In a congested, high user area wouldn't the telephone companies be able to turn the power down on the cell towers and then add more towers closer together? This way you can get more users in a given space, right?
I admit, I know little to nothing when it comes to radio waves, but I do know back in the 90's pre DOCSIS cable ISPs did not limit their users speed, or at least the ISP I was on. Often times the 'pipe' would fill up. The case and effect was slower bandwidth speeds for me but since it was on the ISPs end it was a high bandwidth / low latency setup aka my ping never jumped up regardless if my max speed was 500kB/s or 100kB/s.
In other words, cable ISPs added tier pricing to make more money not because there was bandwidth issues. If there was an issue with the node being over used they would just add another node aka 10 mile radio for the node now becomes a 5 mile radios for 2 or 3 nodes and then 5 miles down to...
I know radio is more complicated than that but if it worked and does work for cable ISPs then why can't it work for cell companies as well?
A 10 year old PC with standard non upgraded hardware can run Vista or 7. If it was a super high end model (256megs of ram) it might run XP ok. If it doesn't take 10 years to load a browser today it should surf the web just fine.
A 10 year old Mac (also personal computer) with stock hardware can not be upgraded to 10.6. If it was a super high end model (333mhz) it will hopefully run 10.5 and be able to surf the web if flash is turned off.
Realistically, sure after Apple went through a major hardware change it looks like the competing brands (i.e. Dell) have a slight one up and might last a little bit longer for current day tasks, but by how much and for how long?
Your statement is completely biased. I don't claim to know everything but as an overall Apple has a history of having a longer life time and a higher resale rate than its competitors. And really, why does it matter?
If I'm working on a personal media project I prefer Final Cut Express over Final Cut Pro. If I'm working on a project with a group of people then I prefer FCP.
FCE may lack some features of FCP but overall it has more features than FCP. The Final Cut Suite is designed to take multiple specialized jobs and split them up into individual programs. One person can exclusively work on the color, another person the sound, another on post production, and so on. FCP lacks features because they are moved out to separate programs. For example, if you want to adjust the color levels you have to use Color. All of the color settings in FCE where stripped out in FCP because there is a separate program for that.
Personally, if I'm working on a project on my own I get overwhelmed with all of the choices and different setups from the Final Cut Suite. This is why I like FCE better than FCP. Of course, ymmv.
Anyone notice the giant jump in cache size? I'm not an ati fanatic so I could be imagining but it looks like the cache size is waaayy bigger than any other graphic cards before it.
What this says to me is they are designing this card to run far into the future. I wonder if that is true. I know current generation of games use very little memory management on the gpu level and general physx, shaders, gpgpu, and other dx11 based things do not use much more. I also know that pushing and pulling memory from vram is incredibly slow compared to the processing power gpus possess. This makes me wonder if ati plans for gpus of the future to juggle like cpus do; multitasking. There are so many threads the idea of one thread juggling the display output of a video game and the physx seems ridiculous.
I guess it is true: CPUs are becoming more and more like GPUs and GPUs are becoming more and more like CPUs. Or something like that, at least.
I read another review of the 5870 about how unusually efficient it is with power management. Forgive me for being lazy and not looking up the details but I believe it ran at 27w when idle and 100w less than the 4870 when used to its max. It also apparently pulls much less power than nvidia. My guess is the heat levels are much better and at least when idling the card is quiet. However, I have no idea how cheap that fan is and if it is noisy when in use. The average gamer uses a headset so I doubt he/she would notice it regardless.
I'm somewhat curious how some specific gaming engines will perform with this new i7. For example, the source engine (valve) was originally a single core engine but they upgraded the engine to run on multiple cores within the last year. Some games like Left 4 Dead run well on a quad core while other games like Team Fortress 2 struggle to take advantage of two cores but is designed to do so. Would TF2 run better using a single 3.06ghz core or would it run better using two cores at 2.6ghz? Oh the curiosity!
Yes but realistically if they want to make more cash they will wait till after the holiday season. It is marketing at its finest *shudders* and that is why I'm with the original poster. Jan to March is a better bet.
Also, the cooler, lower watt ones come out Jan2010. I doubt apple will use the current laptop i7's because of their heat.
I like to think of it like a luxury car. It has tons of power, but the driver rarely uses it. It is there for when you want it / need it, but it runs well (good MPG for example) when you're not using it. It is a perk that not everyone wants, but just the same, it is there regardless.
Personally, I rarely play video games but when I do I need that power. I use my laptop as my main computer and sometimes at my boyfriends house he wants to play a game with me. Also, I from time to time do a lot of heavy video encoding. It is another reason where I may not need the faster cpu I am, but regardless I am still grateful for it.
You may like your atom (prius) but I'd like an i7 (bmw), thank you. (terrible comparison?)
Personally, I'm more interested in removing propaganda from the school system and not just for my child (if I had one) but for the community as a whole instead.
What I'm more interested in is the overall productivity. I'm tired of seeing operating systems treat threads like multiple cores. An i7 is not an 8 core cpu! There is a difference between threads and cores.
