Microsoft was already well established in the market by that point. It was hard to find a machine that did not have a Microsoft BASIC baked into a ROM chip, and even harder to find one that didn't rely on any Microsoft BASIC at all. Everyone used Microsoft.
IBM was doing business with an already established partner when they contracted Microsoft for an OS.
Yes, our chosen computer was vastly superior in every way.
The facts are different.
Commodore's problem was that Amiga wasn't #1 at anything. Its audio was trumped by machines such as the Apple IIgs (16 channel wavetable) and the Atari ST (best MIDI software and capabilities.) Its graphics were again trumped by machines like the Apple IIgs (4096 simultaneous colors.) Its blitter chip doesnt win anything in a world where consoles dominate gaming. The nintendo had better animation capabilities than the Amiga, and they both came out the same year (1985.)
I'm getting tired of hearing the Amiga fanboys keep repeating the same fiction that was wrong from the start. It wasnt vastly superior in every way to alternatives in the market. Its problem was that it wasnt best at anything. There was nothing you could point to and say "the Amiga was better than this than everyone else".. its just not true.
The Amiga was probably the best "all around" package, being #2 or #3 in most areas.. but it wasn't #1 at anything specifically.
Yeah, the partnership was so successful that IBM eventually launched it's own OS (OS2) in an attempt to retake the PC market
Given this fact, none of your "points" seem to make sense. IBM was partnering with Microsoft to upgrade DOS to support the protected mode of 286's, and then later 386's, they were not "launching [their] own OS in an attempt to retake the PC market"
You did know that OS/2 1.0 was entirely written by Microsoft, right? Oh.. you didn't? Yeah. Thats why your opinion on these matters means less than nothing. You are ignorant of the facts.
No, my contention is that a simulation is not reality. A simulation is a only a tool to help one understand the reality you're simulating. A flight simulator can teach you to fly, but it won't take you to London.
Thats funny... I can fly to London in a flight simulator... oh, you want the simulation to transport you to the real london.. I get it...
Ok, now you have made another conjecture! But again you have not shown it to be important, and also have not shown it to be true.
Quanta is is similar to alisaing, but it is not aliasing.
Sure. The universe can't go below quanta in precision, but we can always reduce aliasing in simulations to an arbitrary degree. They are different in that aliasing is not a technical issue.
You just lost the debate.
I won it when you thought my arguments were faith-based instead of fact-based.
Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security
I was told last year by Democrats that social security wasn't in trouble.. that social security had enough money in the account for at least another 25 years..
..and now only a year later the Democrats are telling me that we need to both raise taxes and borrow more money or they wont be able to make social security payments this year?
Oh, that social security account is full of IOU's because for the past 30 years we have always borrowed money instead of reducing spending? Yeah...
Look at the taxes over the past 50 years. Back in 1981 the top 5% of wealthy americans paid a 70% tax rate. How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? Something is wrong with that. Look at all the tax breaks for the wealthy, lets start there. Then lets look at our out of control spending.
You want to start where it wont solve a thing? Really? Class warfare at its finest.
I don't need to invent reasons to hate Microsoft products.
The parent claims that you did invent reasons to hate Bing, not that you "needed" to.
..and after checking up on his claims, it seems that he is right. You did invent a reason to hate Bing. What you claimed simply isnt true for the majority of people, and only actually seems to be true for you.
When I search for "nfl free agency" on Bing I get exactly what he said I would get, which is not at all what you said I would get. You made it up.
Now, I believe you when you say that you do not "need" to invent reasons to hate Microsofts products. The question is, why do you do it even though you don't need to?
Of course they do. Everything does. The statement is meaningless.
No it isn't. You are just ignorant of the importance of the fact we both accept as true.
If the brain follows the laws of physics, then a simulation of the laws of physics necessarily means that a brain can be simulated. Is it your contention that the laws of physics cannot be simulated? Really?
Yes, I've written programs like that. It's trivial to do and means nothing. They only rewrite programs the way they're programmed to rewrite them.
The brain only changes in accordance with physics. End of story.
