Try the processor's page or the white paper. These mainly compare Nano with the C7, so you only need to find comparisons between the C7 and other processors.
Currently it's Core 2 desktop components it's making, but there's no reason that it can't do these Core Solo notebook chips as well. From wikipedia:
Depending on demand, Intel may also simply disable one of the cores to sell the chip at the Core Solo price -- this requires less effort than launching and maintaining a separate line of CPUs that physically only have one core. Intel used the same strategy previously with the 486 CPU in which early 486SX CPUs were in fact manufactured as 486DX CPUs but the FPU failed quality control and the connection was physically severed. So yeah, they certainly will get Core Solo chips out of that factory.
Hey, hold on. The press release has a little table which is worth reading. The above sentence should read:
[Nano] could bring Intel's Atom platform to its knees: clock speeds as high as 1.8 GHz with a maximum power draw of 25W or as low as 1.0 GHz with a maximum power draw of only 5 watts!
Americans don't have the slightest notion of this concept, because its not built into to our electrical system. Actually, no-one other than the British do, AFAIK. Haven't seen a switch in a socket in Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy or the US. Maybe Ireland?
I looked at the pledge map last night on firefox 3b5. It decided to cache the data and now it won't update it (even after page refresh). So yeah, from firefox 3 it looks like the firefox 3 pledge is a total failure. Ironic?
"Al-Qaeda" would sound/al-ka'i-da/, and "Al-Qaida" would sound/al-'kei-da/. Provided consistent pronunciation throughout the English language, that is.
No, we're governed by the constitution. Congress only has power to enact laws as stated within it. That's complete nonsense. The US constitution was written with the explicit intention of being amended, as it has been in 27 occasions. Actually, the constitution itself only sets up a basic framework, and it's the first ten amendments that give you any kind of rights.
Apparently what both CA.sh and the moderately competent Linux user don't know is that "find / -name CA.sh" is more likely to work on deb-based systems, and less likely to force one to read the rpm manpage to remember what options do what.
- What did you do at the office today honey? - Oh, I just demonstrated the first room-temperature electrically-pumped semiconductor source of coherent Terahertz radiation. - What? - Put goggles on, pressed button, computer said "pretty coherent!", had lunch. - Oh.. I thought you had to be clever to be a physicist.. - Nah, monkeys do this all the time.
if you sell gloves that are missing the middle finger on one hand (for people who've lost that finger), you could theoretically dial in your adwords to catch that person. Easy, they'll be looking for "glovs" on "www.googl.om".
I finally installed Ubuntu. The package manager is nice... but browsing through the 100s of packages there named: [...] and most of the descriptions might as well have been written in Wookie for as much as my mom would understand. Even search rarely returns a single, or even small number of results. Try "Add/Remove Applications" rather than Synaptic. That comes with pretty icons, meaningful names and descriptions, reasonable multi-package bundles, and even popularity ratings. It's a mistake to tell newbies to use Synaptic.
Well, no. What makes you think that? Just a bad guess from your wording...
I would say, rather, that the GPLv2 would seem to be closer to represent a coherent ideological view of "freedom" being advanced through the mechanism of a license, where the GPLv3 seems to be a compromise between ideologues and industrialists with very different reasons for supporting a "sticky" (to avoid the emotionally-load "v" word) open-source licensing system. I do see the compromise, but I don't think it's a particularly big one, nor that GPLv3 is a departure from the GPLv2 philosophy. Not as much as to be incoherent with it, at least.
Neither one is a perfect match for my idea of "freedom", though they (and other open-source licenses, including less-sticky ones) are, IMO, socially useful. Note that "not a perfect match" is quite different from saying that the GPL is merely "free as in beer".
While the particular licensing model or copyright status may be important for some uses, I don't think any of them is generally superior; public domain is probably the "most free" by any reasonable definition, but that doesn't always make it the best one to use. ... I don't think we actually disagree...
Advancing a particular parties concept of the community interest is not advancing the community interest. Individuals choosing to use offer licensing under the GPL represent only themselves. It sounds like you say that out of a bad experience with GPL'd software. However I don't think that is the only possible outcome. There might be abuses from the original developers, there might be abuses against the original developers (e.g. fork and forget the original project), and there might be cases of symbiosis (e.g., when Red Hat or Novell improve the Linux kernel, they are helping not only themselves, but also their rivals and the entire user base). The license is written to encourage the latter rather than any of the former.
Anyway, plenty of people issue software under Free licenses, including the GPL, not out of ideology but out of a rational assessment that that best serves their financial interests. Which is not incompatible with anything I've said. Philosophically sound, happy and shinny as it may (or may not) be, the GPL wouldn't have been adopted so widely if it wasn't of practical use.
the authors of the GPL clearly do not, otherwise many provisions of the GPL would be inexplicable, particularly the distinct treatment of consumer vs. business products in the anti-tivoization provisions of the GPLv3. The anti-tivoization clause was probably controversial enough to encourage limiting its extent to a class of products. Is this off the point, or should I understand that the GPLv3 would seem more "free" to you if this clause applied to all products, and that the GPLv2 is a perfectly "free" license in your view?
