From they way they describe the test, it sounds less like it improved vision and more like it improved visual processing, which is nothing new. Isn't it? It's not something I follow closely but I'm only aware of tests that have previously linked playing games with improved hand-eye coordination, which is also "improved visual processing" I guess, but not the same thing as what this test is showing. Improving what your brain can resolve from what it sees is probably not so different from just seeing better in many situations.
We get better at things we do more often. Sight isn't a skill like playing a sport. By your logic someone who has sex or masturbates a lot will ejaculate "better". Maybe true, but it's certainly not a given....although if anyone would know that one I think Slashdot is the place to look.
Comparing the complexity of system calls made by two different programs on two different OSes and then using that solely to judge the two differing OSes seems like an astoundingly flawed comparison. Seeing as Apache runs on Linux and Windows it seems pretty obvious that they should've used at least used the same program to make this comparison even slightly relevant.
I'm not saying Windows isn't worse than Linux in this respect, just that this article proves nothing.
In fact there are no other 30GB portable music players, the Zune is the only one and it still only has 10.2% market share. That's ...still no reason not to always carry your Anti-Zune Squirt Pills though.
Well whether they use that particular method or not, the point is that the existing materials Intel are using for the 65nm process apparently aren't up to the task at the 45nm scale. If that's wrong well I guess I've been misled by the articles I've read on the subject.
The hafnium and high-k metal gates are pre-requisites for the 45nm process. The two articles highlighted might vary somewhat in focus but they're definitely reporting the same thing.
Sorry but why is this being reported again now? We already knew Intel and IBM had achieved a 45nm process and that it would be coming to mass-market chips in 2007-08. It's 2007 and it's here. Hooray and all that, but is a company following through on its claims really so shocking that it constitutes being reported again... twice?
Technically yes. But practically speaking any small change, update, addition, or fix will be referred to as a patch. And that's clearly what we're referring to here seeing as we're talking about service packs which do more than just fix bugs.
Yeah, but thats not Patching in the sence we're talking about here...adding new/upgraded functionality for free is a Good Thing(TM). Fixing something that was broken to begin with isn't. - Oh absolutely. I'm not suggesting SP1 is in any way a positive thing, I'm just pointing out that patching in general isn't inherently a bad thing, even if some do choose to abuse it.
People are whining that Microsoft promised a major step forward, spent the better part of a decade in development, pushing back the ETA over and over again, and now after all that time they've produced something which has lost virtually all of the features that once made it interesting and somehow they still haven't finished the product properly. So you're asking if people are whining because it took too long or because they rushed it - both. It's far later than originally planned, far smaller in ambition than originally stated, and still unfinished. In other words people are whining because Microsoft haven't made good on any of the promises surrounding Vista (in all its guises) for the last half-dozen years.
I don't think anyone is surprised that they're releasing SP1 so soon. It's just disappointing that it's lived down to expectations.
Well that's one side of the coin. On the other side you've got other products that have been able to continue improving over the years and respond to changes in technology to extend their effective product lifetime - things that would otherwise have been provided as costly upgrades or "new versions" if it weren't for patching. Sometimes patches (and the fundamental expectation that they're free) can actually be a good way to get value for money from a product. Just not in this case.
Releasing a service pack so soon after release is basically an admission on Microsoft's part that Vista was rushed out incomplete. All this means is that anyone planning their upgrade schedule should really count the release of SP1 as if it were the initial release of Vista (ie. wait at least 6-12 months on from that point to allow issues to be resolved). Yet another reason not to switch to Vista in the forseeable future.
Well they also say it stores 160kb, aka 20kB, so presumably by 2000 words they mean words of ten characters (or nine plus spaces) encoded in ASCII. Doesn't really matter, the 160kb is the important bit.
Yes, but we're dealing with a technical term that has entered public mindset and right there you've got two definitions for it. One as you described and another that's "really fast internet". The two different uses don't necessarily tie in.
