By supporting h.264 you are denying html5 and any high definition video.
Where is that written?
The reason is that IE has less than 75% of the market. Firefox and Chrome own the rest. You think webmasters are going to support h.264 and Html5 and ban these users?
I think those users will solve the problem.
Oh wait it is Mozilla's fault for being communist right?
Mozilla and only Mozilla should deal with the consequences of its decisions. Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to deal with the consequences of Mozilla's decisions? Thats not communism.. Its arrogance and selfishness to expect others to pay for your decisions. Full Stop.
My thoughts exactly. It is the height of arrogance and selfishness to demand that others be limited by your own choices.
What justification is there for limiting web standards to things which are FOSS/GPL-compatible? Thats basically exactly what many are demanding we do.. limit the web standards because of GPL concerns. As if GPL was so god damned important that everyone must limit themselves to it... what the fuck...
Meanwhile a year or two from now a codec better than either H.264 or VP8 will be available.. but we must slob on some VP8 pipe, because it fits with the choices of arrogant and selfish geeks? what the fuck
You talk about what "benefit us from a consumers perspective" but many are completely unwilling to entertain the thought that H.264 does, in fact, benefit us greatly from a consumers perspective.
Its already in most devices, its qualitatively better than VP8, and all the R&D for those decoder chips are way ahead of any VP8 implementation (there is still no VP8 hardware implementation) and even video card manufacturers have spent more than a little money developing accelerated H.264 on their GPU's
This idea that we should do that all again, but this time for VP8, and pretending that it wont cost us all (we consumers) something is completely laughable. Wouldnt it be better if all that R&D money from all those individual companies making chips and software and so on, were spent making H.264 more cost-efficient (one example would be using less power, another would be using less materialsin the case of manufacturing) to encode, decode, manufacture, etc?
Football analogy: VP8 is still on the 20 yard line in its own game, while H.264 already scored a touchdown and is currently going for the extra point.
Now where exactly do we see FireFox's VP8 implementation 5 years from now? Does anybody believe that Mozilla will spend lots of money developing a hardware accelerated implementation for any platform and shove that into the source tree? Would they even accept such a thing if someone else developed it for them? They probably wouldn't do that either, as then they would have to maintain two VP8 codecs... So basically FireFox will never have hardware accelerated VP8, right? They wont use that nice system codec, after all.
Why should consumers kowtow to the limitations of FOSS? Thats what we are really talking about, isnt it? FireFox can't ship an H.264 codec and so-forth, and Google wants its own codec to win, so everyone must suffer a little bit? Seriously... I think its arrogant and selfish to fuck everyone over in the name of FOSS.
No carrier... or rather... its all carriers in one... TracFone. They have a deal with all carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) to carry their traffic.
I picked up a "double-minutes for life" TracFone from Walmart for ~$30 a few years ago. Its basically a modified (locked SIM's) Motorola Razr. Every 90 days I must add time to the phone, or else I lose the service and all my stored up minutes. I pick up a $21 time card (adding 120+ minutes due to the double-minutes, an additional 30 minutes when I get a promo-code, which is fairly regular) every 3 months.
I normally only use the phone for communicating information, rather than "chatting", so my calls are normally only a few minutes in length. I'll never use all the minutes I have now (over 800)
Obviously Amazon is within their legal rights to seek out favorable tax havens to operate within the United States, but hardball tactics like this make them appear to be quite evil.
It is Texas that is using hardball tactics. They had previously exempted mail order/etc companies from sales taxes.. until one day they noticed that they got a lot of suckers to move their businesses into Texas.. then they changed the rules overnight and sent out bills to many such companies.
You know that Texas is up to know good because they didnt perform an audit of Amazon's activities in the state, but instead simply made up a figure and demanded it.
What you are suggesting is taxation without representation. We've had a problem with that sort of thing in the past, leading to some serious shit where many people died.
