I was able to afford a 22 inch monitor with my commodity PC. I spend over 8 hours a day on my computer. Had I bought an apple, I would have had a pretty 17 inch monitor to go with my slow computer to "enhance user experience".
BTW, my monitor will display 2048 by 1536 at 80Hz.
Not even the Cinema display will do that. Try again, but from a technical perspective without an "Apple's are better because they are pretty" and you will find that you were sorely ripped off.
Spend 300,000 dollars on Mac hardware, and you will have a 100 node cluster of Dual 1Ghz machines. Spend 300,000 on a cluster composed of dual 1.533ghz machines and you will have a 512 node cluster, and $70,000 to spend on the additional time it would take to optomize your applications.
In other words, you can have about 6 dual athlons for every one dual Apple for the same price. Since there are absolutly no benchmarks where the G4 performs 6 times better than an Athlon, and clustering is about supercomputers made from commodity hardware, the Athlon is a much better value.
Except as I understand it, even Intel's own compiler does not do a very good job of optimizing code for IA-64 making optimizations of code by hand in machine language nessecary. If your data set fits in 6mb of cache, and you need the performance, then moveing to IA-64 is a good option. The 6mb stipulation implies that you won't have to do much hand codeing because the data set is so small. If you have a larger data set, use Alpha, because it's performance is so much better, it's compiler is mature, and Intel is expected to incorperate Alpha's technology into Itanium in the future, by which time the compiler should be mature, if Itanium survives the onslaught from AMD's x86-64 Hammer, Apple's G5, Sparc x, and even Alpha, which is king now, and may, if ever relased in it's next generation, continue to pose a threat.
Nice run on sentance if I do say so myself... Hope it is clearer for you:)
Sorry for not being clear. If you are on x86 now, wait for x86-64 from either AMD or Intel. The obscure refrence to Ronler Acres is aledgedly Intel's x86-64 skunkworks where Intel is developing an x86-64 clone in case AMD is succesfull and Itanium tanks. Itanium executes x86 code as fast as a 200mhz pentium. If you are already on 64 bit, stick with the platform you are using now. They are all better than Itanium.
Unless you can fit your entire data set in cache, in which case move to Itanium, because your application will run faster, if you need that speed and are willing to rewrite your code.
Slashdot thinks "Myrinet Available for Mac OS X" is news.
Myrinet itself thinks this is news:
"The IWR parallel high-performance computer was installed at the beginning of this year and consists of 512 AMD Athlon MP processors, two of them are placed into one computing node. These processors have frequencies of 1.4GHz and reach a theoretical maximum performance of 2.4 billion floating point operations per second (Gflops). The total system indicates a theoretical peak performance of more than 1.4 Teraflops, which well exceeds even all present installed Myrinet PC cluster in the USA. First performance measurements by using the well known Linpack Benchmark show an extraordinary performance of 825 Gflops, which would have placed this supercomputer in 24th position of last November on the list of the Top 500 most powerful computers in the world."
You can use lego mindstorms as webservers and you can use Macs in a cluster, but who would want to?
You can buy 4 dual processor Athlon rigs for every single processor Apple. Since a cluster's advantage is it's ability to create supercomputers from commodity hardware, why even attempt to use proprietary hardware? This is a dead end clustering approach. If you need double precision, use Alphas. Their cost is comparable to Apple, and perform significantly better, especially for number crunching (The term everyone used before "bioinformatics" became a hip buzzword)
Would you buy a 200mhz Pentium with 6mb of cache? Are you willing to rewrite your entire code base to take advantage of Itanium's architecture? With Itanium chips, those are your options. Wait for Sledgehammer or Whatever Intel cooks up at Ronler Acres to clone x86-64 (AA-64). 6mb sounds exciting until you address the costs associated moving to the Itanium platform.
But wait, with 6mb of cache, you might not have to optimize your existing code for the Itanium. You could just rely on BFI (Brute Force & Ignorance) to solve your troubles.
Should I reboot my Alpha? Should I reboot my three VA Linux rack mounts? Should I reboot my 180 Macs of various flavors? Should I reboot my 3 1.4 ghz+ athlons?
Apple had an "unfavorable" license agreement on the patents in their portfolio in reference to IEEE 1394. Apple does not own all the patents for IEEE 1394. Sony owns some of them and call the standard "i.Link". Apple owns the name "Firewire" but "1394 LA" owns the IEEE 1394 standard. 1394 LA charges.25 cents per IEEE 1394 device. The price is low, so as to compete with USB, which is a truly open standard for all versions.
