Re:"The worlds fastest browser"
on
Safari 5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The difference is that while the webkit boys are making their javascript engine faster.. the opera boys are also making the browser faster.
webkit has a slight edge on javascript speed, I guess.. some benchmarks say so anyways..
..but opera (and chrome) are so much snappier than safari, at least on windows, and its not even a contest. We don't need benchmarks to see how poorly safari is running on windows compared to opera and chrome... the difference is visually apparent.
Dont be a jealous ass. We are rich. The whole "upper class" vs "middle class" vs "lower class" shit is exactly that.. shit. That doesnt tell you how rich you are. How rich you are is irrespective of how much more other people have. If I had a 100 trillion dollars, would that instantly make everyone else poor? This tactic of class separation is tired old shit pulled by politicians that want to sell you a story and get your vote. They prey on your jealousy and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Toffler's theory was the middle class would become rich by taking lower-upper class type jobs and educations, leading to the stress of how to spend all that money on things they don't really culturally understand.
...
The way it turned out, is the jobs disappeared. Everyone but the extremely rich is poorer. Rather than stressing about which ipod to buy...
Poorer, but buying iPods? Future Shock was writing in a period where something like a portable music player was a pipe dream. Now everyone has one. We all also have cell phones, dvd and blueray players.. We can feed ourselves for a month on one to two days of salary.
We are poor in the sense that you are a jealous ass that doesnt know how well off you are.
The reality is that you are also wrong because your criticism is two decades late. He wasn't writing about now.. Future Shock is about what eventually happened in the 80's and early 90's. Its not relevant today because we are in the middle of the 3rd wave.. you are so informed by the global communication system he predicted, and so rich just as predicted, that you do not even worry about making the wrong choice when buying a piece of technology. There are plenty of good choices and you can afford all of them. Its hard to fuck it up badly. Thus, you don't worry.
Technology is now hyper-disposable because we are insanely rich. Period. You are rich. Individuals in our society throws away the equivalent of a billion 1950's room-sized mainframe computers as if it was nothing. You do it. I do it. We all do it.
He did write a books about now, and we are in the overlap of The Third Wave and Power Shift.
Nations have less and less control. Multinationals have more and more control. Predicted. Even the rise of the global communication network, and the exponential growth of the value of information.. predicted. Slashdot is all about putting up articles about Intelectual Property and so forth.. the very shit he predicted would be a defining concern of this age.
They're using published standards, that other browsers can (and probably will, eventually) support, and they're publishing the source code for all of the demos.
The most HTML5 compliant browser using my simple counting technique is Opera.
Trident scores a 9
Gecko scores a 20
Webkit scores a 15
Opera scores a 28
Are they requiring the use of the latest WebKit nightly build? No? Then WHAT THE FUCK, dude?
In this episode, the whacko environmentalists wanted to save the penguins at any expense from an environmental disaster (a dark-matter spill)
Later it is found out that the dark-matter greatly increases the reproduction rate of the penguin species, so to save them, those same whacko environmentalists pulled out rifles and announced that hunting season was open.
What harm is there in trying?
We don't know. We don't know what good will come from trying, either.
I am entirely amazed that you can't tell the difference.
A real-world hands-on example is Apples Pinch-Zoom.
They have not patented zooming. They have not patented zooming with a touch interface. They have patented zooming by using a pinch gesture detected with a specific methodology.
ntel has to retool and upgrade it's manufacturing plants so they can make the new processor. which costs a lot of money, and can't be done all at once.
The cache in question is indeed RAM, but not all RAM is the system is cache. In fact, your total ram amount does not even include the cache because whats in the cache is a copy of whats in ram.
The L1 cache is specifically the fastest and closest cache to the CPU.
More importantly, how the hell can the summary conclude that its worse than I thought? Fuck! I'm pretty sure that shit in the picture is god damned bad. Very god damned bad. Holy shit thats bad.
I am sure there is an "oh god the complexity" here as far as actually doing that mixing
Its not like humans organize the transistors in these chips anymore. They throw some constraints at an algorithm (probably simulated annealing) which solves the problem for them. Then they simulate the result, tweak the constraints, and so on.. until the manager's manager says its high time they started actually making them.
while this little thing will have to share the memory access and caches with CPU.