I pay $7/month for my tracfone while some of my coworkers are paying over $70/month for their android or iphone. Sure, they can play nice games and shit when on break. Is that truly worth over $750 a year extra? I think not. Not even close.
I'm sure there are at least a few readers here today that read $750+ extra per year and realize how foolish they have been... but a week from now they will have forgotten. Most people are bad with money.
I swore off Belkin a decade ago when I picked up a 10 Mbit wireless card from Staples.
The product was labeled as supporting "Win 3.1, Win95, Win98, Win98 SE" but Win98 wasn't actually supported (only its second edition, according to Belkin tech support)
The issue was clearly one of tweaking the driver (it supposedly worked for Win 3.1 and Win95 for christ sakes), so I would have thought that when presented with the issue that Belkin would have rushed out a fixed driver for Win98 first edition so as not to be thought of as a company that false advertises. Thats not what they did, so now they will never ever ever ever get my business again.
One says Bush ruined the economy.. another says Obama ruined the economy.. you say that Obama is still trying to fix the economy.. and one up there goes on ranting about republicans...
You are all fucking idiots. The president doesnt have shit to do with the economy. Period and end of story. The economy is way bigger than the Executive branch.. way bigger than all 3 branches combined. Moving on, the president also doesnt have shit to do with even federal budgets.... 100% of those originate in the House.
If you are an American, than your ignorance on this matter is completely inexcusable. This isnt a conspiracy rant about big corporations ruling the economy.. that is ALSO laughable. Do you seriously think that the movement of 14+ trillion dollars annually, over billions of individual transactions, is under the significant control of an agency, or conglomeration? Seriously? Drink some fucking reality-coffee, cause the punch that you have been drinking doesnt even pass basic sanity checks.
Netgear WGT-624 v3 with latest firmware. No IPv6 in sight, and dd-wrt is out of the question too.
I don't want to buy a new router. This one is working fine... in fact this one was a replacement for another (DLINK) that had severe signal quality issues. This sucker has decent range, even through my main "wet wall."
Unfortunately, my router is a Netgear WGT624 v3 and the dd-wrt database indicates that support is "NOT POSSIBLE" even though v4 is supported and v1 and v2 are "works in progress"
..since you can build an FM transmitter with just a transistor, a few diodes, a couple of capacitors and resistors, some wire, and a condenser mic, you are quite clearly wrong about the size and weight of listening devices possible (and well documented) in the 70's...
The problem was of course power. A small enough battery wouldnt last very long.. perhaps a few hours..
A small wireless bug is pretty much step 1 for most amateur electronics hack. Its really quite simple, and even in the 70's there were books filled to the brim with instructions on how to build stuff like this. More than a few of the designs featured here are small enough.. using parts that were certainly available in the 70's from radio shack and its ilk.
Note what I said retard: "Sandy bridge is not that much faster then a Core 2 machine, in fact the i7 was roughly on 40% faster at most, in the majority of applications."
And when challenged, you then claimed that oh.. it just meant games... then later you further strengthened this position by linking to game benchmarks specifically, and only for the i7.
I linked to a direct comparison, from a site you in fact claimed was "RESPECTABLE" (because you didnt notice that I linked to it), which has a direct comparison of the E8400 vs the 2600K with real world applications (not games).. you know, the stuff most people run? Most people dont run any games besides flash games. None. Zero. You know that, right? No?
This is why you are stupid: You own an E8400 while I own neither an i7 or an E8400. You are clearly biased by your ownership and the games you play. You think that because you play video games, that thats what most people 'run.' For you, a video game is 'a real world application'.. you are laughable.
You are missing the point ENTIRELY... you made no rational numbers backed points what-so-ever, just rhetoric.
The numbers are common knowledge and easy to find. If you havent looked, then you are being willfully ignorant of the performance of these processors. A stock E8400 encodes HD H.264 video using x264 at about ~27 frames per second, while the stock 2600K does so at about ~63 FPS. Here is a citation for the willfully ignorant The disparity grows when both are overclocked.
