Consider a fast CPU. 70 watts of electricity go in, 70 watts of heat go out.
Information gets processed.
If information was linked to energy, 70 watts would go in, 69 watts would come out and an arbitrary number of bits would be processed.
The more energy you could "convert" to information, the cooler your processor would get..
Alas it was said best earlier by another poster. (paraphrase) 'There is no unit conversion for Joules to bits'.
To belive any organism is anything more than a complex machine is to discredit the last hundred years of biology.
The idea of vitalism has held back advancement to an amazing degree. Psychology's abandonment of vitalism caused psychology to become a hard science as late as the mid eighties. As soon as we abandoned the idea that the mind was something more than an expression of the brain, the psychotropic revolution occured.
We no longer beat people with rubber hoses, shock them, give them insulin overdoses, or drill holes in people's frontal lobes. We give them prozac.
Life is an expression of the information carried in genetic material. Information exists independent of entropy. Because information and entropy are specificly not linked, life forms can grow more complex over time. In fact life forms can and therefore must grow more complex over time, because even after life is complex enough to have trancend direct competition with it's enviroment, There is still direct competition with others of the species.
Intelligence and entropy are most emphaticly NOT linked.
Think Linus: All the unices were unfree or could be incorperated into unfree products without giving anything back to the community. Linux created his own unix kernal from scratch and distributed it under the GPL.
Microsoft created a Java work alike in C#. Someone will eventually create a Java worK alike and GPL it.
10. Delete all deprecated methods, fields, classes, and interfaces. 9. Fix incorrect naming conventions. 8. Eliminate primitive data types. 7. Extend chars to four bytes. 6. Fix threads. 5. Convert file formats to XML. 4. Ditch the AWT. 3. Rationalize the collections. 2. Redesign I/O. 1. Redesign class loading from scratch, this time with human interface factors in mind.
If he's so prolific, and knows exactly what it needs...
My computer (which caused a 300watt power supply to fail) Somewhere between 300 and 465 watts.
Speakers, 100 watts.
So, most of the time the system consumes about 500 watts but can peak at over 1000 watts.
That's just one computer. I have a network laser printer for a reason...
During the "energy crunch" here in california (assholes) I severely minimized the number of computers I had running (besides wanting to "do my part", brownouts kill computers QUIK)
My electric bill dropped $160 before the 20/20 (20 percent off your electric bill if you use 20% less power than the same time last year.
That means my computers together were consuming at least 1000 watts every hour, every day.
Not C3 (heh, I just benched a C3 800. It performed about as well as a 266 PII except with the P4's weird imbalanced interger performance. the numbers looked about like a P4@500mhz)
Stick a few Opterons in an Apple and you take Apple back to the good old days where their hardware actually outperformed the x86 boxes and was still somewhat unique.
Let Apple shine again... not just on the outside, but on the inside too!
I have a great source of names and phone numbers (The Phone Book) and I was wondering if there is a database somewhere to correlate the names to e-mail addresses so I can spam the planet...
Yes, they spent $1,000,000 giving the power LED 300 levels of fade while sleeping. Have you never been to Macworld? Jobs was so proud of that stupid LED while the G4 introduced was not any faster than the old 733 w/512k of cache. In fact, the only G4 faster than the 733/512 is the 1Ghz/256. Talk about really knowing how to shoot yourself in the foot.
Did the sub-gigahertz G4 win out over the 2.0GHz Intel behemoth? Well, yes and no. In terms of win-loss, the Pentium 4 handily beats the G4 scoring five wins to one. However, the G4 showed impressive strength in the RGB-to-CMYK color-conversion test by turning in a time of 23.6 seconds compared to 38.8 seconds on the P4 system -- a noticeable 64 percent quicker (view results). This particular test was the black eye that brought down the P4's overall average.
Image rotation scored the Pentium test box a small victory. The P4 was able to finish this task in 16.3 seconds compared the latest G4 at 17.5 seconds -- 7 percent faster.
The P4 won the Gaussian Blur test and Unsharp Mask test. The G4 managed to turn in times of 9.1 and 11.0 seconds respectively, but the P4 bested it with times of 6.7 and 4.7 seconds -- 36 percent and 134 percent faster, respectively (see results). Impressive percentages, but in terms of actual time the differences weren't enough to average out the P4's color-conversion defeat.
