What very few people are realizing here, is that when someone buys a new car from Ford, part of the reason they spend as much as they do on that new mustang, is becuase they have a certain expectation of it's resale value. If, for some reason, they knew they wouldn't be able sell that car later, they probably wouldn't be willing to pay as much for it new.
Some of the value of a new car or book is the potential for the customer to recover some equity when they don't want it any more. Resale does make the manufacturer more money.
Just who do you expect is buying new motherboards? People hoping to drop in a replacement for the dead mobo in their XT? If you're happy with legacy ports and busses, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. For me, the next time I build a PC, I'd rather not have interrupts and physical space taken up by interfaces I haven't used in at least three years.
Well, I really did do it, but I am using the older 3.x cajun software(ie no db, no apache, etc). All that I really did to optimize it was to compile mpg123 with the 486 optimization flag. It still will probably only play up to about 160kbps mp3s without skipping. Later I patched mpg123 to buffer the entire mp3 in RAM before decoding/playing - but that was just to reduce the noise I was picking up from the IDE bus. This guy built a dos based car mp3 player using the same motherboard that I did (scroll about halfway down the page, look for "Advantech PCM-4825").
My cajun system uses a 486-133MHz for full quality mp3 playback, and only uses ~40% of the processor resources to do it, I just had to make sure mpg123 was compiled w/ 486 optimizations.
Well, I'm sorry. I should have said CISC doesn't really lend its self to low power consumtion - too many transistors relative to processing performance.
Is it really so hard to make a small, power-saving Pentium-compatible chip?
Yes. This is the problem Transmeta tried to address. There are a few embedded x86 processors out there but most of them aren't all that low power. The first "Pentium Compatible" one that springs to mind is the National Semiconductor "Geode". There are also 486 compatible embedded microcontrollers like the AMD SC410/520, and the ZFMicro MachZ.The real problem is that CISC doesn't really lend its self to low power consumtion - too many transistors.
That's a good point, esp. since ARM has the "thumb" 16-bit instructions. It's been my experience lately though (in embedded industrial controllers), that the systems I deal with have a surplus of RAM and flash memory. This is mostly because the older lower density RAM and flash chips are either discontinued or more expensive than slightly-less-old and higher density chips. For consumer products, where people will pack as many applications and data as they can into the available space it still is an issue.
There are plenty of embedded niches left to fill, and I'm sure this will find it's way into a few of them.
Geez, God forbid that we have more than one instruction set available for the embedded market. There's nothing wrong with ARM, but there's nothing wrong with MIPs either, and a little competition never hurt.
I think their claim may be true in a literal sense, but I wonder how effecitve their reviewing has actually been so far? I mean in a literal sense, a man-year of work could be 700 people working until noon too, it doesn't mean they're really getting anything done.Still, I'm really glad they're making the effort.
Re:Does this mean ...
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 3, Funny
(With apologies to Monty Python) PHB: Bring out your dead! MS: Here's one. Unix: I'm not dead. PHB: What!? MS: Nothing. Unix: I'm not dead! PHB: Ere', he says he's not dead. MS: Yes he is! Unix: I'm not! PHB: He isn't? MS: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill. Unix: I'm getting better! MS: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
While you've provided some interesting practical examples, please explain to me exactly where my misunderstanding about faraday cages, and waveguides lies.
As far as I can tell, in order for a waveguide to be functional, it has to have a diameter that is a multiple of the wavelenth (I say again a processor pin won't cut it as a waveguide for 2.4GHz), and faraday cages are generally effective at blocking wavelengths down to about 10x their aperature size (none of the shields on those 802.11b cards looked like they had gaps >.2 inches).
Could you please try a real explanation and not just anectdotes? If there's somthing I'm missing I really do want to understand it and I'm not just being argumentative.
It's true that Sharp should probably look on reveiws like this as constructive criticism to help improve their products. As for me, I don't have anything to do with how Sharp develops their products and if I see a reveiw that looks like ignorant bunk, I'm gonna call a spade a spade. I don't see how I have any obligation to Sharp, Mossberg, or anyone else to tailor my opinions to suit them.