So, Apple is seeking to own through production something that they only half own through intellectual property terms.
There are a few companies that seek to monopolize their markets. Microsoft monopolizes software on commodity hardware. Intel had an x86 monopoly prior to AMD's introduction of the Athlon. Rambus attempted to monopolize all current generation memory types for all hardware. Apple seeks to monopolize desktop publishing/graphic art, amateur DV editing and hopes to regain their monopoly in K-12 education.
As long as I have an IT budget and some morality, I will vote with my dollars against immoral business practices. I inherited 180 macs that are absolute pieces of shit compared to what was available from "commodity" hardware vendors from the same time period, especially for the price that was paid for them. I cherish the few clones in my mac inventory for their quality and upgrade ability. It is a mac myth that Apple stopped licensing their hardware to outside vendors on the basis of clones ruining Apple's image of quality. The clones had superior quality to what apple was offering at the time. In most cases, clones offered identical performance for half the price and much better upgrade ability. Apple likes their customers to be forced to buy a whole new machine instead of just upgrading the parts that are deficient.
As it stands, Apple has not advanced the internals of their hardware in two years. The Gamecube, with a 485mhz G3 that implements a partial altivec instruction set, retails for $199. The 500mhz G3 iMac retails for $800. A game console has cought up with a mac for performance.
ATA 66? 100mhz fsb? 1000mhz from a processor that performs clock for clock the same as a Pentium III? SDRAM?
Those of you that love your macs, love them for their gloss, not their performance or price. Those of you that are Mac zealots, have been steamrolled by the Apple marketing machine.
Example:
Let's pit 3 dual processor 1533mhz athlon XPs against 1 800mhz G4. Price point is $1600
In one corner, you have a single bottom end apple G4 tower at 800 mhz.
Which takes 3 weeks, by which time Apple raises the price of the G4 another hundred dollars while the price of the cluster drops a hundred dollars. (please note that in a previous version of this post I made that prediction, when in fact the price has dropped by over $300.)
Ok, that was a flame, let's stick to matters at hand.(Turned out to be not enough of a flame)
Referencing the altivec article, the ars technica article and the c't article (you know which one I'm talking about, that place where you dare not look, you'll find x86 there staring back at you) we can draw these assumptions:
The G4 with Altivec performs equally clock for clock with x86 w/SSE with some rare exceptions where it performs 100% faster clock for clock.
best case scenario for our similar priced systems using the best case for the G4 benchmark, rc5:
Single G4 800mhz 8,243,188 keys per second 6 AMD 1800XP 32,987,538 keys per second
300 dollars less expensive, x86 is 4 times as productive.
Seti@home using Ars Lambchop benching wu: Identical!
3.35 per work unit.
x86 is 6 times as productive for 300 dollars less.
CINT2000: base 648 - XP1800 CINT2000: base 242 - G4 800mhz
684 vs 242... and that is a single processor comparison!
If we can optimize to scale, x86 is 16 times as fast for 300 dollars less.
If you know of any benchmarks where Mac can compare favorably for the price, please let us all know. You are right, Mhz is not everything. But you have to get some numbers to back the claim that the G4 is even marginally close in performance to machines with well over twice the clock speed. I'm sure that will convince us all to run out and buy Macs for number crunching:)...
This is where your love of Apple has led the company. You buy blindly so they sell overpriced shit and call it gold.
Debating Mac zealots is so easy because a Mac zealot's mind is weak enough to believe the Apple marketing lies.
Thank you SOOOOO much! 5% of the desktop market and STILL DROPPING, and these bucket heads seem to over run Slashdot. You would think they have 90% market share, but the only market they seem to have cornered is the market on suckers.
Apple is going for a firewire monopoly. If a drive manufacturer did this with IDE or SCSI, we would be up in arms. But apple users are used to dealing with the apple proprietary hardware monopoly, and no one else cares.
If they keep track, they are violating the law against collecting data on children under 13. That makes their ad pushing technology un-billable without breaking the law. Look for child protection act class action lawsuits against this company. Investors would be my target:)
Motherfucker, this has been done before. Some communist cocksucker did it in hardware. I saw this bitch assed setup for sale somewhere and thought "hey this is a stupid motherfucking idea". This was back in the days of pentuim 90s. Those fucking pentiums were so "goddamn fast" that you could have more than on user on the same fucking computer.
