I think the significance of the Conroe is that it is an entirely new architecture and it caught AMD off guard as their new architecture won't be out until next year.
Conroe isn't release, IMHO, until they are on shelves, and I can buy one. Intel likes to do paper releases like this all the time, releasing with a vastly insuffient number of CPUs, so they can pretend they were much further ahead than they really are.
I don't know why even now about a month after the core2 launch you still can't find a retail x6800 extreme anywhere. I'm guessing intel are just letting the big builders like Dell grab the entire supply still.
Intel has long been the master of paper releases, and I was saying so back when the first benchmarks were cheering about Intel being back on-top.
Intel always uses tricks to be on top, at least on paper. They like to put together some piece of crap that they never sell to anyone, anywhere, and call it the first released dual-core x86 CPU. They produce a P4 chip that does spectacularly well on benchmarks (Extreme Edition) and hype it for months, before they tell anyone it's going to sell for 10X more than it's competitors. They produce fast chips, advertise how incredibly cheap they are going to sell them for, but then only produce a small number, and do so on a release date LONG before they have any number of those chips to sell, just so it looks like you can actually get a better, cheaper chip from them, when you really can't.
This is just par for the course. When AMD releases their 65nm chips that trounce Intel's offerings, you can bet that they will do so in quantity. If Intel had waited until they had sufficent quantities produced, you can bet their actually release date wouldn't have been until shortly before AMD's, but Intel doesn't want the competition. Release early, and get some positive marketing on the float, so to speak.
And for the record I'm no AMD fanboy. I'm a pissed-off Intel customer...
Try Intel or Unichrome cards. Support companies that support FOSS.
What part of "VIA Technologies Inc. does not support or endorse this project in any way." on unichrome.sf.net, do you not understand? It also says: "Thanks to VIAs code releases, however irregular, entangled and buggy, a lot is known about the unichromes,"
NVidia is supporting the development of the open-source NV driver, and ATI has been providing documentation to the gatos project for a long time now.
NONE of these cards with open source drivers has adequate OpenGL support, with decent performance, however. Only NVidia cards, using the binary driver, are usable.
Personally I cannot wait for someone to build a diesel hybrid. Now that ought to get some good MPG!
People keep saying that, but it really doesn't make any sense.
Hybrids aren't any better than conventional engines at highway speeds. They only improve things because of how terribly ineffecient gasoline ICEs are at city traffic, and when purely idling (engine can shut-off).
Diesel engines, however, are already geared torwards more torque at lower speed, so they'd get very little benefit during stop and go. And, the fuel consumption of diesel engines is FAR easy to control than spark-based engines. When idling, they barely use any fuel, which is why you can commonly see semis left idling overnight. AND, starting diesels isn't as easy a starting gasoline ICEs, so you'd have to be parked for an even long time to make automatically shutting-off the engine economical.
So what advantage is there to creating (heavier, more expensive, more complex, more maintenance-heavy) hybrid diesels?
..if the brick happens to be larger in size than the microwave source. Which it isn't.
Assuming the brick is significantly closer to us than the microwave source is (which they are), then the brick IS larger, from our point of view.
Or otherwise the source would've been invisible to begin with.
What? You're saying these bricks perfectly maintain their position in space, exactly between us and this microwave source?
If you just want to keep trolling, I'll just drop this discussion, let you have the last word, and dismiss you as another complete idiot spewing nonsense on/.
That thing is twice as heavy as the Psion 5, and FAR bigger. 2X as wide, 10X as deep(!), etc.
I don't need a "full" keyboard, the Psion's half-pint keyboard was plenty big enough. Folding would be a big plus, but even with that, it needs to be significantly smaller, and lighter.
If I wanted something that big, I'd just carry around an actual notebook.
Grafitti, Jot, On-screen keyboards, THEY ALL SUCK. When you're going to be writing more than a couple words here and there, you NEED a PDA with a keyboard, and the 1/3rd of a keyboard on a phone doesn't count.
I tossed my WinCE device after a month of struggling to do anything useful with it, and bought a Psion 5. I used it daily for the next couple years. Not just taking little notes, mind you. I would write-up entire multi-page reports, with the proper font, spacing, headers, etc. Then I'd often switch over to the drawing programs, sketch out a damn-good diagram, and insert it into the report, and print the whole thing out via one of 2 IrDA laserjet printers that were around. Not to mention that 2 AA batteries would power it for over a week of CONSTANT 24/7 use (one time, just before finals). And this was back when WinCE would go apeshit and screw-up or hang, if you just tried to italicize text.