Image reduction and Lighting Effects were our two final tests. The P4 was able to finish reducing the image in 1.7 seconds -- about 88 percent faster than the G4's time of 3.2 seconds (see results). The P4, with its optimized Lighting Effects plug-in, managed to win this test with a time of 8.6 seconds beating the G4 and its time of 9.8 -- averaging 14 percent faster (view results).
ONE FUCKING TEST
Out of hundreds of applications and benchmarks that can be used to compare the systems, the G4 wins ONE FUCKING TEST. Apple marketing plays that test for all they're worth.
"Benchmarks demolish Apple speed boasts":
http://www.theregus.com/content/39/24272.html
"The G4 scored between 147 and 187 on the floating point tests, while the Pentium III scored 297. Today's Pentium 4's double that figure, and as a result, today's PCs are four times as fast as Apple's professional line in some situations."
As tested by a mac zealot site:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
He tests the machines himself, post the numbers. The G4 does not come close to taking any of his benchmarks. He still likes the mac better because it is not windows XP.... Well neither is windows 2000 or Linux/FreeBSD
Perhaps Apple's next speed upgrade will be FOUR G4s. They might be able to compete with four of them. As it stands, two are not as fast as one mid range (sub $700 system) PC.
The only difference between some software and viruses is the click through agreement that prevents you from sueing the creator for putting out software that breaks your computer.
Think Microsoft.
"by opening this attachment you agree to not file suit for any harm caused by the attachment"
Since a click through is binding, including one with a virus makes the virus legal... the user agreed to the actions the virus took.
This is itself a an argument against click throughs having any validity at all.
I don't want to be labeled Bob so I'll let you in on a secret:
I'm downloading the Knoppix english version right now. It will take me a while to understand enough about Linux to create a bootable Seti distro that will work on any machine I put it in.
It's purpose will be to boot linux/seti on my many machines without altering their existing OS installations/software suits.
A freaky neat disk would be able to boot both x86 and PPC.
The Windows and Mac versions of the client were put online today. This happened to coincide with a national TV news story, and immediately our FTP server was overwhelmed. We hastily borrowed several old Sparc IPCs and set them up as FTP servers, but this didn't solve the problem."
When it started the fastest Mac did work units in 12 hours. (after they fixed the 10 minute work unit bug) since then, seti has trippled the ammount of processing done to each work unit.
Perhaps a better benchmark is RC5.
RC5 class 3 benchmark optimized for altivec on a G4 1000: 4531 kkeys/s
RC5 class 3 optimized for SSE on a 1800mhz Athlon XP2200: 6151 kkeys/s
If you have numbers by all means post them.
I belive you are either lying or delusional though.
Since $1600 worth of mac hardware will be outperformed on any given application by $800 worth of x86 hardware, You are paying $800 for the privlage of using OS X.
The problem scales badly too. The top end Dual G4 get's it's clock cleaned by $1500 worth of commodity x86 hardware. So on the high end, you end up paying a $2000 Apple$oft tax for OS X.
As long as you keep slobbering after each new shiny mac, reguardless of how outdated the hardware is, Jobs will continue to sell you crap and charge you extra for the "privlage".
For the good of apple, there needs to be a groundswell of dissent among the apple loyalists. When apple's fanatic user base stops shining Jobs' knob, he will decide to put some hardware reaserch and developement dollars into something besides a circuit to give the white LED power indicator 300 levels of fade.
Or you can predict apple's demise as their hardware becomes 3 years obsolete then 4. At this rate, in 5 years there will be a better processor in your microwave than in your computer.
there was a D&D database called "Vast Database". Seems like everyone added their house rules to the database untill it was this monsterish download.
I can remember spending 2 days on a 14.4 modem on some BBS in Hawaii. I was in Alaska. My parents were VERY upset with the phone bill.
Has anyone seen it around? It had the # to another BBS to send updates/recieve updates. In mid 1992 it was 101 mb. That is about the last time I saw it. BBS died and the new "internet" thing was rolling.
Even now, no one has the bandwidth to host such a file given it's exponential growth rate. Given that it always seemed to take up half my hard drive, it ought to be up to about 80 gigabytes by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider a fast CPU. 70 watts of electricity go in, 70 watts of heat go out.