Sharing the cache is not necessarily a bad thing. Its nice when the data that the CPU now needs is already sitting in L1 because the GPU just computed it, or vise-versa. That was, in fact, the point of the poster.
Most servers these days are running at well under 10%. You might as well run six servers on one box and save power, money, and space.
This is why AMD's 12 core chip is so attractive in the server market. On a 4-socket board thats up to 48 cores. Intels strategy just doesnt map well to this many-servers-in-one-box space at all. Sure there are some Big Boys that absolutely need plenty of memory bandwidth and map better to Xeon's, but thats just not a very big market. It doesnt keep the foundry running 24/7 printing money, the ultimate goal of any production facility.
I can build *two* AMD 6-core systems (that includes CPU, motherboard, ram, case, and power supply...) for the price of that extreme edition Intel CPU leading the performance charts. Thats right, two complete systems for the price of that chip.
I'll enjoy my TWO systems with cash-to-spare that together trivially outperform your one system.
The 6-core Intel processor is the Extreme Edition (always was introduced at $1000)
If ((not realistic for server marker) && (cant sell for less than $1000 without undercutting our other offerings))
{
setlabel("Extreme Edition");
}
Where is Intel's budget 6-core design? Is it because they refuse to make budget 6-core CPU's, or is it because they can't make budget 6-core CPU's?
Either way, the proof is in the pudding. They are not targeting the highly parallel market either by choice ("ignoring that market" scenario) or by mistake ("caught with pants down" scenario)
This GPU-on-the-CPU is targeting the mobile/lightweight market.
Think about how the other solutions work. That GPU chip sits next to the CPU chip and they both must be connected to the system bus in order to access ram. With AMD's solution here, you remove that GPU chip and therefor also remove the external BUS connection that it required. This is a very big win for manufacturers, who would even pay a premium for the chip because of the lower production costs. But knowing AMD, they wont be charging a premium for it. Instead they will try to push Atom's out of the market.
AMDs product is just a desperate attempt at trying to be relevant. They need to show they have a product competing with the big boys in all the right channels.
AMD is plenty relevant. It is Intel that scrambled to put out a 6 core desktop processor, which was so poorly planned that the cheap version is $1000. Meanwhile nVidia is desperately trying to get people locked into their CUDA API because their video cards just dont bang the performance drum like they used to.
AMD and Intel have different visions. AMD is clearly focusing on getting more cores on chip for more raw parallel performance (12 core CPU's in 4 chip configs are owning the top end server market.. brought to you by AMD), while Intel is clearly trying to maximize memory bandwidth to peak out raw single threaded performance (triple channel ram and larger cache is owning the software rendering and gaming markets)
Normal people are within the $50 to $200 CPU range, and at those price points, solutions from both camps perform about the same. On the video card front, you just can't beat AMD right now. Best price/performance ratio on top of best performance period.
ummm... eh? While its true that they compete in some spaces, the idea that Google is Microsoft's #1 competitor is absurd. Microsoft is primarily in the software business. Google is primarily in the advertisement business.
Microsoft's main revenue stream is in selling MS Office to, well, offices. Google isnt competing there at all. Offices are not dumping MS Office for Googles cloud apps.. they are much more likely to dump MS Office for OpenOffice, but they arent really even doing that to any great degree either.
Microsoft's second largest revenue stream is on selling Windows. Google has ChromeOS, but that doesnt have any legs yet... none at all... and Android is in a war with iPhoneOS, not Windows.
I am picking up what you are putting down. Microsoft would certainly benefit if Google was out of the picture, but they are not really competitors in any real sense. Googles main competitors are in China.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that while the webkit boys are making their javascript engine faster.. the opera boys are also making the browser faster.
..but opera (and chrome) are so much snappier than safari, at least on windows, and its not even a contest. We don't need benchmarks to see how poorly safari is running on windows compared to opera and chrome... the difference is visually apparent.
webkit has a slight edge on javascript speed, I guess.. some benchmarks say so anyways..
Oh, I'm well aware indeed. The lifestyle you describe is for us few remaining middle class folks.
Our poor people buy these things. Open your eyes.
262 million cell phones subscribers in the united states.
227 million internet users in the united states
The median income of the united states is enough to afford plenty of shit we dont need.