These days, things have gone backwards. Psion became Symbian, and now you practically can't find any with keyboards, let alone B&W screens which work in direct sunlight, and run for about a month on a pair of AAs. And a tall narrow screen can't even compete with a wide (640x240) screen.
So there's my advice. Do your best to find a Symbian/Psion PDA with a B&W landscape LCD screen, full keyboard, slots for CF/SD, and standard-sized batteries.
It's a bit of a cop-out, I know, because you'll be lucky to find a new PDA with ONE of those features, never mind ALL of them.
And no, I won't sell you mine. The only thing my (now old) Psion 5 has against it, is lack of ethernet or WiFi adapters, which are indispensible today.
The low cross-section and low number-density would make it optically thin even at cosmological distances.
Optically, of course, but it's not just light in use. Radio telescopes should be able to pick-up when a "brick" comes directly between it and a high-frequency (eg. microwave) source.
Tidal generators in effect increase the friction between the Earth's crust and the oceans
I'd have to see some solid numbers to believe that will change anything. It's not as if the energy of the tides just flies out into space. It currently has to be dispersed by friction, otherwise it would just keep flowing inland.
Explaining that you're making an idiot out of yourself, is, in fact, quite a useful comment to make.
If you would use/. at all, instead of just fumbling around and complaining that someone isn't giving you exactly the information you want, you'd have seen that I already commented in this thread, explaining the issues very clearly.
But hey, I guess the world needs loud, ignorant, shiftless people, too.
I bet you're a pile of laughs at parties, hey?
People at parties don't usually pretend to be experts on a subject they don't understand at all. There's the occasional few who give horrific medical advice, but just going along with it, isn't what I'd call being "fun".
They say they NEED scientific validation in order to get this into peoples every day lives. WHY?
Products don't develop themselves, and it's hard to get funding when nobody believes your claims.
It seems pretty obviously to be pure zeropoint bullshit, but your mitaken reasoning isn't helping.
Re:What is "dark matter"?
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Since the only things we can see out there are stars and things close enough to them to be lit by them, I would assume there can be enormous amounts of other things in space that we just don't see.
No. We can also see things by the light they BLOCK from stars. If it was just matter, we would have seen it, and conclusively proved it's existance, long ago.
Did anyone else notice the amazing quality of TFA?
Yes, what could be clearer than: "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"
I actually understand more about dark matter from that article than from anything else I have read on the subject to date.
You must not have read much on the subject. That blog post is some unorganized run-on rant, which only makes passing mentions of the actual facts of the situation, and mainly talks about how excited he is, secrecy of this press release, etc. No critical analysis at all, and not a very good primer for the uninitiated.
Full-text from Browser Cache...
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The great accomplishment of late-twentieth-century cosmology was putting together a complete inventory of the universe. We can tell a story that fits all the known data, in which ordinary matter (every particle ever detected in any experiment) constitutes only about 5% of the energy of the universe, with 25% being dark matter and 70% being dark energy. The challenge for early-twentyfirst-century cosmology will actually be to understand the nature of these mysterious dark components. A beautiful new result illuminating (if you will) the dark matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56 is an important step in this direction. (Heres the press release, and an article in the Chandra Chronicles.)
A prerequisite to understanding the dark sector is to make sure we are on the right track. Can we be sure that we havent been fooled into believing in dark matter and dark energy? After all, we only infer their existence from detecting their gravitational fields; stronger-than-expected gravity in galaxies and clusters leads us to posit dark matter, while the acceleration of the universe (and the overall geometry of space) leads us to posit dark energy. Could it perhaps be that gravity is modified on the enormous distance scales characteristic of these phenomena? Einsteins general theory of relativity does a great job of accounting for the behavior of gravity in the Solar System and astrophysical systems like the binary pulsar, but might it be breaking down over larger distances?
A departure from general relativity on very large scales isnt what one would expect on general principles. In most physical theories that we know and love, modifications are expected to arise on small scales (higher energies), while larger scales should behave themselves. But, we have to keep an open mind in principle, its absolutely possible that gravity could be modified, and its worth taking seriously.
Furthermore, it would be really cool. Personally, I would prefer to explain cosmological dynamics using modified gravity instead of dark matter and dark energy, just because it would tell us something qualitatively different about how physics works. (And Vera Rubin agrees.) We would all love to out-Einstein Einstein by coming up with a better theory of gravity. But our job isnt to express preferences, its to suggest hypotheses and then go out and test them.