All computer output has aliasing. Analog does not. The aliasing can be very fine grained indeed, but it never goes away.
Analog has aliasing called quanta. Furthermore, you are merely conjecturing that aliasing would be a hindrance to simulating a brain. There is a difference between requiring works-like and requiring perfect-predictor. Clearly simulation software such as for fluid dynamics are not perfect predictors, yet they still work like the real thing in the confines of what we demand of them.
In short, I'm arguing with a religious zealot
It is you that have proven to be the religious zealot.
I built an analog computer in the 7th grade (actually more of an electric slide rule), built all sorts of electronic devices (I'd hack $10 transistor radios into $200 fuzzboxes with $1 worth of parts as a teenager, also trivial), studied the logic gates that make up a CPU and memory, programmed in several languages including assembly that I hand-assembled into the native machine code. I wrote a program that passes the Turing test, zealot.
Yet still you are ignorant. How fucking quaint. Were you the smartest kid on the shortest bus or something?
But if you're so sure I'm ignorant, you go right ahead and ignorantly keep believing your fantasies.
Which fantasies are those? It is you that have made the statement that something is not possible without showing any evidence at all for this to be so (thats the HALLMARK of ignorance and fantasy.) Please show why your conjectures are important, and then further show that they are also correct. So far you have done neither.
You also don't seem to actually what computers can do, even though you profess to know how they work. Its another issue that you do not understand the difference, but I'll leave that to others to explain to you later on when you declare something else impossible and they reply "oh, we've been doing that for years.. what are ya.. a noob?"
You cannot patent a phrase, but you can in fact patent a Method of killing the President of the United States, and then sue someone if they use that method.
Its true at the poker tables. Its true in politics. Its true in business.
Stop listening to what they say and start watching what they do. You will find, especially with politics, that what they are most vocal about (ex: Democrats always making tax-the-rich statements) is exactly the opposite of what they do (ex: Democrats had unchallenged power but amazingly found an excuse not to raise taxes on anyone.)
In poker you nearly always find a person at the poker table talking about how great a player he or she is.. but when you watch what they actually do at the table (instead of listening to them talk,) you see a whole different thing than what they are saying.
So now we have Google again messing up their "social" services (remember what happened with Google Buzz?) in different (but no-less-evil) ways.
Google also starting blatantly copying copyrighted works without permission in order to force a lawsuit they could use to get the government to give them carte-blanch on any works they claim that they cannot contact the owner of.
Then of course Google was driving vans up and down nearly every street in the western world and packet sniffing wireless networks, capturing emails and other assorted stuff. Half a terabyte of this data is in Googles hands right now.
..and lest we not forget the extremely extensive amount of tracking Google does.
(no need to mention Google's actions in China!)
They say "Don't be evil" but they seem to do a hell of a lot of it.
Sure, because people that already have NOTHING cannot easily walk away from rising sea levels. What an ignorant douche you are.
You idiot global warming fuckers living in your cushy western palaces have no fucking concept of reality. You just have this pet theory and cry and cry because nobody takes that unimportant bullshit seriously when there are problems in the world that put even your nightmare global warming scenarios to shame.
You know whats evil? Your fucking inaction.
Pink Floyd wrote a song about you.. On the Turning Away.
You know what carbon dioxide emissions do? THEY LIFT PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, ASSHOLE.
Be failed before Microsoft was even competition. Anti-trust matters that happened after that failure are irrelevant. They failed on their own.
BeOS was already 11 years old and clearly failed by that point. Prior to that complaint, Be attempted to dump BeOS in 1996 but Apples generous offer of $100 million for a money-loser was rejected (Apple eventually paid 4 times that amount for NeXT.) It wasn't until 1998 that Be had an Intel version, still losing money hand over fist.
Be lost money for 7 years prior to even having an Intel version. In other words, Be failed without Microsofts help.
BeOS wasn't crushed by Microsoft. They werent even in OS competition for the same hardware platforms. BeOS was going up against Apple and NeXT, not IBM and Microsoft.
Queue the people that will claim that OS/2 was crushed by Microsoft.
Many are running a derivative of OS/2 3.0 right now and don't even know it.
