Slashdot Mirror

For those that aren't completely retarded and yet still unwilling to learn a new interface, there is a GIMP plugin to make its UI approximate Photoshop

http://www.gimpshop.com/

And a set of downloads to make it behave like PS. They are of course mutually incompatible, but probably you would run into copyright issues making a program that exactly duplicated another program's UI and functionality. I further submit that it is somewhat unreasonable to desire or expect that from F/OSS.

http://laptoplogic.com/resources/configuring-gimp-2.6-to-replace-adobe-photoshop

The above article also refers to an alternative to GIMPshop called GimPhoto: GIYF.

About 12%, as reported here.

Great idea! Can you tell me how I can build my own laptop?

Sure, here are some instructions. I realize building your own computer isn't the best option for everyone, but buying your computer from a reputable retailer in the first place can pay off if you have problems. In other words, don't buy from "large Office Supply Store Chain" and do your homework before you buy any high cost items.

oups. here is 256GB SSD from PQI. I guess all you need to do is stack them. http://laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=2506

That's not factually true -

Apple hit 10 million users sometime in 2004 - http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/06macosx.html

As of March 07, there were about 22 million OS X users - http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/03/02/mac_install_base_estimated_at_22_million_pre_leopard.html

And last quarter alone, Apple shipped over 2 million macs - http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=3502&rfp=dta

Oh yeah, and Apple is #3 in laptop sales behind only Dell and HP.

Yes, still more Windows users (ZOMG! I can't believe it!), but c'mon, give OS X credit where credit is due - it is definitely selling, and selling pretty well.

Remains to be seen? laptops already represent significant consumer demand for solid state for almost 2 years and that would indeed be on a consumer level. Hybrid has ways of long term potential but solid state has far more long term potential (less moving parts as well).

I agree ram does more for performance for the time being, if and only if you don't meet a minimum level of said performance, but at this point if you are a gamer/programmer/autocad user/etc you're going to want to look at a solid state drive in the next 3 years anyway. Since 30 or 60 gigs of ram isn't *THAT* cheap yet, although that day will probably come as well but be at a relatively similar percentage of storage as it is now (since all data will likely increase in size/complexity). Unless we all get 500GB ram drives anytime soon, which I'd estimate to be an easy 5 years + away.

Examples: Autocad - Want to load a 3GB design/drawing/etc? I'm pretty sure solid state would be a lot nicer for things that big. Working on many big drawings/designs/etc? I'm pretty sure that'll save more than a few minutes almost instantly.

Gaming - Played Fury lately, or Team Fortress 2? Newer games are starting to have significant load times even with Sata2. Fury even on fast computers take 30+secs to load between maps, minimum. And that represents the new Unreal engine 3.

Samsung makes solid state notebook drives: http://laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=921

• The Samsung tuner has an HDMI output with HDCP. HDCP will be needed to watch broadcast flagged content in non-degraded HD.
• Includes a QAM tuner for unscrambled digital content from cable (even basic cable).
• More outputs/inputs dedicated for television. Converting hardware and software not needed. No complicated setup process for outputs.
• Lower startup time. Simpler startup process. Simpler EPG.

That's not a bad HTPC solution, though, except for the low-capacity notebook hard drive and non-upgradable graphics (for h.264 acceleration and HDCP output). The upcoming Intel Santa Rosa notebook platform (which has been pushed up to May) might solve these limitations (except for the hard drive).

Strangely in the testing done by laptoplogic.com Intel Pentium M 760 is beaten by Turion ML-37.
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id =17
The Tech Report used benchmarks giving an edge to Intel. Seems that if the benchamrks used were the same to those used by laptoplogic Turion would be clear winner.

I've been undervolting my HP zv5000z Athlon 64 notebook since July of 2004, and I got the idea from Silent PC Review where people were undervolting desktop Athlon 64s. I switched to using CrystalCPUID to manage speed and voltage since that initial post was written and most people have switched to RMclock. Lots of people on R3000 Forums and the HP forum at NotebookReview.com have been undervolting their notebooks. I believe I was the instigator on both of those forums.

Anyhow, I'm still undervolting, now with a Mobile-class Athlon 64 3200+ CPU that I swapped in some time ago (HP only used DTR-class chips). AMD is very conservative with their default voltage levels so there's lots of room to work with. I've set my CPU to run at roughly Low Voltage-class levels, close to what a Turion ML is rated to do. The machine is solid. I got great battery life before and even better battery life now. I was able to play DVD video for 3 hours (12 cell battery) and get closer to 4 hours in general use. That's with a 7200RPM HD too. Not bad for a desktop-replacement behemoth.