The problem is, how do you test an idea as vague as modifying general relativity? You can imagine testing specific proposals for how gravity should be modified, like Milgroms MOND, but in more general terms we might worry that any observations could be explained by some modification of gravity.
But its not quite so bad there are reasonable features that any respectable modification of general relativity ought to have. Specifically, we expect that the gravitational force should point in the direction of its source, not off at some bizarrely skewed angle. So if we imagine doing away with dark matter, we can safely predict that gravity always be pointing in the direction of the ordinary matter. Thats interesting but not immediately helpful, since its natural to expect that the ordinary matter and dark matter cluster in the same locations; even if there is dark matter, its no surprise to find the gravitational field pointing toward the visible matter as well.
I've found it's usually good to do at least a casual check of your facts before being pedantic. You know, to make sure you're not setting yourself up to look dumb.
Exactly...
A) Dictionary.com isn't exactly a definitive reference B) It's probably refering to a very specific senario of the use of Sun, certainly not the way you feel the need to use it. C) No scientist would be caught dead talking about "other Suns".
I think siphoning some of this energy off in the form of tidal power could -- in a very, very small way -- reduce this effect,
The moon is NOT affected by heat, friction, magnetics, etc. It is affected by gravity, which is a property of MASS. Converting the friction of tidal waves into electricity (instead of letting it directly disperse naturally) will NOT change the MASS of the oceans, nor the Earth. Therefore the force of gravity being exerted on each body will remain exactly the same.
It's really only in nuclear processes that mass is actually lost, and you REALLY don't have to worry about that small bit having a significant effect on gravity. We probably lose more mass by sending satellites away from Earth, releasing helium deposits, etc.
Currently all the biofuels I've heard about max out about 2 times the energy put in (in a good year)
Biodiesel is commonly cited as 3:1.
Considering that you are already operating at most 50% efficiency,
Where'd you pull that number from?
What of the heat generated by the desalanation plant, and its power sources?
Never heard of the law of conservation of energy? The heat doesn't come out of nowhere... When you extract it from tidal, wind, hydro, etc., you are taking energy (heat) out of the ocean. Using it to fuel a desalanation plant will just be putting (most of) it back.
Same for burning biofuels. When you grow them, they consume CO2, and when you burn them, they emit that same CO2.
Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient just to use the electricity from these other generators directly, instead of running the power through an inefficient biofuel cycle?
Yes, it is inherently more effecient to use energy directly, rather than converting it. Still, there are good reasons to convert it. My car doesn't work well with an extension cord. Transmitting power over the grid results in energy losses as well.
The whole point is that biofuels are practical, inherently self-sustaining, etc. If the whole world switches over on the same day, there would be problems, but short of that, they're fine. As it happens gradually, biofuel will exponentially return more energy, and other methods will be developed.
Then why the hell don't they do it for regular notebook computers, too?!
Probably because most people want their notebooks to be x86 compatible. I'd be happy to buy a nice low-power one that isn't, but I'm sure I'm a small minority.
Also, the lowest-power notebooks just don't seem to sell as well. The U.L.V. Pentiums are used in 1GHz Thinkpads, but I guess people want faster systems than that, and don't care as much about power.
Maybe if battery life was more prominetly advertised, they could build a market, but until then, CPU speed sells notebooks.
I keep posting the same info, over and over, and don't ever seem to make any headway... The more incorrect the info, the more it gets modded up and repeated.
I've thought of writing-up a form response to all the HDTV myths, but they always vary just a bit, so it isn't entirely possible.
You're welcome to copy/paste this info as you see fit...
1080i and 720p are around the same amount of information, AFAIK.
12.5% difference isn't "around the same" to me. Besides, you originally said "at the same frame rate", which means you have to divide the 720p number of pixels/sec by half, to make it 30fps like 1080i.
We had line doubler back in the day to get better TV resolution.
It doesn't increase resolution, it just converts 30i material to be displayed on a 60p display. It doesn't improve the picture at all (at best, it keeps it exactly the same), it's really the increasing of the screen refresh rate that makes it look a bit better. And on that note, don't hold your breath for 1080p60fps displays.
Eventually, the processing speeds increased and you could do a lot more, a lot cheapter.
The limitations of deinterlacing are INHERENT. You can't reduce 60 fields/sec down to 30 frames/sec without making it less smooth (though you can convert it to 60 frames/sec without degrading it).