So now the question is, why are you willfully ignorant? Do you own an E8400, willing to pretend that its not a significant under-performer these days?..essentially lying to yourself and for some strange reason willing to do so publicly here on slashdot?
x264 is a CPU-based open source video encoding library, used by many open source encoding packages. This is something real people do with their computers, and have done so for years now.
This is why I qualified my first post by users who are interested in other work based apps.
You didnt qualify it with games, which is the only place (GPU-bound) where your argument actually is accurate. For applications, the 2600K is significantly faster than the E8400. Photoshop benchmark.. 3x, Excel benchmark.. 3x, WinRAR benchmark.. 2x. It is only games where your bullshit 30% figure seems to ring true.. only games...
The i7 is not even 30% faster then the core 2 E8400 in UT3, and Sandybridge is barely faster then the i7 at the same clockspeed.
Translation: I have this application thats bottlenecked on the GPU and that proves that the CPU isnt twice as fast.
Everyone benching using nothing less then the latest apps is fudging the data purposely.
Translation: The latest apps consist of only games that are heavily bound to GPU performance, and these have been like that for years but I didn't notice.
I wonder what is wrong with you. All you do is game? Is that it?
To be fair, that 2600K is the high end sandy. The mid-range Sandy's are on par with that Q9550.
Once you are talking about the mid-range Sandy's, then you also have to consider the AMD offerings because they do keep up in that segment as well. No point replacing any of the AMD "Thuban" chips with a mid-range Sandy either, as they are all about equal in performance.
The Sandy CPU's are very competitive, for sure. That high end 2600K Sandy is a great bargain for the performance. If you are buying a Sandy, its certainly the chip to get.
Sandy Bridge is certainly i7 redux, but I think you are simplifying too much.
The architectural change is significant in more than just clock speed. They have redone all the I/O from the CPU, which is why there is a new socket and only a single (for now) supporting chipset.
As far as double performance, these chips do perform twice as well as nearly all of the Core2's ever sold. Sure, the highest end Core2's wont see a 2x replacement advantage when buying a midrange Sandy (might even see a performance reduction), but even the highest end Core2 (X9770) would see a 2x improvement moving to the highest end Sandy (2600K)
Indeed. Sandy Bridge peaks out at 20 Gbps of I/O (combined SATA + USB + sub-8x PCIe + Ethernet) and is clearly not meant for the kind of folks who will be working many drives simultaneously. Hell, the pair of SATA 3.0 ports alone can consume 60% of the DMI link to the CPU / Memory. Those 4 SATA 2.0 ports push it well over 100%, meaning there is just no way to fully leverage all the supporting SATA ports simultaneously.. they are just bullet points on an I/O gimped system.
Intel has abandoned this model and are pushing both SATA and PCIe over the same bus now.
Specifically, with the exception of the graphics-specific 16/8/8 PCIe ports (the pair of 8's are optional), they all converge on the 20 Gbps DMI link that is specific to Sandy Bridge (regardless of the chipset.) The problem chipset supports 8 PCIe 2.0 x1's (or 4 x2's,...) that are each 5 Gbps, faster than the 4 SATA 2.0 ports (3 Gbps each) we are talking about today.
Totaling it up, 8 x 5 Gbps + 4 x 3 Gbps + 2 x 6 Gbps = 64 Gbps of external capacity.. all running over that fixed 20 Gbps Sandy Bridge DMI link (and this isnt counting the fact that USB and Ethernet are *also* carried over the DMI link).. Basically, Sandy Bridge is I/O gimped. The chipset supports these technologies as bullet points in literature, but not as a matter of actual practice because of the processor they are tied to.
So the issue isnt really that a PCIe SATA 2.0 replacement is going to suck.. its going to be just as fine as those built in 2.0 ports.. This chipset problem really hasnt changed anything.. and thats because its trivial to build a system that full saturates the 20 Gbps link regardless.