Needless to say, the bitch hardware vendor did not last long. They got swallow by belkin like a cum load. Belkin axed their tech because reality was, fucking pentium 90s were slow assed pieces of shit.
the X box has had a poor showing... this was a gaming land grab by microsoft. All they would have to do is stop supporting Direct X on the desktop and they would own the entire PC gaming industry.. software AND hardware...
That's potentially another 8 billion dollars in their pockets annually, and growing all the time. Let us hope X Box 2 meets the same fate. Think, the only decent Open GL programmer is Carmack, and he is launching rockets. That leaves the entire world of game developers in Direct X land...in microsoft's pocket. If they owned the hardware too, welcome to 100 dollar games and Apple priced X boxes as the only viable gaming platform. Crippled of course so you still need a real PC, also in Microsoft's pocket.
What do you want to bet Lindows contains some Windows source that they are busy cleaning up before final release? or they are using strait Windows binaries in some cases that they cannot release the source for because they don't have them. Perhaps they stuffed them in some sort of.pak file but they would be there for all to see if they released the source now. Who knows?
What I would like to know is what is the definition of an "End User"? Anyone outside the company that gets a binary should have the source? If that is the case is there any way for the big distros to compete with each other without destroying the whole?
It is an absurd price. But even if you don't run an individual piece of fiber to every home, you have to have an individual port on a fiber multiplexer or fiber router(!) to branch out to the thirty houses you might find currently hung off the local junction box. That would be a cool $10,000 per port plus another $10,000 for the backplane supporting 24 houses. That would be 4166666 of these neighborhood units, 173611 more one level up, 7233 at the central offices. That's $1,086,877,500,000 in upstream termination gear. We can assume that these things cost at least $1000 for $100,000,000,000 on the downstream end (can you imagine the bean counters at seimens cackleing with glee). A hundred billion at the consumer end and a little over a trillion on the monopoly phone/cable cable end. And we haven't even laid the first inch of fiber, purchased right of way, gotten local building permits, cleared through the FCC cash cow, moved to IPv6 (look at the numbers, it's manditory), Beefed up the backbone, selected a standard, drilled holes through people's houses, dug up their 10 thousand dollar landscaping, contracted with the major content/isp/software providers, etc, etc, etc...
This is dead before it started, all to get 10mb/s to the desktop. 10 megabits per second. There are just too many major players who would not profit from it that could kill it in the blink of an eye. Or they'll support it on the interim, then kill the companies profiting from it in order to gut the infrastructure for their own petty plans.
We get this rolling we might as well give everyone a free $10,000 PC at home too. It would only add about 1% to the final cost.
Better to rely on wireless neighborhood networks and mesh routing to aggregate your 50 odd DSL and cable connections. Read Rob Flickenger's book to find out more about that one.
Now we just need someone to foot the bill to run 100 million last mile fiber connections to everyone's houses at 1 million dollars a mile.
100,000,000,000,000
Yours now for only a Hundred Trillion Dollars!
Go Ahead and laugh. There are 100 million phone lines in the US and to quote a sig, "Information may want to be free, but fiber want's to be a million dollars a mile."
All of this is evidence that they are finally getting their house in order.
You admit that microsoft's house was out of order. And by using the word "getting" you imply that they are not there yet. All while the alternative's houses are in order...
We will have your comment removed because it infringes on our intellectual property. Then we will kill your dog. We will have you fired. And you will be ceremoniously executed for your insolence.
That night, in the mid-watch, when the old man - as his wont at intervals - stepped forth from the scuttle in which he leaned, and went to his pivot-hole, he suddenly thrust out his face fiercely, snuffing up the sea air as a sagacious ship's dog will, in drawing nigh to some barbarous isle. He declared that a whale must be near. Soon that peculiar odor, sometimes to a great distance given forth by the living sperm whale, was palpable to all the watch; nor was any mariner surprised when, after inspecting the compass, and then the dog-vane, and then ascertaining the precise bearing of the odor as nearly as possible, Ahab rapidly ordered the ship's course to be slightly altered, and the sail to be shortened.
The acute policy dictating these movements was sufficiently vindicated at daybreak, by the sight of a long sleek on the sea directly and lengthwise ahead, smooth as oil, and resembling in the pleated watery wrinkles bordering it, the polished metallic-like marks of some swift tide- rip, at the mouth of a deep, rapid stream.
Let's review. Implementing Altivec requires a code rewrite. If your application lends itself to parallel processing, why rely on a single processor that executes 4 instructions at a time when you could use 6 processors, that are clocked 50% faster and most of the time execute 4 instructions in parallel and somtimes are reduced to two in comparison. You can still execute 6, 100% faster by clock speed at a given price. As long as you are going to have to rewrite your code, might as well rewrite it for a cluster.