For example modern dial-up connections are technically broadband, yet if I started marketing my 56kbps service as broadband how long do you think I'd last before being bitchslapped with false advertising accusations?
The trouble is that "broadband" is a completely vague term. I seem to recall anything under 256kbps was labelled as "midband" here in the UK for a while until it died simply because no ISPs provided it when broadband became widespread.
What's really necessary though is a specific rule on performance for what can be called broadband. Whether that's a specific speed in kbps or some kind of equation based on the average users supposed bandwidth requirement for a given year (ie. a bandwidth equivalent of the Retail Price Index) is up for debate, just so long as there's a solid rule that can be applied to determine if something can be marketed as broadband or classified as broadband for whatever reports need to be based on it.
In fact there are no other 30GB portable music players, the Zune is the only one and it still only has 10.2% market share. That's What's the end of that sentence? Tune in same time same place next week folks!
Probably convenient that there is no 30 gigabyte iPod. In fact there are no other 30GB portable music players, the Zune is the only one and it still only has 10.2% market share. That's
The main reason is that many people are scared to move to a new product, while others don't want to have to learn something new (Even if it's minimal). Comfort zone is everything. Yes but that's the OP's point. Office 2007 is in many ways more different from previous versions than OO.org is, making it the perfect time to make the switch.
Starcraft is indeed still a great game. Although it seems a sequel probably will come out, whch is great news, I think for now Dawn Of War is probably so similar to what I'd expect of Starcraft 2 that I'm not too worried with how long it takes to develop.
You just know it'd be from the prequel trilogy and let's face it that's a recipe for tripe no matter which way you spin it. Even if it wasn't a cheap cash-in on the licence it'd still be based on a set of films and vehicles which hold no interest for me whatsoever. That's one game series that's best left buried.
You're probably already aware but Bioshock is in development which is effectively System Shock 3, or at least as close as you're ever gonna get to it. Due out 2nd half of 2007 apparently.
Now I'm not usually one to get all up in arms about the appearance of a program, but IE7 looks well and truly ugly to my eyes, and for the 5 minutes or so that I bothered buggering around with it I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to move the toolbar icons and the addressbar in any useful way. Contrast that with Firefox, which handles the toolbar UI configuration very well and MS looks immediately to be onto a loser.
While people might argue about all manner of things like standards support, security, and rendering speed; the initial ugliness and apparent difficulty/impossibility to configure the UI to my liking is probably going to put more people off IE7 within 5 minutes than anything else.
I presume there is a way to change the UI (hell, even IE6 could do that) and maybe it's actually quite obvious if you take the time to look, but quite frankly why should I when Firefox can do it right off the bat in an intuitive manner? I think that's the way a lot of casual users see it too.
Slashdot Mirror
Comparing the complexity of system calls made by two different programs on two different OSes and then using that solely to judge the two differing OSes seems like an astoundingly flawed comparison. Seeing as Apache runs on Linux and Windows it seems pretty obvious that they should've used at least used the same program to make this comparison even slightly relevant.
I'm not saying Windows isn't worse than Linux in this respect, just that this article proves nothing.
Marge: Yeah, that's right jazir1979. Vista DOWNgrades.
Bart: Zing!
Holy anti-climax Batman!
Well whether they use that particular method or not, the point is that the existing materials Intel are using for the 65nm process apparently aren't up to the task at the 45nm scale. If that's wrong well I guess I've been misled by the articles I've read on the subject.
The hafnium and high-k metal gates are pre-requisites for the 45nm process. The two articles highlighted might vary somewhat in focus but they're definitely reporting the same thing.
Sorry but why is this being reported again now? We already knew Intel and IBM had achieved a 45nm process and that it would be coming to mass-market chips in 2007-08. It's 2007 and it's here. Hooray and all that, but is a company following through on its claims really so shocking that it constitutes being reported again... twice?
Technically yes. But practically speaking any small change, update, addition, or fix will be referred to as a patch. And that's clearly what we're referring to here seeing as we're talking about service packs which do more than just fix bugs.