Since most consumers arent doing 20 Gbps I/O, its not much of an issue.. and those that wanted more than 20 Gbps, well.. they were screwed anyways.
The issue, I think, it that Intel has no plans to replace Sandy Bridge with a new architecture any time soon.. so public impression is of long-term importance here. If Sandy Bridge was just a small step towards a major revision then that would be one thing, but instead Sandy Bridge *is* a major revision and they will be stuck with it for a very long time.
Now add in that AMD is putting out its own major revision in two months (the first in many many years), and all the signs currently indicate that they will have offerings on par with i7 performance. Intel is afraid of AMD because when left unchallenged AMD proved that in the desktop marketplace, it is very easy to lose market share very quickly (AMD roared to 50% market share when Intel was bumbling around wih P4's, and there is some question as to how much of the remaining 50% Intel actually deserved vs how much was due to its anti-competitive backroom deals which it was convicted of)
AMD hasnt been much of a threat in the desktop space because they have been a generation behind on process technology, and additionally opted not to do any major revisions while it was folding the ATI acquisition into its business. But here it is.. process size parity and a major revision just a few months away.. Intel cannot tolerate a long term hit to the brand, with customers for years wondering if they are getting a "good" or "bad" chipset with their purchase.
Isnt it funny that this whole topic got started because Intel is now going to be shipping known-to-be-faulty motherboards to manufacturers, while you rail on this particular poster because the motherboard he has turned out to be... faulty too?
Just make banks liable for losses and they will make sure it doesn't happen very very fast.
Well it USED to be that if someone ROBBED A BANK, that the bank was liable. Somehow this got turned around and now its stealing YOUR IDENTITY, rather than ROBBING A FUCKING BANK.
Slashdot Mirror
By supporting h.264 you are denying html5 and any high definition video.
Where is that written?
The reason is that IE has less than 75% of the market. Firefox and Chrome own the rest. You think webmasters are going to support h.264 and Html5 and ban these users?
I think those users will solve the problem.
Oh wait it is Mozilla's fault for being communist right?
Mozilla and only Mozilla should deal with the consequences of its decisions. Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to deal with the consequences of Mozilla's decisions? Thats not communism.. Its arrogance and selfishness to expect others to pay for your decisions. Full Stop.
Huh? Read what he wrote.
My thoughts exactly. It is the height of arrogance and selfishness to demand that others be limited by your own choices.
What justification is there for limiting web standards to things which are FOSS/GPL-compatible? Thats basically exactly what many are demanding we do.. limit the web standards because of GPL concerns. As if GPL was so god damned important that everyone must limit themselves to it... what the fuck...
Meanwhile a year or two from now a codec better than either H.264 or VP8 will be available.. but we must slob on some VP8 pipe, because it fits with the choices of arrogant and selfish geeks? what the fuck
You talk about what "benefit us from a consumers perspective" but many are completely unwilling to entertain the thought that H.264 does, in fact, benefit us greatly from a consumers perspective.
Its already in most devices, its qualitatively better than VP8, and all the R&D for those decoder chips are way ahead of any VP8 implementation (there is still no VP8 hardware implementation) and even video card manufacturers have spent more than a little money developing accelerated H.264 on their GPU's
This idea that we should do that all again, but this time for VP8, and pretending that it wont cost us all (we consumers) something is completely laughable. Wouldnt it be better if all that R&D money from all those individual companies making chips and software and so on, were spent making H.264 more cost-efficient (one example would be using less power, another would be using less materialsin the case of manufacturing) to encode, decode, manufacture, etc?
Football analogy: VP8 is still on the 20 yard line in its own game, while H.264 already scored a touchdown and is currently going for the extra point.