So, in our example, we pit 3 dual processor 1533mhz athlon XPs against 1 800mhz G4. Price point is $1600
In one corner, you have a single bottom end apple G4 tower at 800 mhz.
Which takes 3 weeks, by which time Apple raises the price of the G4 another hundred dollars while the price of the cluster drops a hundred dollars.
Ok, that was a flame, let's stick to matters at hand.
Refrencing this article, the ars technica article and the c't article (you know which one I'm talking about, that place where you dare not look, you'll find x86 there staring back at you) we can draw these assumptions:
The G4 with Altivec performs equily clock for clock with x86 w/SSE with some rare exceptions where it performs 100% faster clock for clock.
best case scenario for our similar priced systems using your best case for the G4 benchmark, rc5:
Single G4 800mhz 8,243,188 keys per second 6 AMD 1800XP 32,987,538 keys per second
Same price, x86 is 4 times as productive.
Seti@home using Ars Lambchop benching wu: Identicle!
3.35 per work unit.
x86 is 6 times as productive for the same price.
CINT2000: base 648 - XP1800 CINT2000: base 242 - G4 800mhz
684 vs 242... and that is a single processor comparison!
If we can optimise to scale, x86 is 16 times as fast for the same price
If you know of any benchmarks where Mac can compare favorably for the price, please let us all know. You are right, Mhz is not everything. But you have to get some numbers to back the claim that the G4 is even marginally close in performance to machines with well over twice the clockspeed. I'm sure that will convince us all to run out and buy Macs for number crunching:)
There are persistent and non-persistent variations in jupiters atmosphere. The great red spot, for instance, is a 12,000 km by 25,000 km by 8 km "tall" variation from the "surface" of Jupiter. 2.4 billion cubic kilometers of gas which is denser than the surrounding gasses forced upward by heat. This is an example of a continuously variable local gravity anomaly. We know that the red spot's composition and shape changes constantly and we cannot predict it's future. A recent collision with with a smaller white spot also drasticly changed it's color to a much lighter shade.
Jupiter also spins, so exibiting the same flattened sphere shape, and resulting reduced local gravity of the poles, that the earth has. To assume jupiter's metallic hydrogen core exibits no topographic variations is also unrealistic for purposes of calculating gravitational variations.
Additionally, imagine and iron bodied asteroid orienting itself to Jubiter's amazingly large magnetic field like and iron fileing would to a common magnet. This would change the meteorite's angle of incedence to the solar wind making it more or less "aerodynamic". We could change a meteors resistance to the solar wind by modifying it's reflectivity only to have our work undone because a previously stable meteor would begin to tumble, drasticly altering it's coefficient of drag.
Slashdot Mirror
I was able to afford a 22 inch monitor with my commodity PC. I spend over 8 hours a day on my computer. Had I bought an apple, I would have had a pretty 17 inch monitor to go with my slow computer to "enhance user experience".
BTW, my monitor will display 2048 by 1536 at 80Hz.
Not even the Cinema display will do that. Try again, but from a technical perspective without an "Apple's are better because they are pretty" and you will find that you were sorely ripped off.
Spend 300,000 dollars on Mac hardware, and you will have a 100 node cluster of Dual 1Ghz machines. Spend 300,000 on a cluster composed of dual 1.533ghz machines and you will have a 512 node cluster, and $70,000 to spend on the additional time it would take to optomize your applications.
In other words, you can have about 6 dual athlons for every one dual Apple for the same price. Since there are absolutly no benchmarks where the G4 performs 6 times better than an Athlon, and clustering is about supercomputers made from commodity hardware, the Athlon is a much better value.
Except as I understand it, even Intel's own compiler does not do a very good job of optimizing code for IA-64 making optimizations of code by hand in machine language nessecary. If your data set fits in 6mb of cache, and you need the performance, then moveing to IA-64 is a good option. The 6mb stipulation implies that you won't have to do much hand codeing because the data set is so small. If you have a larger data set, use Alpha, because it's performance is so much better, it's compiler is mature, and Intel is expected to incorperate Alpha's technology into Itanium in the future, by which time the compiler should be mature, if Itanium survives the onslaught from AMD's x86-64 Hammer, Apple's G5, Sparc x, and even Alpha, which is king now, and may, if ever relased in it's next generation, continue to pose a threat.