You also can't possibly deinterlace 2 fields (in a scene of high motion) that are captured 1/60th of a second from one another, and combine them into one 30fps frame (1/30th of a second) without losing resolution.
Deinterlacers can reduce some of the artifacts of interlacing, but they certainly can't make the picture as sharp or as smooth as displaying it natively as interlaced.
If you have a progressive 60fps display, you can display interlaced material as interlaced, with only a little conversion, but it won't look any BETTER than the original.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you said "support FOSS".
You've UTTERLY failed to explain why you think VIA is supporting OSS, while NVidia is not. Same goes for ATI to a lesser extent.
Just because they ALSO provide binary drivers, doesn't mean they don't support OSS as well.
Conroe isn't release, IMHO, until they are on shelves, and I can buy one. Intel likes to do paper releases like this all the time, releasing with a vastly insuffient number of CPUs, so they can pretend they were much further ahead than they really are.
Intel has long been the master of paper releases, and I was saying so back when the first benchmarks were cheering about Intel being back on-top.
Intel always uses tricks to be on top, at least on paper. They like to put together some piece of crap that they never sell to anyone, anywhere, and call it the first released dual-core x86 CPU. They produce a P4 chip that does spectacularly well on benchmarks (Extreme Edition) and hype it for months, before they tell anyone it's going to sell for 10X more than it's competitors. They produce fast chips, advertise how incredibly cheap they are going to sell them for, but then only produce a small number, and do so on a release date LONG before they have any number of those chips to sell, just so it looks like you can actually get a better, cheaper chip from them, when you really can't.
This is just par for the course. When AMD releases their 65nm chips that trounce Intel's offerings, you can bet that they will do so in quantity. If Intel had waited until they had sufficent quantities produced, you can bet their actually release date wouldn't have been until shortly before AMD's, but Intel doesn't want the competition. Release early, and get some positive marketing on the float, so to speak.
And for the record I'm no AMD fanboy. I'm a pissed-off Intel customer...
What part of "VIA Technologies Inc. does not support or endorse this project in any way." on unichrome.sf.net, do you not understand? It also says: "Thanks to VIAs code releases, however irregular, entangled and buggy, a lot is known about the unichromes,"
NVidia is supporting the development of the open-source NV driver, and ATI has been providing documentation to the gatos project for a long time now.
NONE of these cards with open source drivers has adequate OpenGL support, with decent performance, however. Only NVidia cards, using the binary driver, are usable.
People keep saying that, but it really doesn't make any sense.
Hybrids aren't any better than conventional engines at highway speeds. They only improve things because of how terribly ineffecient gasoline ICEs are at city traffic, and when purely idling (engine can shut-off).
Diesel engines, however, are already geared torwards more torque at lower speed, so they'd get very little benefit during stop and go. And, the fuel consumption of diesel engines is FAR easy to control than spark-based engines. When idling, they barely use any fuel, which is why you can commonly see semis left idling overnight. AND, starting diesels isn't as easy a starting gasoline ICEs, so you'd have to be parked for an even long time to make automatically shutting-off the engine economical.
So what advantage is there to creating (heavier, more expensive, more complex, more maintenance-heavy) hybrid diesels?
Minor correction... Film is recorded at 24fps, but each frame is then projected/displayed twice, so the refresh rate is 48 frames/sec.
Most people's eyes would indeed have a problem with a 24 frames/sec refresh rate.
Assuming the brick is significantly closer to us than the microwave source is (which they are), then the brick IS larger, from our point of view.
What? You're saying these bricks perfectly maintain their position in space, exactly between us and this microwave source?
If you just want to keep trolling, I'll just drop this discussion, let you have the last word, and dismiss you as another complete idiot spewing nonsense on
Deja Vu: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8110
That thing is twice as heavy as the Psion 5, and FAR bigger. 2X as wide, 10X as deep(!), etc.
I don't need a "full" keyboard, the Psion's half-pint keyboard was plenty big enough. Folding would be a big plus, but even with that, it needs to be significantly smaller, and lighter.
If I wanted something that big, I'd just carry around an actual notebook.
Who knows? Who cares?
At WORST, it is a completely innocuous stunt. Why would someone judge a group harshly, over something so trivial?
I guess in commercial corporations, no "stupid pranks" ever happen. ANYWHERE!