Now where exactly do we see FireFox's VP8 implementation 5 years from now? Does anybody believe that Mozilla will spend lots of money developing a hardware accelerated implementation for any platform and shove that into the source tree? Would they even accept such a thing if someone else developed it for them? They probably wouldn't do that either, as then they would have to maintain two VP8 codecs... So basically FireFox will never have hardware accelerated VP8, right? They wont use that nice system codec, after all.
Why should consumers kowtow to the limitations of FOSS? Thats what we are really talking about, isnt it? FireFox can't ship an H.264 codec and so-forth, and Google wants its own codec to win, so everyone must suffer a little bit? Seriously... I think its arrogant and selfish to fuck everyone over in the name of FOSS.
No carrier... or rather... its all carriers in one... TracFone. They have a deal with all carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) to carry their traffic.
I picked up a "double-minutes for life" TracFone from Walmart for ~$30 a few years ago. Its basically a modified (locked SIM's) Motorola Razr. Every 90 days I must add time to the phone, or else I lose the service and all my stored up minutes. I pick up a $21 time card (adding 120+ minutes due to the double-minutes, an additional 30 minutes when I get a promo-code, which is fairly regular) every 3 months.
I normally only use the phone for communicating information, rather than "chatting", so my calls are normally only a few minutes in length. I'll never use all the minutes I have now (over 800)
Obviously Amazon is within their legal rights to seek out favorable tax havens to operate within the United States, but hardball tactics like this make them appear to be quite evil.
It is Texas that is using hardball tactics. They had previously exempted mail order/etc companies from sales taxes.. until one day they noticed that they got a lot of suckers to move their businesses into Texas.. then they changed the rules overnight and sent out bills to many such companies.
You know that Texas is up to know good because they didnt perform an audit of Amazon's activities in the state, but instead simply made up a figure and demanded it.
I bet you are the same sort of person that complains about outsourcing to other countries, even thought what you suggest will cause exactly that.
What you are suggesting is taxation without representation. We've had a problem with that sort of thing in the past, leading to some serious shit where many people died.
This is soo it.
I pay $7/month for my tracfone while some of my coworkers are paying over $70/month for their android or iphone. Sure, they can play nice games and shit when on break. Is that truly worth over $750 a year extra? I think not. Not even close.
I'm sure there are at least a few readers here today that read $750+ extra per year and realize how foolish they have been... but a week from now they will have forgotten. Most people are bad with money.
I swore off Belkin a decade ago when I picked up a 10 Mbit wireless card from Staples.
The product was labeled as supporting "Win 3.1, Win95, Win98, Win98 SE" but Win98 wasn't actually supported (only its second edition, according to Belkin tech support)
The issue was clearly one of tweaking the driver (it supposedly worked for Win 3.1 and Win95 for christ sakes), so I would have thought that when presented with the issue that Belkin would have rushed out a fixed driver for Win98 first edition so as not to be thought of as a company that false advertises. Thats not what they did, so now they will never ever ever ever get my business again.
One says Bush ruined the economy.. another says Obama ruined the economy.. you say that Obama is still trying to fix the economy.. and one up there goes on ranting about republicans...
You are all fucking idiots. The president doesnt have shit to do with the economy. Period and end of story. The economy is way bigger than the Executive branch.. way bigger than all 3 branches combined. Moving on, the president also doesnt have shit to do with even federal budgets.... 100% of those originate in the House.
If you are an American, than your ignorance on this matter is completely inexcusable. This isnt a conspiracy rant about big corporations ruling the economy.. that is ALSO laughable. Do you seriously think that the movement of 14+ trillion dollars annually, over billions of individual transactions, is under the significant control of an agency, or conglomeration? Seriously? Drink some fucking reality-coffee, cause the punch that you have been drinking doesnt even pass basic sanity checks.
Netgear WGT-624 v3 with latest firmware. No IPv6 in sight, and dd-wrt is out of the question too.
I don't want to buy a new router. This one is working fine... in fact this one was a replacement for another (DLINK) that had severe signal quality issues. This sucker has decent range, even through my main "wet wall."