Because that IBM Thinkpad with the P166 chip only runs on 60 watts. Does YOURS consume that little juice? No. My processor has a TDP of 34W, and the entire laptop takes up to 65W from the adapter. Notice that when idle, with the speed scaled down, it uses much less than the TDP, probably far less than the 14.5W of the P166.
If you are surfing the web on youe core 2 duo rig, consuming 120 watts of juice The point is that when the processor speed is scaled down, the power usage goes down as well. By quite a bit, well below what older laptops use when idle.
The P4 3.3ghz Toshiba I'm using at the moment demands 120 watts... and running with any less will cause the unit to heat up faster and shut down due to being throttled "Demands 120 watts"... peak! How do you force your computer to "run with less"? How can using less power result in faster heat-up? Throttling slows down your processor to allow it to cool down, it shouldn't "shut it down". Your OS may shut it down, but that is regardless of throttling.
Older laptops are less likely to have two fans that require regular cleaning (like more modern units) Laptop manufacturers realized a while ago that it is far better to place the opening for the cooling system on the side of the case, so that it gathers less dust than if on top. My laptop is a year old, it has one fan, and last time I opened it (a month ago), it was spotless.
Now, is anyone suggesting that one of these older units replace your nice, fast Core 2 duo unit permanently? That'd be silly. My Core 2 Duo is more powerful and uses less energy:-)
Note that my point wasn't that old laptops should not be re-used, or that they are not low-power. I was just questioning the implicit assumption that old laptops are more power-efficient than modern ones, which they aren't most of the time.
I think you are missing a zero in there. No, I really mean 100MHz (a hundred megahertz). I was referring to the Core 2 Duo Mobile T5500 in my laptop (clearly I should have mentioned this) which can do 1.66GHz, 100MHz and six other speeds in between.
A 266MHz processor uses less power than a 1000MHz processor I think that depends on the processor. The thermal design power (TDP) of a P2 Mobile at 266MHz is 9.8-10.3W. The Core 2 Duo U7500 runs at 1.06GHz and has a TDP of 10W as well (being dual-core and all). How these Intel-provided numbers get on with reality, I don't know, but it would seem to me that the U7500 would give you a lot more peak performance than the P2, and better power savings off-peak.
A better-founded example is a test carried out by our computer officer a couple of years ago. He took an EV6.7 (a 1999 Alpha at 667MHz) and a Pentium 4 (2.8GHz), made them run Mathematica full-on and measured the power they drew. The Alpha used quite a bit more than the P4. The Alpha also used a lot more power when idle (twice as much IIRC).
Slashdot Mirror
Try the processor's page or the white paper. These mainly compare Nano with the C7, so you only need to find comparisons between the C7 and other processors.
I looked at the pledge map last night on firefox 3b5. It decided to cache the data and now it won't update it (even after page refresh). So yeah, from firefox 3 it looks like the firefox 3 pledge is a total failure. Ironic?
Yup. They say they're going for 5M downloads. Firefox 2 got 1.6M on its first day. Says so here
"Al-Qaeda" would sound /al-ka'i-da/, and "Al-Qaida" would sound /al-'kei-da/. Provided consistent pronunciation throughout the English language, that is.
"Al-Qaeda" seems to be the most widely-used spelling, but you're right. Sometimes I forget that English spelling is not an exact science..
Two details should be considered before judging the situation and blaming random people:
This is a gross mistake anyway, but it's a quite a bit less 1984-ish than one might think from the summary.
And guess who has the power to amend the constitution.
How could aliens build a neutrino sniffer if they can't count?
No, but if you do it while it's running you get a Blue Screen of Kernel Panic.
My QuickBASIC years left "locate 1,2: print a$" burned into my brain; I can't take UNIX's locate seriously. Wish I could..
Apparently what both CA.sh and the moderately competent Linux user don't know is that "find / -name CA.sh" is more likely to work on deb-based systems, and less likely to force one to read the rpm manpage to remember what options do what.
- Oh, I just demonstrated the first room-temperature electrically-pumped semiconductor source of coherent Terahertz radiation. - What?
- Put goggles on, pressed button, computer said "pretty coherent!", had lunch.
- Oh.. I thought you had to be clever to be a physicist..
- Nah, monkeys do this all the time.
2. Hold Alt
3. Press F1
I agree, it's totally multistep. Still need to figure out the most important bit, though:
4. ???
5. Profit
Hint: "there can't be more linux users with problems than linux users".
[...]
and most of the descriptions might as well have been written in Wookie for as much as my mom would understand. Even search rarely returns a single, or even small number of results. Try "Add/Remove Applications" rather than Synaptic. That comes with pretty icons, meaningful names and descriptions, reasonable multi-package bundles, and even popularity ratings. It's a mistake to tell newbies to use Synaptic.
Try reading this, it may help you.
Note that my point wasn't that old laptops should not be re-used, or that they are not low-power. I was just questioning the implicit assumption that old laptops are more power-efficient than modern ones, which they aren't most of the time.
A better-founded example is a test carried out by our computer officer a couple of years ago. He took an EV6.7 (a 1999 Alpha at 667MHz) and a Pentium 4 (2.8GHz), made them run Mathematica full-on and measured the power they drew. The Alpha used quite a bit more than the P4. The Alpha also used a lot more power when idle (twice as much IIRC).