Note that if your machine usually runs at AMD's 800MHz idle speed, undervolting won't buy you much (if anything). AMD's PowerNOW! is already extremely efficient in normal use. If it jumps to full speed a lot, undervolting does wonders.

So, there's no need to suffer with a 32-bit-only Intel CPU and their awful integrated GPU if you want a long-lasting notebook.

(Anyone know how to undervolt under Linux? That's the one thing I've been missing...)

Read about the benefits Intel ascribes to 64-bit software here. "Processors with Intel EM64T support 64-bit capable operating systems from Microsoft, Red Hat and SuSE." And you won't be able to run them.

There are some applications where a 64-bit CPU can perform FOUR TIMES more work in 64-bit mode than 32-bit mode. One of these is big integer multiplication. Check out Is 32 bits really better than 64?": "If we instead would compare an Athlon XP and an Athlon 64, the latter would be almost 4 times faster. Why 4 times and not just 2 times? Because a 64x64=>128 bit integer multiplication actually performs 4 times more work than a 32x32=>64 bit integer multiplication!"

If you want a low power 64-bit CPU consider an AMD Turion based notebook. Check out this article and its conclusions. In particular, "A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip. Part of the total system power is also incorporated into AMD's TDP, as the memory controller is located on-chip. Intel's memory controller is built into the chipset and thus draws power not calculated as part of Dothan's TDP. Also while Turion 64 is at idle (800MHz clock speed), it's performance is likely to be higher due to the higher bandwidth data bus. All of these factors contribute to Turion 64 being more power efficient under low load circumstances."

And the -MT Turions have even lower power consumption: AMD Turion 64 specifications.

My next notebook will not be constrainted to only running x86-32 software.

Um There is no good reason to buy intel over amd.

Opteron(server):
"
The choice today is clear. In 2-way configurations, the Opteron is a much more powerful and capable web server than Intel?s Xeon. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p= 10

"In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server."
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p= 10

Athlon 64/FX/X2 (Home/workstation):

"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=13

"There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2456&p=9

AMD Turion 64 (mobile)

"In most categories, the Turion meets or exceeds Pentium M?s performance at a lower price point"
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1 /1/

Whoa? What's that? EVIDENCE that shows it's not worth buying intel on the basis of performance ever. INTEL does not have the performance crown. AMD processors do perform better, at a lower price point, and do consume less power and thus cost less to own over time (important for the server space).

Intel desktop processors cost more money, are slower, and use more heat.
right now AMD > INTEL

Pictures in stories here and here. Enjoy!

Hmm, fair comment about the graphics card overclock. I think this rather brings to light the difficulty there is with comparing mobile processors, given that it's pretty much impossible not to confound the results of such comparisons with greatly differing specs between test models, though the two machines in this case do actually compare pretty well save on the GPU.

About the point you made on the battery times, there was some feedback that raised similar concerns, which are addressed here. The "Life" test wasn't actually testing performance while the PC is idle, but rather while using the Business Winstone benchmarking app to simulate real user activity. They did say that they're going to be getting two new test models however to re-run the benchmarks anyway though.

LaptopLogic.com recently ran a comparison between the Pentium M (Dothan) and AMD's Turion, with a very comprehesive rundown of the technological differences between the two chips, and well, check out the review for the exact results, but the Turion beats the P-M in almost all of the non-synthetic benchmarks. The machines were set up so that they had almost identical specs save the processors, a pair of Acer machines (one of which sits under my hands now, the Ferrari 4005.. I was fairly pleased that the Turion did come out on top, especially for 3D gaming, given that I turned down the other reviewed machine, the TravelMate 8104, shortly before this comparison appeared).

One particularly interesting result is that while the P-M performed better at the 'battery eater' benchmark, i.e., constant battery usage, the Turion gave greater battery life with 'real life' usage, where the processor is not in constant use, when the power saving technologies come into play. So unless you really need to do CPU intensive tasks on the go, the Turion PowerNow gives better battery life.

Oh, and the Turion's also significantly cheaper, which unless you're lucky enough not to be on a budget, is definitely a plus (the article goes through the differences in cost if you want to see the figures).

Well, don't take my word for it, the article can be found here.