Unfortunately, my router is a Netgear WGT624 v3 and the dd-wrt database indicates that support is "NOT POSSIBLE" even though v4 is supported and v1 and v2 are "works in progress"
..since you can build an FM transmitter with just a transistor, a few diodes, a couple of capacitors and resistors, some wire, and a condenser mic, you are quite clearly wrong about the size and weight of listening devices possible (and well documented) in the 70's...
The problem was of course power. A small enough battery wouldnt last very long.. perhaps a few hours..
A small wireless bug is pretty much step 1 for most amateur electronics hack. Its really quite simple, and even in the 70's there were books filled to the brim with instructions on how to build stuff like this. More than a few of the designs featured here are small enough.. using parts that were certainly available in the 70's from radio shack and its ilk.
Note what I said retard: "Sandy bridge is not that much faster then a Core 2 machine, in fact the i7 was roughly on 40% faster at most, in the majority of applications."
And when challenged, you then claimed that oh.. it just meant games... then later you further strengthened this position by linking to game benchmarks specifically, and only for the i7.
.. you know, the stuff most people run? Most people dont run any games besides flash games. None. Zero. You know that, right? No?
.. you are laughable.
I linked to a direct comparison, from a site you in fact claimed was "RESPECTABLE" (because you didnt notice that I linked to it), which has a direct comparison of the E8400 vs the 2600K with real world applications (not games)
This is why you are stupid: You own an E8400 while I own neither an i7 or an E8400. You are clearly biased by your ownership and the games you play. You think that because you play video games, that thats what most people 'run.' For you, a video game is 'a real world application'
So now you moved the goal post AGAIN, and this time only want to discuss clock for clock?
Translation: Sure, the 2600K is 2x to 3x faster than the E8400, but thats because its unfair.
You are missing the point ENTIRELY... you made no rational numbers backed points what-so-ever, just rhetoric.
The numbers are common knowledge and easy to find. If you havent looked, then you are being willfully ignorant of the performance of these processors. A stock E8400 encodes HD H.264 video using x264 at about ~27 frames per second, while the stock 2600K does so at about ~63 FPS. Here is a citation for the willfully ignorant The disparity grows when both are overclocked.
..essentially lying to yourself and for some strange reason willing to do so publicly here on slashdot?
So now the question is, why are you willfully ignorant? Do you own an E8400, willing to pretend that its not a significant under-performer these days?
x264 is a CPU-based open source video encoding library, used by many open source encoding packages. This is something real people do with their computers, and have done so for years now.
This is why I qualified my first post by users who are interested in other work based apps.
You didnt qualify it with games, which is the only place (GPU-bound) where your argument actually is accurate. For applications, the 2600K is significantly faster than the E8400. Photoshop benchmark.. 3x, Excel benchmark.. 3x, WinRAR benchmark.. 2x. It is only games where your bullshit 30% figure seems to ring true.. only games...
The i7 is not even 30% faster then the core 2 E8400 in UT3, and Sandybridge is barely faster then the i7 at the same clockspeed.
Translation: I have this application thats bottlenecked on the GPU and that proves that the CPU isnt twice as fast.
Everyone benching using nothing less then the latest apps is fudging the data purposely.
Translation: The latest apps consist of only games that are heavily bound to GPU performance, and these have been like that for years but I didn't notice.
I wonder what is wrong with you. All you do is game? Is that it?
To be fair, that 2600K is the high end sandy. The mid-range Sandy's are on par with that Q9550.
Once you are talking about the mid-range Sandy's, then you also have to consider the AMD offerings because they do keep up in that segment as well. No point replacing any of the AMD "Thuban" chips with a mid-range Sandy either, as they are all about equal in performance.
The Sandy CPU's are very competitive, for sure. That high end 2600K Sandy is a great bargain for the performance. If you are buying a Sandy, its certainly the chip to get.