During the IBM-Microsoft contract settlement, IBM chose to give up its share of the rights to OS/2 3.0 in favor of rights to independently make OS/2 2.0 compatible with Windows 3.0, a seemingly smart move because Windows 3.0 had already taken over the market.
The next version of OS/2 wasn't crushed by Microsoft.. it was simply renamed Windows NT, and development continued.
The whole point of the settlement IS the authorisation for Google to proceed.
Not the copyright owners authorization.
Nothing in the Settlement precludes a similar blanket agreement for other parties
The orphaned works part of the settlement is legal hoc-us-pocus slipped in to trick the government into signing off on rights that no member of the bargain have the rights to give away. You are honestly claiming that nothing precludes you from landing the same agreement? THE LAW FUCKING PRECLUDES YOU.
This isnt the supreme court deciding that orphaned works are different... this is a fucking tort court allowing A and B to negotiate over works that neither party owns.
Call me back when I am allowed to enter these proceedings and defend my rights. Until then, ITS FUCKING EXCLUSIVE.
The settlement explicitly says all granted rights are non-exclusive, and copyright holders are still free to authorise any other party to do the same thing.
Only Google would get to do it without authorization. That is the definition of exclusive, is it not?
Wrong, the dispute is about alleged orphaned works, that is, in copyright, but someone claimed to not know how to reach the copyright holder to ask permission.
I suppose when only 40% of India's population (thats over 400 million people!) lives below the international poverty line (thats US$1.25 per day) that they are doing quite fantastic....
You are fucking full of shit. The population of India is not "doing quite well these days".. quite the fucking opposite, asshole. Over 400 million people are pretty much completely fucking destitute in that "doing quite well" country.. if thats "doing quite well", what the fuck does "doing badly" look like?
The World Bank, citing estimates made by the World Health Organization, states that "About 49 per cent of the world's underweight children, 34 per cent of the world's stunted children and 46 per cent of the world's wasted children, live in India." Heres a fucking citation.
Your bullshit is the problem with most westerners. You have no fucking idea how bad it is elsewhere, or the scale of the problem. With 400 million fucking people destitute in Inida, it puts all your other complaints about the world to shame. Global warming? Terrorism? Privacy? Put in perspective, and assuming we actually give a shit about making the world a better place with the countless billions of dollars that we are throwing around, the ONLY thing we should be doing is fixing India... until its fixed.
Indeed. Apparently these people are using horribly written VST effects or something.
Even large convolution kernels for 96000 samples per second (DVD quality stereo) should indeed barely wake up an i7 CPU. A machine that WILL execute between 2 and 6 billion instructions per second per thread should not *ever* be struggling with this workload. Hell, you could do a hundreds of large FFT's per second.
Those 8-core Bulldozer chips essentially have 4 FPU's and 32 ALU's.
So against a 4-core Sandy they wont be able to compete on FPU work simply because Intel invested the space AMD is using for 4 more cores (aka 2 more modules) in kick-ass FPU's. The Bulldozer is going to look like crap next to the Sandy for FPU work. Period.
But against those same 4-core Sandy's, the Bulldozers will likely completely dominate the integer scene. The Bulldozer will (reportedly) turbo to 4.2ghz when only using 4 cores. Even the best Sandy only turbos to 3.8ghz stock, and certainly doesnt do that with all 4 cores under load. Thats 4-threaded integer work at 4.2ghz for BD and only 3.4ghz for SB, or 8-threaded integer work at 3.2ghz for BD and 3.4ghz for SB but the Sandy shares ALU's when using more than 4 cores
So all-in-all, the Bulldozer is going to rock if you dont do heavy FPU stuff, or offload that stuff to the GPU (video encoding is typically offloaded) but the Sandy will still rule of you are doing shit like Raytracing which isnt typically offloaded to GPU's.
umm, mixing audio? Are you even aware of what you are talking about?
48khz 5.1 surround sound (6 channels) consumes only 288000 samples per second. Even a fucking 386 could process this, and in fact back in the day 33mhz 386's were playing 16-channel modules (thats software resampling and so forth of 16 independent channels) with enough free time to also do software 3D rendering.
