Those *are* facts. The new system is better in every metric. The old system failed several times. Once it crashed and stayed down for the better part of the day.
The cause of the error in unknown... As always.
Anyway, there's no need for the "root cause". It failed. It was slow. Somebody had to eat a frog and scrap the whole system. And in the 90s they said nobody ever got fired for buying MS. Good old days. Too bad for some it's 2011!!
And you don't have to be bitter, MS' stock may hold a few months more with the Nokia buyout.:-)
Btw, they are _upgrading_ to Linux, because the previous system (Windows and.net) failed several times, required MW of energy and was slow.
This new _upgraded_ system is many orders of magnitude faster.
Unfortunately, it appears, it wasn't properly tested... WTH? I'd expect for the system to run only 100x faster, instead of 1000x faster, during the first few weeks. Or maybe that some API from 1990 stopped working. Wrong data is just too much. Maybe the story isn't telling all the facts?...Hmmm... Maybe the affected clients are running Windows?!!!!!!
And my bike has a set of training wheels. Which I remove whenever I don't wnat to carry the extra weight or enter competitions that require 2 wheel vehicles:-) So what?
Having worked with both I like deb/apt better. And in embedded/small environments even more. There's a reason why everything embedded runs debs (apt, ipkg, opkg, etc). Even the N770, N8xx, N900 are deb based.
Regarding the upgrades, usually apt is very capable. You can dist-upgrade debian since 199x? RPM based distros today can't do that. (there is some beta support that doesn't work)
We need some motherboards with a couple of hyper-transport-3 enabled A9s, and sockets for RAM. At least 8GB (16GB NUMA?). That connected to a semi-decent south bridge (with pci, pci-e, sata, usb et al.)
This board should cost less than USD$150 with the 2 A9s. And after a few months maybe < $100?
That's a dream because the A9s are not working in dual socket configurations yet and ARM doesn't invest in the desktop with a motherboard reference design. Sad...
"Interestingly enough, the systems based on Phenom II quad-cores (including the X4 965) draw quite a bit less power at idle than our Q9550-based test system."
"That said, the X4 965-based system draws only 15W more than the Q9550-based one. The gap between the Q9550- and X4 965-based systems is thus smaller than the processors' TDP ratings alone suggest. [In full load]"
"By virtue of its lower system power draw at idle and its ability to finish the rendering task sooner, the Phenom II X4 965 fares better than the Q9550 in our two most important measures of energy efficiency."
In this case Intel is not being nice. They will only sell Atoms for very restricted configurations (MUST use our chipset, can't have a PCIe slot, etc). Non-approved configurations pay 200% more, for less: the CPU without the chipset.
And you are "murdering" the ONE company (right now) that can compete with them and make Intel do The Right Thing (C)?
Intel is a nice company, but they are drawn, more and more, to the dark side of monopoly. It's so close they can feel it:-)
Please support competition. It's better for all of us in the long run.
Anyway, AMD graphics are way better than Intel's. If they keep up their current strategy of open-source, imagine what most geeks will be advising the non-geeks friends about the computer to buy for most configurations?
Slashdot Mirror
Even with the cracked bootloader, the company's attitude is not good, so I won't buy a phone from them.
Can't those idiots be sued?
Those *are* facts. The new system is better in every metric. The old system failed several times. Once it crashed and stayed down for the better part of the day.
The cause of the error in unknown... As always.
Anyway, there's no need for the "root cause". It failed. It was slow. Somebody had to eat a frog and scrap the whole system. And in the 90s they said nobody ever got fired for buying MS. Good old days. Too bad for some it's 2011!!
And you don't have to be bitter, MS' stock may hold a few months more with the Nokia buyout. :-)
Btw, they are _upgrading_ to Linux, because the previous system (Windows and .net) failed several times, required MW of energy and was slow.
This new _upgraded_ system is many orders of magnitude faster.
Unfortunately, it appears, it wasn't properly tested... WTH? I'd expect for the system to run only 100x faster, instead of 1000x faster, during the first few weeks. Or maybe that some API from 1990 stopped working. Wrong data is just too much. Maybe the story isn't telling all the facts? ...Hmmm... Maybe the affected clients are running Windows?!!!!!!