Sandy Bridge is certainly i7 redux, but I think you are simplifying too much.
The architectural change is significant in more than just clock speed. They have redone all the I/O from the CPU, which is why there is a new socket and only a single (for now) supporting chipset.
As far as double performance, these chips do perform twice as well as nearly all of the Core2's ever sold. Sure, the highest end Core2's wont see a 2x replacement advantage when buying a midrange Sandy (might even see a performance reduction), but even the highest end Core2 (X9770) would see a 2x improvement moving to the highest end Sandy (2600K)
Indeed. Sandy Bridge peaks out at 20 Gbps of I/O (combined SATA + USB + sub-8x PCIe + Ethernet) and is clearly not meant for the kind of folks who will be working many drives simultaneously. Hell, the pair of SATA 3.0 ports alone can consume 60% of the DMI link to the CPU / Memory. Those 4 SATA 2.0 ports push it well over 100%, meaning there is just no way to fully leverage all the supporting SATA ports simultaneously.. they are just bullet points on an I/O gimped system.
Intel has abandoned this model and are pushing both SATA and PCIe over the same bus now.
...) that are each 5 Gbps, faster than the 4 SATA 2.0 ports (3 Gbps each) we are talking about today.
.. all running over that fixed 20 Gbps Sandy Bridge DMI link (and this isnt counting the fact that USB and Ethernet are *also* carried over the DMI link) .. Basically, Sandy Bridge is I/O gimped. The chipset supports these technologies as bullet points in literature, but not as a matter of actual practice because of the processor they are tied to.
.. and thats because its trivial to build a system that full saturates the 20 Gbps link regardless.
.. and those that wanted more than 20 Gbps, well.. they were screwed anyways.
Specifically, with the exception of the graphics-specific 16/8/8 PCIe ports (the pair of 8's are optional), they all converge on the 20 Gbps DMI link that is specific to Sandy Bridge (regardless of the chipset.) The problem chipset supports 8 PCIe 2.0 x1's (or 4 x2's,
Totaling it up, 8 x 5 Gbps + 4 x 3 Gbps + 2 x 6 Gbps = 64 Gbps of external capacity
So the issue isnt really that a PCIe SATA 2.0 replacement is going to suck.. its going to be just as fine as those built in 2.0 ports.. This chipset problem really hasnt changed anything
Since most consumers arent doing 20 Gbps I/O, its not much of an issue
The issue, I think, it that Intel has no plans to replace Sandy Bridge with a new architecture any time soon.. so public impression is of long-term importance here. If Sandy Bridge was just a small step towards a major revision then that would be one thing, but instead Sandy Bridge *is* a major revision and they will be stuck with it for a very long time.
Now add in that AMD is putting out its own major revision in two months (the first in many many years), and all the signs currently indicate that they will have offerings on par with i7 performance. Intel is afraid of AMD because when left unchallenged AMD proved that in the desktop marketplace, it is very easy to lose market share very quickly (AMD roared to 50% market share when Intel was bumbling around wih P4's, and there is some question as to how much of the remaining 50% Intel actually deserved vs how much was due to its anti-competitive backroom deals which it was convicted of)
AMD hasnt been much of a threat in the desktop space because they have been a generation behind on process technology, and additionally opted not to do any major revisions while it was folding the ATI acquisition into its business. But here it is.. process size parity and a major revision just a few months away.. Intel cannot tolerate a long term hit to the brand, with customers for years wondering if they are getting a "good" or "bad" chipset with their purchase.
Isnt it funny that this whole topic got started because Intel is now going to be shipping known-to-be-faulty motherboards to manufacturers, while you rail on this particular poster because the motherboard he has turned out to be... faulty too?
Just make banks liable for losses and they will make sure it doesn't happen very very fast.
Well it USED to be that if someone ROBBED A BANK, that the bank was liable. Somehow this got turned around and now its stealing YOUR IDENTITY, rather than ROBBING A FUCKING BANK.