Dont be a jealous ass. We are rich. The whole "upper class" vs "middle class" vs "lower class" shit is exactly that.. shit. That doesnt tell you how rich you are. How rich you are is irrespective of how much more other people have. If I had a 100 trillion dollars, would that instantly make everyone else poor? This tactic of class separation is tired old shit pulled by politicians that want to sell you a story and get your vote. They prey on your jealousy and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Toffler's theory was the middle class would become rich by taking lower-upper class type jobs and educations, leading to the stress of how to spend all that money on things they don't really culturally understand.
...
The way it turned out, is the jobs disappeared. Everyone but the extremely rich is poorer. Rather than stressing about which ipod to buy...
Poorer, but buying iPods? Future Shock was writing in a period where something like a portable music player was a pipe dream. Now everyone has one. We all also have cell phones, dvd and blueray players.. We can feed ourselves for a month on one to two days of salary.
We are poor in the sense that you are a jealous ass that doesnt know how well off you are.
The reality is that you are also wrong because your criticism is two decades late. He wasn't writing about now.. Future Shock is about what eventually happened in the 80's and early 90's. Its not relevant today because we are in the middle of the 3rd wave.. you are so informed by the global communication system he predicted, and so rich just as predicted, that you do not even worry about making the wrong choice when buying a piece of technology. There are plenty of good choices and you can afford all of them. Its hard to fuck it up badly. Thus, you don't worry.
Technology is now hyper-disposable because we are insanely rich. Period. You are rich. Individuals in our society throws away the equivalent of a billion 1950's room-sized mainframe computers as if it was nothing. You do it. I do it. We all do it.
He did write a books about now, and we are in the overlap of The Third Wave and Power Shift.
Nations have less and less control. Multinationals have more and more control. Predicted. Even the rise of the global communication network, and the exponential growth of the value of information.. predicted. Slashdot is all about putting up articles about Intelectual Property and so forth.. the very shit he predicted would be a defining concern of this age.
They're using published standards, that other browsers can (and probably will, eventually) support, and they're publishing the source code for all of the demos.
The most HTML5 compliant browser using my simple counting technique is Opera.
Trident scores a 9
Gecko scores a 20
Webkit scores a 15
Opera scores a 28
Are they requiring the use of the latest WebKit nightly build? No? Then WHAT THE FUCK, dude?
The parent post is designed to be read with Netscape Navigator.
Its already happening naturally.. off the coast of California .. something like 10,000 barrels a day.. been going on for years and years
Nobody gives a shit about that. This time its an accident involving Evil Big Oil so we just have to do something, right?
Birdbot of Ice-Catraz
In this episode, the whacko environmentalists wanted to save the penguins at any expense from an environmental disaster (a dark-matter spill)
Later it is found out that the dark-matter greatly increases the reproduction rate of the penguin species, so to save them, those same whacko environmentalists pulled out rifles and announced that hunting season was open.
What harm is there in trying?
We don't know. We don't know what good will come from trying, either.
You still are confusing results with method.
I am entirely amazed that you can't tell the difference.
A real-world hands-on example is Apples Pinch-Zoom.
They have not patented zooming. They have not patented zooming with a touch interface. They have patented zooming by using a pinch gesture detected with a specific methodology.
All well and good, but it's still pretty fricken obvious to those skilled in the art.
If its so obvious.. then why this:
Most of us would just think it's a bad idea right now until computer vision catches up to make it reliable.
He explained to you what patents entail, and then you go on and confuse patents with results, again.
ntel has to retool and upgrade it's manufacturing plants so they can make the new processor. which costs a lot of money, and can't be done all at once.
So its the "caught with pants down" scenario, eh?
strike that, I meant it to be a reply to the parent poster. Sorry :/
You apparently dont know what a cache is.
The cache in question is indeed RAM, but not all RAM is the system is cache. In fact, your total ram amount does not even include the cache because whats in the cache is a copy of whats in ram.
The L1 cache is specifically the fastest and closest cache to the CPU.
Have you seen the pictures? It looks awesome.
More importantly, how the hell can the summary conclude that its worse than I thought? Fuck! I'm pretty sure that shit in the picture is god damned bad. Very god damned bad. Holy shit thats bad.
...and awesome, of course.
I am sure there is an "oh god the complexity" here as far as actually doing that mixing
Its not like humans organize the transistors in these chips anymore. They throw some constraints at an algorithm (probably simulated annealing) which solves the problem for them. Then they simulate the result, tweak the constraints, and so on.. until the manager's manager says its high time they started actually making them.
