Slashdot Mirror
Intel Slashes Computer Startup Times
An anonymous reader writes "At Intel's Developer Forum in Taiwan, Intel introduced a new Non-volatile caching technology called 'Robson'." The new Robson cache technology allows computers to start up almost immediately and load programs much faster. Intel declined to comment on the specifics of how the technology works only saying that 'More information will be revealed later'.
Going up and coming down sounds like you going down you clown
Sucking cocks smiling no frown
Untill I pound yo ass into the ground
I keep my slashdot clique tight as hell
We connect like rogers, at&t and bell
Got the hook ups on slashdot we dealing crack
Cleared out the n00bs now we selling smack
Got fiends on slashdot all want my shit
So I pump it through sourceforge in my tinted whip
I'm ill as can be and you whack as can be
They should call you the small dick G
Mac users have already been enjoying lightning-fast boot and wake-from-sleep times for years.
IME, OS X boot times beat the living shit out of Windows boot times. I've seen years-old, sub-1GHz G4s boot faster than home-built (i.e. lacking all the extra, cycle-eating horseshit programs that hobble your average Dell or HP PC) 2.0+GHz Wintel boxes with fresh installs of XP.
Windows is even more embarassingly beaten when you compare OS X Server with Windows 2000 or 2003 Server. Those fuckers take FOREVER to reboot.
I don't know why Intel is working so hard to try to make Microsoft look good. Improvements to hardware can't fix shitty software.
Thought the same thing. My laptop have only been booted once when i installed Ubuntu and has been hibernating ever since. At home first time in months my desktop was rebooted was yesterday when i changed my mobo. I agree, this boot time thing must be some windows thingy.
HTTP/1.1 400
There in the middle of testing that new Mike Tyson language checker: "informatin."
some of us actually turn computers (and nearly all other electronic devices) off at the socket (outlet) when not using them, you know. saves on the electric bill, and the planet.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
So, Jimmy Olsen, you sounded moderately professional (or at least like the B&H Catalog) until you 'sadly' claimed "depth of field is a psychological effect."
WHICH IT IS NOT.
It is a very real effect/limitation (depending on what you want out of any particular photo) that is caused by physical interaction between light rays, the aperature, and lenses in your camera.
It is commonly described as the distance between the furthest object in the photo in focus and the nearest object in the photo in focus.
Small digital cameras commonly have wider-angle lenses, which you should know have deeper depth of field - allowing a good-all-around photo from your 'snapshot' situation. Once the photo is taken, a large print will have the same things out of focus as a smaller version of the same image; it's the same recorded image. The sharpness/blurriness is set at the point of creation (ignoring post-production Photoshoppin'). The only time this would not be apparent would be at extremes, where a photo is reproduced so small that the clarity might appear uniform because it's simply too small to make out the lack of sharpness. Conversly, the 'sharpness' of a photo might be rather difficult to discern if you were, say, trying to spot that body under the shrub after you enlarge the photo to wall size and you were seeing the grain of the film (ed.: That's a "Blow Up" joke, 1966, dir. M. Antonioni). Either way, these parts of the photo that are in focus or not are _physical_ attributes and NOT "psychological" attributes of the original image, film or digital.
It's not open for discussion if an object in a photo is out of focus - your childhood memories or daily melancholy are not going to 'put it all in focus' on a psychological level. How you _react_ to an shallow depth of field in a photo or a totally crisp photo _can_ change.
Any actual photography involved with you or is it all tech-specs? I just don't see it if you mangle something as core to photography as 'depth of field' into "a psychological effect"..."anecdotally true...at small print sizes like 6" by 4"."
I'll quote Rushmore: "You're like your plays, Fisher... All talk, No action"
Yeah, let's brag about our willingness to waste electricity. If it doesn't need to be on, turn it off or use sleep mode.
Ultimately, sleep mode seems to show that Robson is kind of a waste, as my computers wake up from sleep to full productivity in five seconds.