Google, Amazon, IBM, Redhat, ... Take your pick :-)
The man is no doubt a wizard in the arts of illusion, but what I'm more concerned about is the global Police State we're living in.
Tamagochi v2.0? :-)
We only have to wait for the upgrades :-)
Ehehehe
Karma to spare, uh? :-)
Or are you saying you have the first dual core smartphone from 2011? :-)
I hope the public sees that as admission of having a bad network and move elsewhere :-)
And my bike has a set of training wheels. Which I remove whenever I don't wnat to carry the extra weight or enter competitions that require 2 wheel vehicles :-) So what?
The car in TFA didn't have a battery. The solar panels are connected directly to the drive train/motor(s).
What can the German court do?
Hey Marcan! :-)
Good job with the AsbestOS
Maybe now it's possible to remove the hypervisor and run Linux in the bare hardware?
Kudos to you.
It's Portuguese ;-)
http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=&ie=UTF-8&text=errata&sl=pt&tl=en
"Portrugese"? :-)
Did you mean "Portuguese"?
100% correct.
Having worked with both I like deb/apt better. And in embedded/small environments even more. There's a reason why everything embedded runs debs (apt, ipkg, opkg, etc). Even the N770, N8xx, N900 are deb based.
Regarding the upgrades, usually apt is very capable. You can dist-upgrade debian since 199x? RPM based distros today can't do that. (there is some beta support that doesn't work)
If this was a poll I'd vote for apt.
It's cold there... Anyway it's nice to see that some countries have not fallen for the global brainwashing taking place today around the world.
Congrats to them!
(It's here, the dark ages began: we have to congratulate common sense)
I think we need PC-like motherboards. Mini-itx or even uATX. With slots for real RAM, PCI(e) and such.
My previous comment on this very subject a few days ago.
Maybe related to this in UK?
Windows for Warships:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/royal_navy_email_virus_outage/
We need some motherboards with a couple of hyper-transport-3 enabled A9s, and sockets for RAM. At least 8GB (16GB NUMA?). That connected to a semi-decent south bridge (with pci, pci-e, sata, usb et al.)
This board should cost less than USD$150 with the 2 A9s. And after a few months maybe < $100?
That's a dream because the A9s are not working in dual socket configurations yet and ARM doesn't invest in the desktop with a motherboard reference design. Sad...
Yes, I agree 100%.
However everybody still compares AMD's maximum with Intel's "average" numbers directly.
In this instance AMD has a better moral ground, I suppose. I still like Intel and AMD both :-)
Sadly, that is incorrect.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17402/11
"Interestingly enough, the systems based on Phenom II quad-cores (including the X4 965) draw quite a bit less power at idle than our Q9550-based test system."
"That said, the X4 965-based system draws only 15W more than the Q9550-based one. The gap between the Q9550- and X4 965-based systems is thus smaller than the processors' TDP ratings alone suggest. [In full load]"
"By virtue of its lower system power draw at idle and its ability to finish the rendering task sooner, the Phenom II X4 965 fares better than the Q9550 in our two most important measures of energy efficiency."
Yeah. Intel's TDP definition is different from AMD's. AMD reports the maximum wattage the CPU can burn at full load. Intel reports a "typical" number.
If this was an Intel CPU the number would be something like 90W or 95W for the very same CPU.
Anyway, everybody knows that. You can't trust vendor's numbers. Just do your own checking with a power meter.
In this case Intel is not being nice. They will only sell Atoms for very restricted configurations (MUST use our chipset, can't have a PCIe slot, etc). Non-approved configurations pay 200% more, for less: the CPU without the chipset.
And you are "murdering" the ONE company (right now) that can compete with them and make Intel do The Right Thing (C)?
Intel is a nice company, but they are drawn, more and more, to the dark side of monopoly. It's so close they can feel it :-)
Please support competition. It's better for all of us in the long run.
Anyway, AMD graphics are way better than Intel's. If they keep up their current strategy of open-source, imagine what most geeks will be advising the non-geeks friends about the computer to buy for most configurations?