I bet you also grew up using a spoon and fork, heaven forbid you to ever use chopsticks.
On that note, would you consider Mac OS X a failure? it surely doesn't resemble Windows at all, yet people happily switch and adapt (interesting, humans.. 'adapting'!) and the majority who switch never go back. So what is your argument on that?
I'm curious why you only choose to attack that portion of my comment?
The point is, people switch to other operating systems regardless of how 'similar' it was to the previously used one. There are multiple ways to eat food, multiple ways to get around, multiple ways to use your computer.
(i apologize for the poorly formatted version of this post)
I bet you also grew up using a spoon and fork, heaven forbid you to ever use chopsticks.
On that note, would you consider Mac OS X a failure? it surely doesn't resemble Windows at all, yet people happily switch and adapt (interesting, humans.. 'adapting'!) and the majority who switch never go back. So what is your argument on that?
I'm curious why you only choose to attack that portion of my comment?
The point is, people switch to other operating systems regardless of how 'similar' it was to the previously used one. There are multiple ways to eat food, multiple ways to get around, multiple ways to use your computer.
There is no failure other than your misconception. You have to understand how Windows got to where it is today, and we have the deal with IBM to thank for that. Honestly, that's the only real reason why Windows was so popular, that, and there was really no other alternative at the time.
Regarding the 'failure to penetrate the mass market', well, also understand until as of late, there has not been BIG MONEY to promote linux on the desktop. and only this year has any MAJOR PC manufacturer started to ship with a linux based operating system.
And why does Linux have to be 'as good as Windows once was?'. Windows is a failure, [vista's/] it's penetration into the mass market speaks for that.
And again, why must it be like Windows? do you really think windows is *THAT* much easier than Linux alternatives? (or *BSD, etc), or perhaps is it just that you grew up on windows and are used to the way things work?
And I'll make you a deal, the day a Windows installer prompts you for "{Windows,Linux,*BSD,DOS, etc..} has been detected on your computer, would you like to setup multiple boot?" ill personally write the software to do the same. (though, not in GTK, as i prefer Qt and KDE vastly more:)
These speeds are basically marketing hype. the need to start declaring 54MB at [b]half-duplex[/b]. We all know marketers love big numbers, but what they dont tell you is it runs at half-duplex, so you lucky to even get half of the rated speed. Although, at higher bandwidth rates (and hopefully increased throughput!) this will become less and less of a problem.
Are you too stupid to read past the headlines? Intel is no where mentioned accusing AMD of bogus benchmarks. ZDNet accused them, moron, even the fucking header says that.
Get a life fanboy, not every anti-AMD post is a result of Intel bitching.
In the broader sense of an 'architecture' in my mind, AMDs has a more advanced one than Intel (the integrated and hypertransport IO/multi-processor strategy).
Then it seems your mind needs an update. Intel's Core 2 architecture is significantly better than AMD's current or past (and seemingly future) architectures.
Putting all the fanboy drivel aside for a moment; Intel's processors are faster without using more transistors, indications that the architecture is more optimized and makes better use of the available transistors. Intel's processors scale vastly better than AMD's offerings both current and future.
Also consider, the die shrink to 65nm for AMD produced little to no benefits in speed and scalability (read: you couldn't over clock them very much) Also, if anyone remembers, the Pentium M (which the Core 2 is based off) was benchmarked a few years ago against the AMD 64bit desktop processors and spanked them, no not in all cases or by any significant margin, but the fact a low power laptop processor (32bit) matched a 64bit mid-range/hi-end processor from AMD; that should indicate the advantages of the architecture.
Just because Intel does not currently have the memory controller on board, as well as the use of the older FSB does not make the Intel architecture any less advanced, the proof is in the puddin`, check any benchmark that puts current purchaseable processors and see how wins.
You're right about Intel, they will be releasing CSI (common system interconnect) for their processors in `08, if CSI does for Intel what even half of HT did for AMD, they may be in very serious trouble.
"mists" - what the fuck? You're a stupid shit. The word is "midst" you moron. That kind of error tells me that you don't read, ever. It's a typical error made by someone who is only accustomed to the spoken word. Therefore, you are swine. Since you don't read books and you're a fucking average piece of garage, my advice to you is to go fucking kill yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
So they donated Intel processors?
I bet you also grew up using a spoon and fork, heaven forbid you to ever use chopsticks.
On that note, would you consider Mac OS X a failure? it surely doesn't resemble Windows at all, yet people happily switch and adapt (interesting, humans.. 'adapting'!) and the majority who switch never go back. So what is your argument on that?
I'm curious why you only choose to attack that portion of my comment?
The point is, people switch to other operating systems regardless of how 'similar' it was to the previously used one. There are multiple ways to eat food, multiple ways to get around, multiple ways to use your computer.