Now, 288000 samples per second on any machine that is between 2ghz and 4ghz yields between 6700 and 13400 cpu cyles per sample PER CORE. In other words, you could probably process 5.1 audio with poorly written and single-threaded vbscript.
Admit it. You knew that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, so why did fuck did you bother?
For customers like me they had next to no cost for the DVD portion of my account, yet they were getting the $2/mo. Now they are making $2/mo less off people like me.
They were getting $2 per month from you for 1-DVD per 6 months or whatever, but the licensing costs you exert on them are exactly the same as someone thats doing 6 DVD's a month.
This is one of the key issues. They are effectively paying people like you $2 to remove the DVD option that you arent using, and paying others $2 to remove the streaming option that they arent using. This makes their licensing deals more efficient, as they are no longer negotiating for your DVD service.
They have approximately 25 million subscribers. Lets presume that 7 million go Streaming-only, 7 million go DVD-only, 7-million go Streaming+DVD, and 4 million jump ship.
So now at the negotiation table for stream licensing, they are talking about 14 million seats instead of 25 million. They lost no more than $14 million in revenue on the streamers, lost no more than $14 million of the DVD'rs, and lost exactly $40 million from those that jump ship. But they gain at least $42 million from the dual-users.
All-in-all the service changes are probably close to revenue-neutral, but their position is much better at the bargaining table.
It has nothing to do with how easy it is to detect the recursion. It has to do with the fact that POSIX compliant programs dont try to, nor need to, detect the recursion.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft was already well established in the market by that point. It was hard to find a machine that did not have a Microsoft BASIC baked into a ROM chip, and even harder to find one that didn't rely on any Microsoft BASIC at all. Everyone used Microsoft.
IBM was doing business with an already established partner when they contracted Microsoft for an OS.
Yes, our chosen computer was vastly superior in every way.
The facts are different.
.. its just not true.
Commodore's problem was that Amiga wasn't #1 at anything. Its audio was trumped by machines such as the Apple IIgs (16 channel wavetable) and the Atari ST (best MIDI software and capabilities.) Its graphics were again trumped by machines like the Apple IIgs (4096 simultaneous colors.) Its blitter chip doesnt win anything in a world where consoles dominate gaming. The nintendo had better animation capabilities than the Amiga, and they both came out the same year (1985.)
I'm getting tired of hearing the Amiga fanboys keep repeating the same fiction that was wrong from the start. It wasnt vastly superior in every way to alternatives in the market. Its problem was that it wasnt best at anything. There was nothing you could point to and say "the Amiga was better than this than everyone else"
The Amiga was probably the best "all around" package, being #2 or #3 in most areas.. but it wasn't #1 at anything specifically.
Yeah, the partnership was so successful that IBM eventually launched it's own OS (OS2) in an attempt to retake the PC market
Given this fact, none of your "points" seem to make sense. IBM was partnering with Microsoft to upgrade DOS to support the protected mode of 286's, and then later 386's, they were not "launching [their] own OS in an attempt to retake the PC market"
You did know that OS/2 1.0 was entirely written by Microsoft, right? Oh.. you didn't? Yeah. Thats why your opinion on these matters means less than nothing. You are ignorant of the facts.
No, my contention is that a simulation is not reality. A simulation is a only a tool to help one understand the reality you're simulating. A flight simulator can teach you to fly, but it won't take you to London.
Thats funny... I can fly to London in a flight simulator... oh, you want the simulation to transport you to the real london.. I get it...
Ok, now you have made another conjecture! But again you have not shown it to be important, and also have not shown it to be true.
Quanta is is similar to alisaing, but it is not aliasing.
Sure. The universe can't go below quanta in precision, but we can always reduce aliasing in simulations to an arbitrary degree. They are different in that aliasing is not a technical issue.
You just lost the debate.
I won it when you thought my arguments were faith-based instead of fact-based.
Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security
I was told last year by Democrats that social security wasn't in trouble.. that social security had enough money in the account for at least another 25 years..