As far as waveguides and faraday sheilds go, doesn't a waveguide have to have a greater than or equal to the wavelength of the signal it carries (reasonable multiples and fractions may also work)? Similarly, doesn't an opening in a faraday shield have to be larger than the wavelength of a signal for that signal to get through. Since the wavelength of a 2.4GHz signal is about 5 inches, I don't think that it's likey that these processor pins will function as waveguides for it nor is it likley that any 2.4Ghz emissions that make it past the enormous heatsink and the motherboards groundplane will get through the holes in those shields.
If I am grossly wrong about any of this please correct me.
AFAIK there are no PCI 802.11b cards. There are PCMCIA 802.11b cards bundled with a PCI > PCMCIA adapter card. Since the PCMCIA cards already have their own faraday shield and the antenna is outside the computers chassis, I doubt that there is very much interference in either direction. Also, I dont think that any of those 478 pins actually cary any 2.4 GHz signals and probably a third of them are power or ground pins.
I actually do all those things with my PDA, and for me it's especially good for things like quick notes because they come out legible [mutters about written languages optimized for the right-handed], and I dont lose them.
Using good thermal conductors for keeping things cool only works when they are hotter than ambient. This stuff will not help keep your fridge or your keg cool. Also, using this foam for cooling things like engines will only work as long as it can transfer heat to the air more efficiently than what they already have, otherwise the foam will just get heat-saturated and your engine will still be too hot.
Except that ESD foam is electrically conductive, not (very) thermally conductive. Actually, ESD foam isn't really even all that electrically conductive.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you can just keep an old cell phone around without service and it will still do 911.(Just don't forget to keep it charged)
What very few people are realizing here, is that when someone buys a new car from Ford, part of the reason they spend as much as they do on that new mustang, is becuase they have a certain expectation of it's resale value. If, for some reason, they knew they wouldn't be able sell that car later, they probably wouldn't be willing to pay as much for it new.
Some of the value of a new car or book is the potential for the customer to recover some equity when they don't want it any more. Resale does make the manufacturer more money.
I thinks it actually somthing like 127 or 255 devices per USB port. It's hard to imagine what you'd do with that many devices sharing 11Mbps though...
Just who do you expect is buying new motherboards? People hoping to drop in a replacement for the dead mobo in their XT? If you're happy with legacy ports and busses, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. For me, the next time I build a PC, I'd rather not have interrupts and physical space taken up by interfaces I haven't used in at least three years.
Well, I really did do it, but I am using the older 3.x cajun software(ie no db, no apache, etc). All that I really did to optimize it was to compile mpg123 with the 486 optimization flag. It still will probably only play up to about 160kbps mp3s without skipping. Later I patched mpg123 to buffer the entire mp3 in RAM before decoding/playing - but that was just to reduce the noise I was picking up from the IDE bus. This guy built a dos based car mp3 player using the same motherboard that I did (scroll about halfway down the page, look for "Advantech PCM-4825").
My cajun system uses a 486-133MHz for full quality mp3 playback, and only uses ~40% of the processor resources to do it, I just had to make sure mpg123 was compiled w/ 486 optimizations.
Well, I'm sorry. I should have said CISC doesn't really lend its self to low power consumtion - too many transistors relative to processing performance.
Yes. This is the problem Transmeta tried to address. There are a few embedded x86 processors out there but most of them aren't all that low power. The first "Pentium Compatible" one that springs to mind is the National Semiconductor "Geode". There are also 486 compatible embedded microcontrollers like the AMD SC410/520, and the ZFMicro MachZ.The real problem is that CISC doesn't really lend its self to low power consumtion - too many transistors.