Grafitti, Jot, On-screen keyboards, THEY ALL SUCK. When you're going to be writing more than a couple words here and there, you NEED a PDA with a keyboard, and the 1/3rd of a keyboard on a phone doesn't count.
I tossed my WinCE device after a month of struggling to do anything useful with it, and bought a Psion 5. I used it daily for the next couple years. Not just taking little notes, mind you. I would write-up entire multi-page reports, with the proper font, spacing, headers, etc. Then I'd often switch over to the drawing programs, sketch out a damn-good diagram, and insert it into the report, and print the whole thing out via one of 2 IrDA laserjet printers that were around. Not to mention that 2 AA batteries would power it for over a week of CONSTANT 24/7 use (one time, just before finals). And this was back when WinCE would go apeshit and screw-up or hang, if you just tried to italicize text.
These days, things have gone backwards. Psion became Symbian, and now you practically can't find any with keyboards, let alone B&W screens which work in direct sunlight, and run for about a month on a pair of AAs. And a tall narrow screen can't even compete with a wide (640x240) screen.
So there's my advice. Do your best to find a Symbian/Psion PDA with a B&W landscape LCD screen, full keyboard, slots for CF/SD, and standard-sized batteries.
It's a bit of a cop-out, I know, because you'll be lucky to find a new PDA with ONE of those features, never mind ALL of them.
And no, I won't sell you mine. The only thing my (now old) Psion 5 has against it, is lack of ethernet or WiFi adapters, which are indispensible today.
Optically, of course, but it's not just light in use. Radio telescopes should be able to pick-up when a "brick" comes directly between it and a high-frequency (eg. microwave) source.
I'd have to see some solid numbers to believe that will change anything. It's not as if the energy of the tides just flies out into space. It currently has to be dispersed by friction, otherwise it would just keep flowing inland.
Explaining that you're making an idiot out of yourself, is, in fact, quite a useful comment to make.
If you would use
But hey, I guess the world needs loud, ignorant, shiftless people, too.
People at parties don't usually pretend to be experts on a subject they don't understand at all. There's the occasional few who give horrific medical advice, but just going along with it, isn't what I'd call being "fun".
You really should refrain from making comments on subjects you have absolutely no understanding of.
Products don't develop themselves, and it's hard to get funding when nobody believes your claims.
It seems pretty obviously to be pure zeropoint bullshit, but your mitaken reasoning isn't helping.
No. We can also see things by the light they BLOCK from stars. If it was just matter, we would have seen it, and conclusively proved it's existance, long ago.
Yes, what could be clearer than: "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"
You must not have read much on the subject. That blog post is some unorganized run-on rant, which only makes passing mentions of the actual facts of the situation, and mainly talks about how excited he is, secrecy of this press release, etc. No critical analysis at all, and not a very good primer for the uninitiated.
Sean at 11:52 am, August 21st, 2006
The great accomplishment of late-twentieth-century cosmology was putting together a complete inventory of the universe. We can tell a story that fits all the known data, in which ordinary matter (every particle ever detected in any experiment) constitutes only about 5% of the energy of the universe, with 25% being dark matter and 70% being dark energy. The challenge for early-twentyfirst-century cosmology will actually be to understand the nature of these mysterious dark components. A beautiful new result illuminating (if you will) the dark matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56 is an important step in this direction. (Heres the press release, and an article in the Chandra Chronicles.)
A prerequisite to understanding the dark sector is to make sure we are on the right track. Can we be sure that we havent been fooled into believing in dark matter and dark energy? After all, we only infer their existence from detecting their gravitational fields; stronger-than-expected gravity in galaxies and clusters leads us to posit dark matter, while the acceleration of the universe (and the overall geometry of space) leads us to posit dark energy. Could it perhaps be that gravity is modified on the enormous distance scales characteristic of these phenomena? Einsteins general theory of relativity does a great job of accounting for the behavior of gravity in the Solar System and astrophysical systems like the binary pulsar, but might it be breaking down over larger distances?
A departure from general relativity on very large scales isnt what one would expect on general principles. In most physical theories that we know and love, modifications are expected to arise on small scales (higher energies), while larger scales should behave themselves. But, we have to keep an open mind in principle, its absolutely possible that gravity could be modified, and its worth taking seriously.
Furthermore, it would be really cool. Personally, I would prefer to explain cosmological dynamics using modified gravity instead of dark matter and dark energy, just because it would tell us something qualitatively different about how physics works. (And Vera Rubin agrees.) We would all love to out-Einstein Einstein by coming up with a better theory of gravity. But our job isnt to express preferences, its to suggest hypotheses and then go out and test them.