..and now only a year later the Democrats are telling me that we need to both raise taxes and borrow more money or they wont be able to make social security payments this year?
Oh, that social security account is full of IOU's because for the past 30 years we have always borrowed money instead of reducing spending? Yeah...
Look at the taxes over the past 50 years. Back in 1981 the top 5% of wealthy americans paid a 70% tax rate. How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? Something is wrong with that. Look at all the tax breaks for the wealthy, lets start there. Then lets look at our out of control spending.
You want to start where it wont solve a thing? Really? Class warfare at its finest.
I don't need to invent reasons to hate Microsoft products.
The parent claims that you did invent reasons to hate Bing, not that you "needed" to.
..and after checking up on his claims, it seems that he is right. You did invent a reason to hate Bing. What you claimed simply isnt true for the majority of people, and only actually seems to be true for you.
When I search for "nfl free agency" on Bing I get exactly what he said I would get, which is not at all what you said I would get. You made it up.
Now, I believe you when you say that you do not "need" to invent reasons to hate Microsofts products. The question is, why do you do it even though you don't need to?
Of course they do. Everything does. The statement is meaningless.
No it isn't. You are just ignorant of the importance of the fact we both accept as true.
If the brain follows the laws of physics, then a simulation of the laws of physics necessarily means that a brain can be simulated. Is it your contention that the laws of physics cannot be simulated? Really?
Yes, I've written programs like that. It's trivial to do and means nothing. They only rewrite programs the way they're programmed to rewrite them.
The brain only changes in accordance with physics. End of story.
All computer output has aliasing. Analog does not. The aliasing can be very fine grained indeed, but it never goes away.
Analog has aliasing called quanta. Furthermore, you are merely conjecturing that aliasing would be a hindrance to simulating a brain. There is a difference between requiring works-like and requiring perfect-predictor. Clearly simulation software such as for fluid dynamics are not perfect predictors, yet they still work like the real thing in the confines of what we demand of them.
In short, I'm arguing with a religious zealot
It is you that have proven to be the religious zealot.
I built an analog computer in the 7th grade (actually more of an electric slide rule), built all sorts of electronic devices (I'd hack $10 transistor radios into $200 fuzzboxes with $1 worth of parts as a teenager, also trivial), studied the logic gates that make up a CPU and memory, programmed in several languages including assembly that I hand-assembled into the native machine code. I wrote a program that passes the Turing test, zealot.
Yet still you are ignorant. How fucking quaint. Were you the smartest kid on the shortest bus or something?
But if you're so sure I'm ignorant, you go right ahead and ignorantly keep believing your fantasies.
Which fantasies are those? It is you that have made the statement that something is not possible without showing any evidence at all for this to be so (thats the HALLMARK of ignorance and fantasy.) Please show why your conjectures are important, and then further show that they are also correct. So far you have done neither.
You also don't seem to actually what computers can do, even though you profess to know how they work. Its another issue that you do not understand the difference, but I'll leave that to others to explain to you later on when you declare something else impossible and they reply "oh, we've been doing that for years.. what are ya.. a noob?"
No, they aren't "just a differently configured abacus". Brains do more than compute.
Brains follow the laws of physics. End of story.
It "rewires" itself. Computers can't and won't.
Programs can re-write the programs they run. End of story.
A computer is binary, on or off.
Computers easily simulate analog. End of story.
In short, you are ignorant and wrong about everything.
You cannot patent a phrase, but you can in fact patent a Method of killing the President of the United States, and then sue someone if they use that method.
Exactly. Stop listening and start watching.
..and lest we not forget the extremely extensive amount of tracking Google does.
Its true at the poker tables. Its true in politics. Its true in business.
Stop listening to what they say and start watching what they do. You will find, especially with politics, that what they are most vocal about (ex: Democrats always making tax-the-rich statements) is exactly the opposite of what they do (ex: Democrats had unchallenged power but amazingly found an excuse not to raise taxes on anyone.)
In poker you nearly always find a person at the poker table talking about how great a player he or she is.. but when you watch what they actually do at the table (instead of listening to them talk,) you see a whole different thing than what they are saying.