When you look at how threads can share cache with each other it becomes obvious that threads can potentially become more productive than cores especially with tasks that need such power.
So the in the end the question in my mind with GCD is, "Does it identify how much memory each queue needs and if the queues share memory? Does GCD do this to manage everything organizing what goes to what thread allowing a speedup especially when needed? Or does it treat threads the same as cores like everything before it?"
My current computer only has a core 2 duo in it so I can not properly run tests but the second I get an i7 I'm going to run multiple tests with GCD, openCL, openMP,... and see if anything can properly take advantage of threads managing the cache properly. Maybe this is an over the top openCL type task but regardless I wouldn't mind looking at GCD in detail to understand how it figures out the best way to manage the queues.
imho memory management can be the best speedup, not how many numbers can be processed in a given time.
MS is a software company and they make money for selling their software. If apple is making the software so you do not have to buy MS products then it at least is economically freeing apple users from buying MS products.
I disagree. Often times the cache ends up defining the performance in the end. Sure it doesn't effect raw number power but if that is all we where doing today we would go for gpus alone with the 8000+ threads in a lot of the cards today.
If you have a 6mb cache (shared cache not private cache) between 2 cores or 6 cores are those 6 cores really going to run faster in a real world gaming situation based on fps? I'm not saying the 6 core cpu will be slower just that the performance will not be 3x like you imply it will. It would be closer to a 1.2 to a 1.8x performance increase for most games that are designed to be fully threaded properly and if both have the same clock speeds.
What I'm saying is in most gaming situations the 2 core 3.2 will blow away the 6 1.8 even in the best of threaded situations.
This is why the 6 core cpu is not aimed for more than servers and even in the server market it is aimed entirely for vm where the multiple cores will help the most.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm somewhat confused. The ruling was in 2006? Why are we hearing about this now?
Am I misunderstanding the part that says: "will not be required to pay a 1.5 million yen fine levied by a December 2006 Kyoto District Court ruling."?
In a congested, high user area wouldn't the telephone companies be able to turn the power down on the cell towers and then add more towers closer together? This way you can get more users in a given space, right?
I admit, I know little to nothing when it comes to radio waves, but I do know back in the 90's pre DOCSIS cable ISPs did not limit their users speed, or at least the ISP I was on. Often times the 'pipe' would fill up. The case and effect was slower bandwidth speeds for me but since it was on the ISPs end it was a high bandwidth / low latency setup aka my ping never jumped up regardless if my max speed was 500kB/s or 100kB/s.
In other words, cable ISPs added tier pricing to make more money not because there was bandwidth issues. If there was an issue with the node being over used they would just add another node aka 10 mile radio for the node now becomes a 5 mile radios for 2 or 3 nodes and then 5 miles down to ...
I know radio is more complicated than that but if it worked and does work for cable ISPs then why can't it work for cell companies as well?
A daisy chain type mesh setup? Oh hell no! There is no way I'm going back to setups like that. Anyone remember apple talk?
Ironically, I've been playing Warcraft II on my 2007 Macbook Pro for the last couple of days using DOSBox since SheepShaver runs a bit slow.
And btw, trolls are people too; don't hate, give love! ^_^
woops typo! sorry... can NOT run Vista or 7
A 10 year old PC with standard non upgraded hardware can run Vista or 7. If it was a super high end model (256megs of ram) it might run XP ok. If it doesn't take 10 years to load a browser today it should surf the web just fine.
A 10 year old Mac (also personal computer) with stock hardware can not be upgraded to 10.6. If it was a super high end model (333mhz) it will hopefully run 10.5 and be able to surf the web if flash is turned off.
Realistically, sure after Apple went through a major hardware change it looks like the competing brands (i.e. Dell) have a slight one up and might last a little bit longer for current day tasks, but by how much and for how long?
Your statement is completely biased. I don't claim to know everything but as an overall Apple has a history of having a longer life time and a higher resale rate than its competitors. And really, why does it matter?
If I'm working on a personal media project I prefer Final Cut Express over Final Cut Pro. If I'm working on a project with a group of people then I prefer FCP.
FCE may lack some features of FCP but overall it has more features than FCP. The Final Cut Suite is designed to take multiple specialized jobs and split them up into individual programs. One person can exclusively work on the color, another person the sound, another on post production, and so on. FCP lacks features because they are moved out to separate programs. For example, if you want to adjust the color levels you have to use Color. All of the color settings in FCE where stripped out in FCP because there is a separate program for that.
Personally, if I'm working on a project on my own I get overwhelmed with all of the choices and different setups from the Final Cut Suite. This is why I like FCE better than FCP. Of course, ymmv.
Piracy is the process of selling an item you do not legally own to another.
If someone can download content on the net for free then how can pirates compete with that?
Unlimited Broadband REMOVES Piracy.
Anyone notice the giant jump in cache size? I'm not an ati fanatic so I could be imagining but it looks like the cache size is waaayy bigger than any other graphic cards before it.