Information gets processed.
If information was linked to energy, 70 watts would go in, 69 watts would come out and an arbitrary number of bits would be processed.
The more energy you could "convert" to information, the cooler your processor would get..
Alas it was said best earlier by another poster. (paraphrase) 'There is no unit conversion for Joules to bits'.
To belive any organism is anything more than a complex machine is to discredit the last hundred years of biology.
The idea of vitalism has held back advancement to an amazing degree. Psychology's abandonment of vitalism caused psychology to become a hard science as late as the mid eighties. As soon as we abandoned the idea that the mind was something more than an expression of the brain, the psychotropic revolution occured.
We no longer beat people with rubber hoses, shock them, give them insulin overdoses, or drill holes in people's frontal lobes. We give them prozac.
Add 20% to these numbers.
Apple again shines... but only in their traditional strengths.
of "Intelligence" seems to be our definition of Biomass.
Life is an expression of the information carried in genetic material. Information exists independent of entropy. Because information and entropy are specificly not linked, life forms can grow more complex over time. In fact life forms can and therefore must grow more complex over time, because even after life is complex enough to have trancend direct competition with it's enviroment, There is still direct competition with others of the species.
Intelligence and entropy are most emphaticly NOT linked.
And IBM Power 4 dissipating 160 watts is better? Or the G4 that will not scale because of heat issues?....
Well?
How do you propose Apple exits the doldrums?
Prossesing information generates heat.
Do we let Apple slide into complete obsolesence because YOU don't like hot processors?
Whatever.
This is the first slashdotting that could cost lives.
Someday, a pilot that should have checked the cam will not because he belives the service is unreliable because it was down today.
Think Linus: All the unices were unfree or could be incorperated into unfree products without giving anything back to the community. Linux created his own unix kernal from scratch and distributed it under the GPL.
Microsoft created a Java work alike in C#. Someone will eventually create a Java worK alike and GPL it.
10. Delete all deprecated methods, fields, classes, and interfaces.
9. Fix incorrect naming conventions.
8. Eliminate primitive data types.
7. Extend chars to four bytes.
6. Fix threads.
5. Convert file formats to XML.
4. Ditch the AWT.
3. Rationalize the collections.
2. Redesign I/O.
1. Redesign class loading from scratch, this time with human interface factors in mind.
If he's so prolific, and knows exactly what it needs...
0. Do it himself.
Mad Max 4 is out of the question now
Use a flash memory to IDE converter like this.
Then you realize flash memory costs more per MEG than hard drives per GIG and is SLOW.
Skip the fancy stuff unless you are just looking for toys.
You must have misunderstood me.
My computer uses over 300 watts.
0+1 raid and overclocked to 1825mhz cooling paraphenalia and a peltier.
Let me say again, my computer uses more that 300 watts.
I blew up a goddam 300 watt power supply.
Did I mention that the 100 watts for speakers did not mean "I have 100 watt speakers".
The adapter reads "Input:120vac 60hz 100w, Output 12vdc 5.2 Amp."
Linear, not switching.
And again, my monitor ALL BY ITSELF consumes 170 watts.
Wait, you obviously failed to read my first post, what makes me think you'll read this one?
Except for one thing: it's not 150 watts.
My setup:
Mitsubishi DP2040u 170 watts
HP 1200n 285 watts while printing, 7 otherwise.
Epson Stylus Color 3000, 21 watts.
My computer (which caused a 300watt power supply to fail) Somewhere between 300 and 465 watts.
Speakers, 100 watts.
So, most of the time the system consumes about 500 watts but can peak at over 1000 watts.
That's just one computer. I have a network laser printer for a reason...
During the "energy crunch" here in california (assholes) I severely minimized the number of computers I had running (besides wanting to "do my part", brownouts kill computers QUIK)
My electric bill dropped $160 before the 20/20 (20 percent off your electric bill if you use 20% less power than the same time last year.
That means my computers together were consuming at least 1000 watts every hour, every day.
I wish it was only 150 watts.
Sledgehammer. Opteron. Whatever.
Not Itanic.