That's a good point, esp. since ARM has the "thumb" 16-bit instructions. It's been my experience lately though (in embedded industrial controllers), that the systems I deal with have a surplus of RAM and flash memory. This is mostly because the older lower density RAM and flash chips are either discontinued or more expensive than slightly-less-old and higher density chips. For consumer products, where people will pack as many applications and data as they can into the available space it still is an issue.
There are plenty of embedded niches left to fill, and I'm sure this will find it's way into a few of them.
Geez, God forbid that we have more than one instruction set available for the embedded market. There's nothing wrong with ARM, but there's nothing wrong with MIPs either, and a little competition never hurt.
I think their claim may be true in a literal sense, but I wonder how effecitve their reviewing has actually been so far? I mean in a literal sense, a man-year of work could be 700 people working until noon too, it doesn't mean they're really getting anything done.Still, I'm really glad they're making the effort.
(With apologies to Monty Python)
PHB: Bring out your dead!
MS: Here's one.
Unix: I'm not dead.
PHB: What!?
MS: Nothing.
Unix: I'm not dead!
PHB: Ere', he says he's not dead.
MS: Yes he is!
Unix: I'm not!
PHB: He isn't?
MS: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
Unix: I'm getting better!
MS: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
While you've provided some interesting practical examples, please explain to me exactly where my misunderstanding about faraday cages, and waveguides lies.
As far as I can tell, in order for a waveguide to be functional, it has to have a diameter that is a multiple of the wavelenth (I say again a processor pin won't cut it as a waveguide for 2.4GHz), and faraday cages are generally effective at blocking wavelengths down to about 10x their aperature size (none of the shields on those 802.11b cards looked like they had gaps >.2 inches).
Could you please try a real explanation and not just anectdotes? If there's somthing I'm missing I really do want to understand it and I'm not just being argumentative.
It's true that Sharp should probably look on reveiws like this as constructive criticism to help improve their products. As for me, I don't have anything to do with how Sharp develops their products and if I see a reveiw that looks like ignorant bunk, I'm gonna call a spade a spade. I don't see how I have any obligation to Sharp, Mossberg, or anyone else to tailor my opinions to suit them.
I stand corrected on the PCI 802.11b cards.
As far as waveguides and faraday sheilds go, doesn't a waveguide have to have a greater than or equal to the wavelength of the signal it carries (reasonable multiples and fractions may also work)? Similarly, doesn't an opening in a faraday shield have to be larger than the wavelength of a signal for that signal to get through. Since the wavelength of a 2.4GHz signal is about 5 inches, I don't think that it's likey that these processor pins will function as waveguides for it nor is it likley that any 2.4Ghz emissions that make it past the enormous heatsink and the motherboards groundplane will get through the holes in those shields.
If I am grossly wrong about any of this please correct me.
AFAIK there are no PCI 802.11b cards. There are PCMCIA 802.11b cards bundled with a PCI > PCMCIA adapter card. Since the PCMCIA cards already have their own faraday shield and the antenna is outside the computers chassis, I doubt that there is very much interference in either direction. Also, I dont think that any of those 478 pins actually cary any 2.4 GHz signals and probably a third of them are power or ground pins.
It may be usefull if the user can connect but isn't able to figure out how to configure their mail/news/IM client.
I actually do all those things with my PDA, and for me it's especially good for things like quick notes because they come out legible [mutters about written languages optimized for the right-handed], and I dont lose them.
That really depends on where the people are.
Wow! So if I only need to crack 128-bit keys I only need to spend something like $1.93831e-258! I can't wait to get started.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding then.
Using good thermal conductors for keeping things cool only works when they are hotter than ambient. This stuff will not help keep your fridge or your keg cool. Also, using this foam for cooling things like engines will only work as long as it can transfer heat to the air more efficiently than what they already have, otherwise the foam will just get heat-saturated and your engine will still be too hot.
Except that ESD foam is electrically conductive, not (very) thermally conductive. Actually, ESD foam isn't really even all that electrically conductive.
If you find yourself worrying about fish pirates in stealth submarines, you've got bigger problems.
But in that case, you can just compile more than one program at a time.