If 10GB sample libraries arent good enough, try 100GB, then 1000GB.
I thought the whole instrument modeling thing died because disk space is cheaper than processing power. That 1000GB of samples fits on a $100 drive.
while this little thing will have to share the memory access and caches with CPU.
Sharing the cache is not necessarily a bad thing. Its nice when the data that the CPU now needs is already sitting in L1 because the GPU just computed it, or vise-versa. That was, in fact, the point of the poster.
Most servers these days are running at well under 10%. You might as well run six servers on one box and save power, money, and space.
This is why AMD's 12 core chip is so attractive in the server market. On a 4-socket board thats up to 48 cores. Intels strategy just doesnt map well to this many-servers-in-one-box space at all. Sure there are some Big Boys that absolutely need plenty of memory bandwidth and map better to Xeon's, but thats just not a very big market. It doesnt keep the foundry running 24/7 printing money, the ultimate goal of any production facility.
I can build *two* AMD 6-core systems (that includes CPU, motherboard, ram, case, and power supply...) for the price of that extreme edition Intel CPU leading the performance charts. Thats right, two complete systems for the price of that chip.
I'll enjoy my TWO systems with cash-to-spare that together trivially outperform your one system.
Right, because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is not about copyright.
Violating the DMCA (with its anti-circumvention rules) is not the same as violating copyright. Seriously... you are grasping here.
The 6-core Intel processor is the Extreme Edition (always was introduced at $1000)
If ((not realistic for server marker) && (cant sell for less than $1000 without undercutting our other offerings))
{
setlabel("Extreme Edition");
}
Where is Intel's budget 6-core design? Is it because they refuse to make budget 6-core CPU's, or is it because they can't make budget 6-core CPU's?
Either way, the proof is in the pudding. They are not targeting the highly parallel market either by choice ("ignoring that market" scenario) or by mistake ("caught with pants down" scenario)
I think you missed the point tho.
It is the people that run glider that are violating that copyright, not the people that authored glider.
If anything, the authors would be in violation of the DMCA and not copyright, right?
Indeed.
This GPU-on-the-CPU is targeting the mobile/lightweight market.
Think about how the other solutions work. That GPU chip sits next to the CPU chip and they both must be connected to the system bus in order to access ram. With AMD's solution here, you remove that GPU chip and therefor also remove the external BUS connection that it required. This is a very big win for manufacturers, who would even pay a premium for the chip because of the lower production costs. But knowing AMD, they wont be charging a premium for it. Instead they will try to push Atom's out of the market.
AMDs product is just a desperate attempt at trying to be relevant. They need to show they have a product competing with the big boys in all the right channels.
AMD is plenty relevant. It is Intel that scrambled to put out a 6 core desktop processor, which was so poorly planned that the cheap version is $1000. Meanwhile nVidia is desperately trying to get people locked into their CUDA API because their video cards just dont bang the performance drum like they used to.
AMD and Intel have different visions. AMD is clearly focusing on getting more cores on chip for more raw parallel performance (12 core CPU's in 4 chip configs are owning the top end server market.. brought to you by AMD), while Intel is clearly trying to maximize memory bandwidth to peak out raw single threaded performance (triple channel ram and larger cache is owning the software rendering and gaming markets)
Normal people are within the $50 to $200 CPU range, and at those price points, solutions from both camps perform about the same. On the video card front, you just can't beat AMD right now. Best price/performance ratio on top of best performance period.
Google is Microsoft's #1 competition right?
ummm... eh? While its true that they compete in some spaces, the idea that Google is Microsoft's #1 competitor is absurd. Microsoft is primarily in the software business. Google is primarily in the advertisement business.
Microsoft's main revenue stream is in selling MS Office to, well, offices. Google isnt competing there at all. Offices are not dumping MS Office for Googles cloud apps.. they are much more likely to dump MS Office for OpenOffice, but they arent really even doing that to any great degree either.
Microsoft's second largest revenue stream is on selling Windows. Google has ChromeOS, but that doesnt have any legs yet... none at all... and Android is in a war with iPhoneOS, not Windows.
I am picking up what you are putting down. Microsoft would certainly benefit if Google was out of the picture, but they are not really competitors in any real sense. Googles main competitors are in China.
I've tried other enema's.. but a piping hot pot of coffee is still the best.