Not Pentium 4
Not C3 (heh, I just benched a C3 800. It performed about as well as a 266 PII except with the P4's weird imbalanced interger performance. the numbers looked about like a P4@500mhz)
Stick a few Opterons in an Apple and you take Apple back to the good old days where their hardware actually outperformed the x86 boxes and was still somewhat unique.
Let Apple shine again... not just on the outside, but on the inside too!
Ask Slashdot:
I have a great source of names and phone numbers (The Phone Book) and I was wondering if there is a database somewhere to correlate the names to e-mail addresses so I can spam the planet...
Um.. NO
Yes, they spent $1,000,000 giving the power LED 300 levels of fade while sleeping. Have you never been to Macworld? Jobs was so proud of that stupid LED while the G4 introduced was not any faster than the old 733 w/512k of cache. In fact, the only G4 faster than the 733/512 is the 1Ghz/256. Talk about really knowing how to shoot yourself in the foot.
Did the sub-gigahertz G4 win out over the 2.0GHz Intel behemoth? Well, yes and no. In terms of win-loss, the Pentium 4 handily beats the G4 scoring five wins to one. However, the G4 showed impressive strength in the RGB-to-CMYK color-conversion test by turning in a time of 23.6 seconds compared to 38.8 seconds on the P4 system -- a noticeable 64 percent quicker (view results). This particular test was the black eye that brought down the P4's overall average.
Image rotation scored the Pentium test box a small victory. The P4 was able to finish this task in 16.3 seconds compared the latest G4 at 17.5 seconds -- 7 percent faster.
The P4 won the Gaussian Blur test and Unsharp Mask test. The G4 managed to turn in times of 9.1 and 11.0 seconds respectively, but the P4 bested it with times of 6.7 and 4.7 seconds -- 36 percent and 134 percent faster, respectively (see results). Impressive percentages, but in terms of actual time the differences weren't enough to average out the P4's color-conversion defeat.
Image reduction and Lighting Effects were our two final tests. The P4 was able to finish reducing the image in 1.7 seconds -- about 88 percent faster than the G4's time of 3.2 seconds (see results). The P4, with its optimized Lighting Effects plug-in, managed to win this test with a time of 8.6 seconds beating the G4 and its time of 9.8 -- averaging 14 percent faster (view results).
ONE FUCKING TEST
Out of hundreds of applications and benchmarks that can be used to compare the systems, the G4 wins ONE FUCKING TEST. Apple marketing plays that test for all they're worth.
"Benchmarks demolish Apple speed boasts":
http://www.theregus.com/content/39/24272.html
"The G4 scored between 147 and 187 on the floating point tests, while the Pentium III scored 297. Today's Pentium 4's double that figure, and as a result, today's PCs are four times as fast as Apple's professional line in some situations."
As tested by a mac zealot site:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
He tests the machines himself, post the numbers. The G4 does not come close to taking any of his benchmarks. He still likes the mac better because it is not windows XP.... Well neither is windows 2000 or Linux/FreeBSD
Perhaps Apple's next speed upgrade will be FOUR G4s. They might be able to compete with four of them. As it stands, two are not as fast as one mid range (sub $700 system) PC.
The only difference between some software and viruses is the click through agreement that prevents you from sueing the creator for putting out software that breaks your computer.
Think Microsoft.
"by opening this attachment you agree to not file suit for any harm caused by the attachment"
Since a click through is binding, including one with a virus makes the virus legal... the user agreed to the actions the virus took.
This is itself a an argument against click throughs having any validity at all.
I don't want to be labeled Bob so I'll let you in on a secret:
I'm downloading the Knoppix english version right now. It will take me a while to understand enough about Linux to create a bootable Seti distro that will work on any machine I put it in.
It's purpose will be to boot linux/seti on my many machines without altering their existing OS installations/software suits.
A freaky neat disk would be able to boot both x86 and PPC.
Key words: I own every machine I run Seti on.
Full bootable Linux w/seti@home using my username. Perfect for every public machine I find that has network access w/dhcp enabled.
H. G. Wells of course.
Created the genre.
Gibson may have created cyberpunk, but Wells created gibson.
Bitgeek, you are delusional.
First, you have no seti account.
If you do, please tell us what it is.