The problem is, how do you test an idea as vague as modifying general relativity? You can imagine testing specific proposals for how gravity should be modified, like Milgroms MOND, but in more general terms we might worry that any observations could be explained by some modification of gravity.
But its not quite so bad there are reasonable features that any respectable modification of general relativity ought to have. Specifically, we expect that the gravitational force should point in the direction of its source, not off at some bizarrely skewed angle. So if we imagine doing away with dark matter, we can safely predict that gravity always be pointing in the direction of the ordinary matter. Thats interesting but not immediately helpful, since its natural to expect that the ordinary matter and dark matter cluster in the same locations; even if there is dark matter, its no surprise to find the gravitational field pointing toward the visible matter as well.
What we really want is to ta
Exactly...
A) Dictionary.com isn't exactly a definitive reference
B) It's probably refering to a very specific senario of the use of Sun, certainly not the way you feel the need to use it.
C) No scientist would be caught dead talking about "other Suns".
The moon is NOT affected by heat, friction, magnetics, etc. It is affected by gravity, which is a property of MASS. Converting the friction of tidal waves into electricity (instead of letting it directly disperse naturally) will NOT change the MASS of the oceans, nor the Earth. Therefore the force of gravity being exerted on each body will remain exactly the same.
It's really only in nuclear processes that mass is actually lost, and you REALLY don't have to worry about that small bit having a significant effect on gravity. We probably lose more mass by sending satellites away from Earth, releasing helium deposits, etc.
It was an interesting question, though.
The "Sun" (proper noun) is a "Star" (noun).
There can't be any other Suns (unless we give them conflicting names). There are lots of other stars, though.
I'm not even going to start on "Solar".
Biodiesel is commonly cited as 3:1.
Where'd you pull that number from?
Never heard of the law of conservation of energy? The heat doesn't come out of nowhere... When you extract it from tidal, wind, hydro, etc., you are taking energy (heat) out of the ocean. Using it to fuel a desalanation plant will just be putting (most of) it back.
Same for burning biofuels. When you grow them, they consume CO2, and when you burn them, they emit that same CO2.
Yes, it is inherently more effecient to use energy directly, rather than converting it. Still, there are good reasons to convert it. My car doesn't work well with an extension cord. Transmitting power over the grid results in energy losses as well.
The whole point is that biofuels are practical, inherently self-sustaining, etc. If the whole world switches over on the same day, there would be problems, but short of that, they're fine. As it happens gradually, biofuel will exponentially return more energy, and other methods will be developed.
Sitting around and waiting won't help.
Probably because most people want their notebooks to be x86 compatible. I'd be happy to buy a nice low-power one that isn't, but I'm sure I'm a small minority.
Also, the lowest-power notebooks just don't seem to sell as well. The U.L.V. Pentiums are used in 1GHz Thinkpads, but I guess people want faster systems than that, and don't care as much about power.
Maybe if battery life was more prominetly advertised, they could build a market, but until then, CPU speed sells notebooks.
I keep posting the same info, over and over, and don't ever seem to make any headway... The more incorrect the info, the more it gets modded up and repeated.
I've thought of writing-up a form response to all the HDTV myths, but they always vary just a bit, so it isn't entirely possible.
You're welcome to copy/paste this info as you see fit...
12.5% difference isn't "around the same" to me. Besides, you originally said "at the same frame rate", which means you have to divide the 720p number of pixels/sec by half, to make it 30fps like 1080i.
It doesn't increase resolution, it just converts 30i material to be displayed on a 60p display. It doesn't improve the picture at all (at best, it keeps it exactly the same), it's really the increasing of the screen refresh rate that makes it look a bit better. And on that note, don't hold your breath for 1080p60fps displays.
The limitations of deinterlacing are INHERENT. You can't reduce 60 fields/sec down to 30 frames/sec without making it less smooth (though you can convert it to 60 frames/sec without degrading it).
You also can't possibly deinterlace 2 fields (in a scene of high motion) that are captured 1/60th of a second from one another, and combine them into one 30fps frame (1/30th of a second) without losing resolution.
Deinterlacers can reduce some of the artifacts of interlacing, but they certainly can't make the picture as sharp or as smooth as displaying it natively as interlaced.
If you have a progressive 60fps display, you can display interlaced material as interlaced, with only a little conversion, but it won't look any BETTER than the original.