So now we have Google again messing up their "social" services (remember what happened with Google Buzz?) in different (but no-less-evil) ways.
Google also starting blatantly copying copyrighted works without permission in order to force a lawsuit they could use to get the government to give them carte-blanch on any works they claim that they cannot contact the owner of.
Then of course Google was driving vans up and down nearly every street in the western world and packet sniffing wireless networks, capturing emails and other assorted stuff. Half a terabyte of this data is in Googles hands right now.
(no need to mention Google's actions in China!)
They say "Don't be evil" but they seem to do a hell of a lot of it.
Sure, because people that already have NOTHING cannot easily walk away from rising sea levels. What an ignorant douche you are.
You idiot global warming fuckers living in your cushy western palaces have no fucking concept of reality. You just have this pet theory and cry and cry because nobody takes that unimportant bullshit seriously when there are problems in the world that put even your nightmare global warming scenarios to shame.
You know whats evil? Your fucking inaction.
Pink Floyd wrote a song about you.. On the Turning Away.
You know what carbon dioxide emissions do? THEY LIFT PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, ASSHOLE.
Here is my citation, ignorant eco-dipshit. Watch the whole fucking thing, This world renowned man has even visualization software available. Use it for at least an hour. Now, after doing all that.. GO SIT IN YOUR BEDROOM AND CRY ABOUT HOW BRAINWASHED AND IGNORANT YOU HAVE BEEN.
but Google isn't the kind of company to be interested in the other things Sun did or Sun's corporate culture.
Google wouldn't be interested in Sun's server or storage IP? really?
Be failed before Microsoft was even competition. Anti-trust matters that happened after that failure are irrelevant. They failed on their own.
BeOS was already 11 years old and clearly failed by that point. Prior to that complaint, Be attempted to dump BeOS in 1996 but Apples generous offer of $100 million for a money-loser was rejected (Apple eventually paid 4 times that amount for NeXT.) It wasn't until 1998 that Be had an Intel version, still losing money hand over fist.
Be lost money for 7 years prior to even having an Intel version. In other words, Be failed without Microsofts help.
BeOS wasn't crushed by Microsoft. They werent even in OS competition for the same hardware platforms. BeOS was going up against Apple and NeXT, not IBM and Microsoft.
Queue the people that will claim that OS/2 was crushed by Microsoft.
Many are running a derivative of OS/2 3.0 right now and don't even know it.
During the IBM-Microsoft contract settlement, IBM chose to give up its share of the rights to OS/2 3.0 in favor of rights to independently make OS/2 2.0 compatible with Windows 3.0, a seemingly smart move because Windows 3.0 had already taken over the market.
The next version of OS/2 wasn't crushed by Microsoft.. it was simply renamed Windows NT, and development continued.
The whole point of the settlement IS the authorisation for Google to proceed.
Not the copyright owners authorization.
Nothing in the Settlement precludes a similar blanket agreement for other parties
The orphaned works part of the settlement is legal hoc-us-pocus slipped in to trick the government into signing off on rights that no member of the bargain have the rights to give away. You are honestly claiming that nothing precludes you from landing the same agreement? THE LAW FUCKING PRECLUDES YOU.
This isnt the supreme court deciding that orphaned works are different... this is a fucking tort court allowing A and B to negotiate over works that neither party owns.
Call me back when I am allowed to enter these proceedings and defend my rights. Until then, ITS FUCKING EXCLUSIVE.
The settlement explicitly says all granted rights are non-exclusive, and copyright holders are still free to authorise any other party to do the same thing.
Only Google would get to do it without authorization. That is the definition of exclusive, is it not?
Wrong, the dispute is about alleged orphaned works, that is, in copyright, but someone claimed to not know how to reach the copyright holder to ask permission.
Fixed that for 'ya.
I suppose when only 40% of India's population (thats over 400 million people!) lives below the international poverty line (thats US$1.25 per day) that they are doing quite fantastic....
.. quite the fucking opposite, asshole. Over 400 million people are pretty much completely fucking destitute in that "doing quite well" country.. if thats "doing quite well", what the fuck does "doing badly" look like?