(i apologize for the poorly formatted version of this post)
I bet you also grew up using a spoon and fork, heaven forbid you to ever use chopsticks. On that note, would you consider Mac OS X a failure? it surely doesn't resemble Windows at all, yet people happily switch and adapt (interesting, humans.. 'adapting'!) and the majority who switch never go back. So what is your argument on that? I'm curious why you only choose to attack that portion of my comment? The point is, people switch to other operating systems regardless of how 'similar' it was to the previously used one. There are multiple ways to eat food, multiple ways to get around, multiple ways to use your computer.
There is no failure other than your misconception. You have to understand how Windows got to where it is today, and we have the deal with IBM to thank for that. Honestly, that's the only real reason why Windows was so popular, that, and there was really no other alternative at the time.
:)
Regarding the 'failure to penetrate the mass market', well, also understand until as of late, there has not been BIG MONEY to promote linux on the desktop. and only this year has any MAJOR PC manufacturer started to ship with a linux based operating system.
And why does Linux have to be 'as good as Windows once was?'. Windows is a failure, [vista's/] it's penetration into the mass market speaks for that.
And again, why must it be like Windows? do you really think windows is *THAT* much easier than Linux alternatives? (or *BSD, etc), or perhaps is it just that you grew up on windows and are used to the way things work?
And I'll make you a deal, the day a Windows installer prompts you for "{Windows,Linux,*BSD,DOS, etc..} has been detected on your computer, would you like to setup multiple boot?" ill personally write the software to do the same. (though, not in GTK, as i prefer Qt and KDE vastly more
I just want you to know...
That Page is over 4 years old..
*sigh*
These speeds are basically marketing hype. the need to start declaring 54MB at [b]half-duplex[/b]. We all know marketers love big numbers, but what they dont tell you is it runs at half-duplex, so you lucky to even get half of the rated speed. Although, at higher bandwidth rates (and hopefully increased throughput!) this will become less and less of a problem.
Multi-Gigabit [half duplex] FTW!...(ish)
Sorry I should have clarified, I meant scaled in the sense of clock frequency (overclocking).
Are you too stupid to read past the headlines? Intel is no where mentioned accusing AMD of bogus benchmarks. ZDNet accused them, moron, even the fucking header says that.
Get a life fanboy, not every anti-AMD post is a result of Intel bitching.
(and yes, i know this is slashdot, but come on..)
Then it seems your mind needs an update. Intel's Core 2 architecture is significantly better than AMD's current or past (and seemingly future) architectures.
Putting all the fanboy drivel aside for a moment;
Intel's processors are faster without using more transistors, indications that the architecture is more optimized and makes better use of the available transistors.
Intel's processors scale vastly better than AMD's offerings both current and future.
Also consider, the die shrink to 65nm for AMD produced little to no benefits in speed and scalability (read: you couldn't over clock them very much)
Also, if anyone remembers, the Pentium M (which the Core 2 is based off) was benchmarked a few years ago against the AMD 64bit desktop processors and spanked them, no not in all cases or by any significant margin, but the fact a low power laptop processor (32bit) matched a 64bit mid-range/hi-end processor from AMD; that should indicate the advantages of the architecture.
Just because Intel does not currently have the memory controller on board, as well as the use of the older FSB does not make the Intel architecture any less advanced, the proof is in the puddin`, check any benchmark that puts current purchaseable processors and see how wins.
You're right about Intel, they will be releasing CSI (common system interconnect) for their processors in `08, if CSI does for Intel what even half of HT did for AMD, they may be in very serious trouble.
Sorry, but the rest of your post is moot.
..another reason to no longer put my faith into google.
-.-
the processors microcode has nothing to do with the bios therefore there is no reason for motherboard manufacturers to release an update.
my question is though: is this specific to windows, or will linux and other be affected as well?
i'm guessing no, as intel is usually very good about supporting our community; but that is all hearsay without any foundation.
Haha
You're the garbage, jackass.
based on spelling alone I can believe your signature!
or possibly one with "off" spelled correctly
=)
Why must the word "design" imply "intelligent design" ?
You could just as easily stipulate that the plants evolved into that 'design'.
For all I (we) know plants originated underwater and evolved out onto land.
meh.
That's not the point however, the plants that live underwater are designed to.
Trees for instance, do not exist underwater, and I'm sure that any underwater plant produces oxygen.
I always wondered about the "great flood".
I fully accept I may be wrong, but it is my understanding, if you completely submerge a plant of any kind (ie: a Tree), doesn't that kill the plant.
With that reasoning, wouldn't all plant life have died as a result of this "great flood"?
I'm more interested in how the Creationists will attempt to explain this one
Perhaps they'll claim it was man's best friend?
meh.
Minus the gui interface, we've had it before Apple had Safari.
Konqi
I remember when Toms Hardware Guide was a good, unbiased resource..
wait...
I get my news from MySpace bulletins ...
please don't hurt me.
Here, Ars Technica, Toms Hardware Guide, xbitlabs, AnandTech.
You've obviously never used a T series Thinkpad