motherboards give you that stuff for free. If the on-board device meets your feature requirements, use it. Sealed silicon interconnects are far more reliable than PCI slots anyway.

...speaking as the author of the [old OSS] VIA audio driver for Linux, and the sometimes-maintainer of the [old OSS] Intel/SiS/Nvidia/AMD audio driver for Linux, as well as other Linux drivers for on-board (and off-board) devices.

I've always built my own systems from components. Doing so may cost more than a pre-built unit, but the big advantage to DIY is that you get to pick every single component based on YOUR standards. You're not constrained by a group decision by some collection of profit-hungry BoD members.

When building any system, it is CRITICAL to match what you want in a computer to the components chosen, and there is a definite trade-off between system speed and stability.

Example: I have no interest whatsoever in 99.9% of the available computer games, but I also do some high-end EDA work (notably electronic schematics, circuit simulation, and PC board design). This calls for computing power that is at least somewhat comparable to systems built specifically for gaming. I also knew that stability (as in resistance to any sort of crashing, application or system) was critical to me.

Like you, I don't like a ton of extra stuff on my motherboards. With that in mind, I chose a Tyan dual-CPU board for the AMD Athlon MP chips, specifically the Tiger MPX. I kitted it out with two processors right from the get-go (Athlon MP2600's), and a full gig of ECC DRAM. The board itself comes with two serial, one parallel, two USB, and a 3Com 10/100 NIC all on board. Everything else is left to the end user. These days, that's about as bare-bones as I've seen any board get.

Tyan motherboards have a great reputation for stability in the face of all kinds of different configurations, but they're not very overclockable and, thus, not very popular with the gaming crowd. Tyan is the board you choose if you're building a serious server or high-end workstation, not something to game with.

One other thing that is absolutely vital if you're serious about DIY: Follow the CPU manufacturer's recommendations for motherboards, power supply, memory, and cooling. I cannot stress this strongly enough, particularly where the motherboard and power supply are concerned! Besides the Tyan mo-bo, I opted for Corsair memory DIMMs and a 550W power supply from PC Power & Cooling, all in accordance with AMD's recommendations for the MP series CPUs. A visit to their site will provide you with hardware recommendations for any of their CPUs, and it looks like Intel provides a very similar aid on their site.

The system has been with me for nearly two years now, and I've had ZERO trouble with it. Windows 2000 Pro (you won't catch me using XP, ever) has been solid as a rock on it, as have every single one of my applications.

Building your own system has a lot to say for it but, as others have pointed out, be prepared to pay more than you would for a pre-built box.

Happy tweaking.

...but that's not right.

The only DESKTOP board I could find that is still relatively "modern" is the Intel D875PBZ.

'nuff said.

This text looks like an unattributed rip from http://www.intel.com/technology/comms/uwb/ and http://developer.intel.com/technology/itj/q22001/a rticles/art_4.htm

This text looks like an unattributed rip from http://www.intel.com/technology/comms/uwb/ and http://developer.intel.com/technology/itj/q22001/a rticles/art_4.htm

Just wanted to add one more thing. Intel definitely does need to change their approach and they are starting to... They are going to a more platform-based approach.

The 450 MHz Pentium II was available in 1998. The link you provided was for the Pentium III. Here is Intel's press release for the 400Mhz Pentium II from April, 1998. The 450MHz version came out shortly after.

You're right. Intel was at 3.2 GHz when the G5 was introduced.

Let me change that around a little. Why would I want an X800? Will it make my web brwoser faster or speed up my data analysis?

Silly--everyone knows you need a Pentium to make your Internet faster. :-)

I must be missing something... I don't get why that was modded 'funny'.

Anyway, Intel's "Extended Memory 64 Technology" (EM64T) is compatible tech. They have Pentium 4 w/ EM64T and Xeon w/ EM64T processors that will run Win XP x64 Edition (and the Server 2003 x64 Editions) just fine.

Two quick examples of 10GigE adapters that do support operation over multi-mode fiber: Intel Pro/10GbE and Neterion (was S2IO) XframeII.

I'm willing to admit that their are some non-idiots that graduate from the typical CS program if you are willing to admit that most of the people who graduate from the typical EE program are carrying you guys on their shoulders.

Or maybe they'll put it among Moore's other images (doesn't show up currently).

Or maybe they'll put it among Moore's other images (doesn't show up currently).

Or maybe they'll put it among Moore's other images (doesn't show up currently).