What this says to me is they are designing this card to run far into the future. I wonder if that is true. I know current generation of games use very little memory management on the gpu level and general physx, shaders, gpgpu, and other dx11 based things do not use much more. I also know that pushing and pulling memory from vram is incredibly slow compared to the processing power gpus possess. This makes me wonder if ati plans for gpus of the future to juggle like cpus do; multitasking. There are so many threads the idea of one thread juggling the display output of a video game and the physx seems ridiculous.
I guess it is true: CPUs are becoming more and more like GPUs and GPUs are becoming more and more like CPUs. Or something like that, at least.
I read another review of the 5870 about how unusually efficient it is with power management. Forgive me for being lazy and not looking up the details but I believe it ran at 27w when idle and 100w less than the 4870 when used to its max. It also apparently pulls much less power than nvidia. My guess is the heat levels are much better and at least when idling the card is quiet. However, I have no idea how cheap that fan is and if it is noisy when in use. The average gamer uses a headset so I doubt he/she would notice it regardless.
wait for oled becomes mainstream! :D
3-5 years down the line I see nvidia releasing the first graphic card that supports directx 12.
It seems like ati and nvidia switch off every new version of directx. ati was first with dx9 and 11 and nvidia was first with 10 and 8.
I'm somewhat curious how some specific gaming engines will perform with this new i7. For example, the source engine (valve) was originally a single core engine but they upgraded the engine to run on multiple cores within the last year. Some games like Left 4 Dead run well on a quad core while other games like Team Fortress 2 struggle to take advantage of two cores but is designed to do so. Would TF2 run better using a single 3.06ghz core or would it run better using two cores at 2.6ghz? Oh the curiosity!
Apple basically invented personal computers ffs. They've ALWAYS been PCs.
Yes but realistically if they want to make more cash they will wait till after the holiday season. It is marketing at its finest *shudders* and that is why I'm with the original poster. Jan to March is a better bet.
Also, the cooler, lower watt ones come out Jan2010. I doubt apple will use the current laptop i7's because of their heat.
I like to think of it like a luxury car. It has tons of power, but the driver rarely uses it. It is there for when you want it / need it, but it runs well (good MPG for example) when you're not using it. It is a perk that not everyone wants, but just the same, it is there regardless.
Personally, I rarely play video games but when I do I need that power. I use my laptop as my main computer and sometimes at my boyfriends house he wants to play a game with me. Also, I from time to time do a lot of heavy video encoding. It is another reason where I may not need the faster cpu I am, but regardless I am still grateful for it.
You may like your atom (prius) but I'd like an i7 (bmw), thank you. (terrible comparison?)
rofl! Someone needs to comment this guy up.
And don't forget that unless everyone pays for a copy reading out loud or playing music out loud is sue worthy as well.
Personally, I'm more interested in removing propaganda from the school system and not just for my child (if I had one) but for the community as a whole instead.
Using the word 'piracy' when not talking about piracy is beyond misleading...
What I'm more interested in is the overall productivity. I'm tired of seeing operating systems treat threads like multiple cores. An i7 is not an 8 core cpu! There is a difference between threads and cores.
When you look at how threads can share cache with each other it becomes obvious that threads can potentially become more productive than cores especially with tasks that need such power.
So the in the end the question in my mind with GCD is, "Does it identify how much memory each queue needs and if the queues share memory? Does GCD do this to manage everything organizing what goes to what thread allowing a speedup especially when needed? Or does it treat threads the same as cores like everything before it?"
My current computer only has a core 2 duo in it so I can not properly run tests but the second I get an i7 I'm going to run multiple tests with GCD, openCL, openMP, ... and see if anything can properly take advantage of threads managing the cache properly. Maybe this is an over the top openCL type task but regardless I wouldn't mind looking at GCD in detail to understand how it figures out the best way to manage the queues.
imho memory management can be the best speedup, not how many numbers can be processed in a given time.
MS is a software company and they make money for selling their software. If apple is making the software so you do not have to buy MS products then it at least is economically freeing apple users from buying MS products.
Why would you ever watch a telesync? ugg!
What does rescheduling have to do with total bandwidth used?
If what you're downloading is 100MB does the file size magically change if you download it in the middle of the night?
Rescheduling has nothing to do with total bandwidth.
Yes there is a good plugin for that.
I disagree. Often times the cache ends up defining the performance in the end. Sure it doesn't effect raw number power but if that is all we where doing today we would go for gpus alone with the 8000+ threads in a lot of the cards today.
If you have a 6mb cache (shared cache not private cache) between 2 cores or 6 cores are those 6 cores really going to run faster in a real world gaming situation based on fps? I'm not saying the 6 core cpu will be slower just that the performance will not be 3x like you imply it will. It would be closer to a 1.2 to a 1.8x performance increase for most games that are designed to be fully threaded properly and if both have the same clock speeds.
What I'm saying is in most gaming situations the 2 core 3.2 will blow away the 6 1.8 even in the best of threaded situations.
This is why the 6 core cpu is not aimed for more than servers and even in the server market it is aimed entirely for vm where the multiple cores will help the most.