Second: "May 13, 1999
The Windows and Mac versions of the client were put online today. This happened to coincide with a national TV news story, and immediately our FTP server was overwhelmed. We hastily borrowed several old Sparc IPCs and set them up as FTP servers, but this didn't solve the problem."
When it started the fastest Mac did work units in 12 hours. (after they fixed the 10 minute work unit bug) since then, seti has trippled the ammount of processing done to each work unit.
Perhaps a better benchmark is RC5.
RC5 class 3 benchmark optimized for altivec on a G4 1000: 4531 kkeys/s
RC5 class 3 optimized for SSE on a 1800mhz Athlon XP2200: 6151 kkeys/s
If you have numbers by all means post them.
I belive you are either lying or delusional though.
Post some damn numbers.
Seti@home
PowerPC G4 2 1000 133 512 133 7.5 7.5 Mac OS X 10.1.3 3.03.powerpc-apple-d1.2 1 7:07 Hours
Pentium III 2 933 133 256 133 7.0 7.0 Win2000 sp1 Win CLI 3.03 2 7:04 Hours
Athlon Palomino 1 1600 133 512 133 12.0 12.0 Win2000 Win CLI 3.03 1 3:34 Hours
Athlon Palomino 1 1900 200 256 200 9.5 9.5 Win98SE Win CLI 3.03 1 2:48 Hours
Raw numbers.
LOWER IS BETTER
Which means the G4 is slow.
$2,999.00 for the dual G4.
$1500 for an identicle PC, superdrive/firewire/gigeathernet/flatpanel etc.
Except for one thing: Dual 2100mp Athlons @ 1733mhz.
Well over twice the performance at half the price. That makes the PC a 4 times better value.
Buy two of them if you want to spend the money.
In 24 hours, The Dual G4 will have completed almost 7 work units.
The Two Dual Athlon MPs will have completed 32 work units.
Same price. With ALL the options including the superdrive.. On two machines.
All the benchmarks are the same. This is not a best case benchmark. Applications across platforms are the best indicators.
Apple lies to you.
Since $1600 worth of mac hardware will be outperformed on any given application by $800 worth of x86 hardware, You are paying $800 for the privlage of using OS X.
The problem scales badly too. The top end Dual G4 get's it's clock cleaned by $1500 worth of commodity x86 hardware. So on the high end, you end up paying a $2000 Apple$oft tax for OS X.
As long as you keep slobbering after each new shiny mac, reguardless of how outdated the hardware is, Jobs will continue to sell you crap and charge you extra for the "privlage".
For the good of apple, there needs to be a groundswell of dissent among the apple loyalists. When apple's fanatic user base stops shining Jobs' knob, he will decide to put some hardware reaserch and developement dollars into something besides a circuit to give the white LED power indicator 300 levels of fade.
Or you can predict apple's demise as their hardware becomes 3 years obsolete then 4. At this rate, in 5 years there will be a better processor in your microwave than in your computer.
"the CPU problem lies with Motorola"
You admit there is a problem. Motorola/Apple.. who gives a damn. you are the one who is paying for obsolete hardware, fool.
Not like your G4 has a zif socket so you can upgrade the CPU when apple gets over their "problem".
Why pay good money for something you KNOW has a serious flaw.
"I bought a Ferrari but it has an old yugo engine in it... but it IS a Farrari"
The G4 1000 is available now:
Encore/ST G4
Pre-order now
Available August, 2002
SG4-1000-2M
$699.95
700 bucks for a processor that is as fast as a 1Ghz PIII @ $104.
You have bought into a scam. They stick an old CPU into a shiny box and you go oooooh, prettty shiny... looks so fast. Slow. Again, slow
there was a D&D database called "Vast Database". Seems like everyone added their house rules to the database untill it was this monsterish download.
I can remember spending 2 days on a 14.4 modem on some BBS in Hawaii. I was in Alaska. My parents were VERY upset with the phone bill.
Has anyone seen it around? It had the # to another BBS to send updates/recieve updates. In mid 1992 it was 101 mb. That is about the last time I saw it. BBS died and the new "internet" thing was rolling.
Even now, no one has the bandwidth to host such a file given it's exponential growth rate. Given that it always seemed to take up half my hard drive, it ought to be up to about 80 gigabytes by now.