You are fucking full of shit. The population of India is not "doing quite well these days"
The World Bank, citing estimates made by the World Health Organization, states that "About 49 per cent of the world's underweight children, 34 per cent of the world's stunted children and 46 per cent of the world's wasted children, live in India." Heres a fucking citation.
Your bullshit is the problem with most westerners. You have no fucking idea how bad it is elsewhere, or the scale of the problem. With 400 million fucking people destitute in Inida, it puts all your other complaints about the world to shame. Global warming? Terrorism? Privacy? Put in perspective, and assuming we actually give a shit about making the world a better place with the countless billions of dollars that we are throwing around, the ONLY thing we should be doing is fixing India... until its fixed.
Judging by the responses, I think that you are right. The majority of VST plugins are apparently programmed by code donkeys.
Indeed. Apparently these people are using horribly written VST effects or something.
Even large convolution kernels for 96000 samples per second (DVD quality stereo) should indeed barely wake up an i7 CPU. A machine that WILL execute between 2 and 6 billion instructions per second per thread should not *ever* be struggling with this workload. Hell, you could do a hundreds of large FFT's per second.
Those 8-core Bulldozer chips essentially have 4 FPU's and 32 ALU's.
So against a 4-core Sandy they wont be able to compete on FPU work simply because Intel invested the space AMD is using for 4 more cores (aka 2 more modules) in kick-ass FPU's. The Bulldozer is going to look like crap next to the Sandy for FPU work. Period.
But against those same 4-core Sandy's, the Bulldozers will likely completely dominate the integer scene. The Bulldozer will (reportedly) turbo to 4.2ghz when only using 4 cores. Even the best Sandy only turbos to 3.8ghz stock, and certainly doesnt do that with all 4 cores under load. Thats 4-threaded integer work at 4.2ghz for BD and only 3.4ghz for SB, or 8-threaded integer work at 3.2ghz for BD and 3.4ghz for SB but the Sandy shares ALU's when using more than 4 cores
So all-in-all, the Bulldozer is going to rock if you dont do heavy FPU stuff, or offload that stuff to the GPU (video encoding is typically offloaded) but the Sandy will still rule of you are doing shit like Raytracing which isnt typically offloaded to GPU's.
umm, mixing audio? Are you even aware of what you are talking about?
48khz 5.1 surround sound (6 channels) consumes only 288000 samples per second. Even a fucking 386 could process this, and in fact back in the day 33mhz 386's were playing 16-channel modules (thats software resampling and so forth of 16 independent channels) with enough free time to also do software 3D rendering.
Now, 288000 samples per second on any machine that is between 2ghz and 4ghz yields between 6700 and 13400 cpu cyles per sample PER CORE. In other words, you could probably process 5.1 audio with poorly written and single-threaded vbscript.
Admit it. You knew that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, so why did fuck did you bother?
For customers like me they had next to no cost for the DVD portion of my account, yet they were getting the $2/mo. Now they are making $2/mo less off people like me.
They were getting $2 per month from you for 1-DVD per 6 months or whatever, but the licensing costs you exert on them are exactly the same as someone thats doing 6 DVD's a month.
This is one of the key issues. They are effectively paying people like you $2 to remove the DVD option that you arent using, and paying others $2 to remove the streaming option that they arent using. This makes their licensing deals more efficient, as they are no longer negotiating for your DVD service.
They have approximately 25 million subscribers. Lets presume that 7 million go Streaming-only, 7 million go DVD-only, 7-million go Streaming+DVD, and 4 million jump ship.
So now at the negotiation table for stream licensing, they are talking about 14 million seats instead of 25 million. They lost no more than $14 million in revenue on the streamers, lost no more than $14 million of the DVD'rs, and lost exactly $40 million from those that jump ship. But they gain at least $42 million from the dual-users.
All-in-all the service changes are probably close to revenue-neutral, but their position is much better at the bargaining table.
It has nothing to do with how easy it is to detect the recursion. It has to do with the fact that POSIX compliant programs dont try to, nor need to, detect the recursion.
Thats the end of the debate.