People are whining that Microsoft promised a major step forward, spent the better part of a decade in development, pushing back the ETA over and over again, and now after all that time they've produced something which has lost virtually all of the features that once made it interesting and somehow they still haven't finished the product properly. So you're asking if people are whining because it took too long or because they rushed it - both. It's far later than originally planned, far smaller in ambition than originally stated, and still unfinished. In other words people are whining because Microsoft haven't made good on any of the promises surrounding Vista (in all its guises) for the last half-dozen years.
I don't think anyone is surprised that they're releasing SP1 so soon. It's just disappointing that it's lived down to expectations.
Well that's one side of the coin. On the other side you've got other products that have been able to continue improving over the years and respond to changes in technology to extend their effective product lifetime - things that would otherwise have been provided as costly upgrades or "new versions" if it weren't for patching. Sometimes patches (and the fundamental expectation that they're free) can actually be a good way to get value for money from a product. Just not in this case.
Releasing a service pack so soon after release is basically an admission on Microsoft's part that Vista was rushed out incomplete. All this means is that anyone planning their upgrade schedule should really count the release of SP1 as if it were the initial release of Vista (ie. wait at least 6-12 months on from that point to allow issues to be resolved). Yet another reason not to switch to Vista in the forseeable future.
Wait, so how many United States' Declaration of Independence do you get per Libraries of Congress? At room temperature, obviously.
Well they also say it stores 160kb, aka 20kB, so presumably by 2000 words they mean words of ten characters (or nine plus spaces) encoded in ASCII. Doesn't really matter, the 160kb is the important bit.
Yes, but we're dealing with a technical term that has entered public mindset and right there you've got two definitions for it. One as you described and another that's "really fast internet". The two different uses don't necessarily tie in.
For example modern dial-up connections are technically broadband, yet if I started marketing my 56kbps service as broadband how long do you think I'd last before being bitchslapped with false advertising accusations?
The trouble is that "broadband" is a completely vague term. I seem to recall anything under 256kbps was labelled as "midband" here in the UK for a while until it died simply because no ISPs provided it when broadband became widespread.
What's really necessary though is a specific rule on performance for what can be called broadband. Whether that's a specific speed in kbps or some kind of equation based on the average users supposed bandwidth requirement for a given year (ie. a bandwidth equivalent of the Retail Price Index) is up for debate, just so long as there's a solid rule that can be applied to determine if something can be marketed as broadband or classified as broadband for whatever reports need to be based on it.
Starcraft is indeed still a great game. Although it seems a sequel probably will come out, whch is great news, I think for now Dawn Of War is probably so similar to what I'd expect of Starcraft 2 that I'm not too worried with how long it takes to develop.
You just know it'd be from the prequel trilogy and let's face it that's a recipe for tripe no matter which way you spin it. Even if it wasn't a cheap cash-in on the licence it'd still be based on a set of films and vehicles which hold no interest for me whatsoever. That's one game series that's best left buried.
You're probably already aware but Bioshock is in development which is effectively System Shock 3, or at least as close as you're ever gonna get to it. Due out 2nd half of 2007 apparently.
Now I'm not usually one to get all up in arms about the appearance of a program, but IE7 looks well and truly ugly to my eyes, and for the 5 minutes or so that I bothered buggering around with it I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to move the toolbar icons and the addressbar in any useful way. Contrast that with Firefox, which handles the toolbar UI configuration very well and MS looks immediately to be onto a loser.
While people might argue about all manner of things like standards support, security, and rendering speed; the initial ugliness and apparent difficulty/impossibility to configure the UI to my liking is probably going to put more people off IE7 within 5 minutes than anything else.
I presume there is a way to change the UI (hell, even IE6 could do that) and maybe it's actually quite obvious if you take the time to look, but quite frankly why should I when Firefox can do it right off the bat in an intuitive manner? I think that's the way a lot of casual users see it too.
Now if someone can explain why my Megadrive turned yellow?!