:)
Nice run on sentance if I do say so myself... Hope it is clearer for you
Sorry for not being clear. If you are on x86 now, wait for x86-64 from either AMD or Intel. The obscure refrence to Ronler Acres is aledgedly Intel's x86-64 skunkworks where Intel is developing an x86-64 clone in case AMD is succesfull and Itanium tanks. Itanium executes x86 code as fast as a 200mhz pentium. If you are already on 64 bit, stick with the platform you are using now. They are all better than Itanium.
Unless you can fit your entire data set in cache, in which case move to Itanium, because your application will run faster, if you need that speed and are willing to rewrite your code.
Slashdot thinks "Myrinet Available for Mac OS X" is news.
Myrinet itself thinks this is news:
"The IWR parallel high-performance computer was installed at the beginning of this year and consists of 512 AMD Athlon MP processors, two of them are placed into one computing node. These processors have frequencies of 1.4GHz and reach a theoretical maximum performance of 2.4 billion floating point operations per second (Gflops). The total system indicates a theoretical peak performance of more than 1.4 Teraflops, which well exceeds even all present installed Myrinet PC cluster in the USA. First performance measurements by using the well known Linpack Benchmark show an extraordinary performance of 825 Gflops, which would have placed this supercomputer in 24th position of last November on the list of the Top 500 most powerful computers in the world."
You can use lego mindstorms as webservers and you can use Macs in a cluster, but who would want to?
You can buy 4 dual processor Athlon rigs for every single processor Apple. Since a cluster's advantage is it's ability to create supercomputers from commodity hardware, why even attempt to use proprietary hardware? This is a dead end clustering approach. If you need double precision, use Alphas. Their cost is comparable to Apple, and perform significantly better, especially for number crunching (The term everyone used before "bioinformatics" became a hip buzzword)
Would you buy a 200mhz Pentium with 6mb of cache? Are you willing to rewrite your entire code base to take advantage of Itanium's architecture? With Itanium chips, those are your options. Wait for Sledgehammer or Whatever Intel cooks up at Ronler Acres to clone x86-64 (AA-64). 6mb sounds exciting until you address the costs associated moving to the Itanium platform.
But wait, with 6mb of cache, you might not have to optimize your existing code for the Itanium. You could just rely on BFI (Brute Force & Ignorance) to solve your troubles.
Insightful? Mac Zealot mod! FLAMEBAIT!
.25 cents per IEEE 1394 device. The price is low, so as to compete with USB, which is a truly open standard for all versions.
:)...
Should I reboot my Alpha?
Should I reboot my three VA Linux rack mounts?
Should I reboot my 180 Macs of various flavors?
Should I reboot my 3 1.4 ghz+ athlons?
Apple had an "unfavorable" license agreement on the patents in their portfolio in reference to IEEE 1394. Apple does not own all the patents for IEEE 1394. Sony owns some of them and call the standard "i.Link". Apple owns the name "Firewire" but "1394 LA" owns the IEEE 1394 standard. 1394 LA charges
So, Apple is seeking to own through production something that they only half own through intellectual property terms.
There are a few companies that seek to monopolize their markets. Microsoft monopolizes software on commodity hardware. Intel had an x86 monopoly prior to AMD's introduction of the Athlon. Rambus attempted to monopolize all current generation memory types for all hardware. Apple seeks to monopolize desktop publishing/graphic art, amateur DV editing and hopes to regain their monopoly in K-12 education.
As long as I have an IT budget and some morality, I will vote with my dollars against immoral business practices. I inherited 180 macs that are absolute pieces of shit compared to what was available from "commodity" hardware vendors from the same time period, especially for the price that was paid for them. I cherish the few clones in my mac inventory for their quality and upgrade ability. It is a mac myth that Apple stopped licensing their hardware to outside vendors on the basis of clones ruining Apple's image of quality. The clones had superior quality to what apple was offering at the time. In most cases, clones offered identical performance for half the price and much better upgrade ability. Apple likes their customers to be forced to buy a whole new machine instead of just upgrading the parts that are deficient.
As it stands, Apple has not advanced the internals of their hardware in two years. The Gamecube, with a 485mhz G3 that implements a partial altivec instruction set, retails for $199. The 500mhz G3 iMac retails for $800. A game console has cought up with a mac for performance.
ATA 66? 100mhz fsb? 1000mhz from a processor that performs clock for clock the same as a Pentium III? SDRAM?
Those of you that love your macs, love them for their gloss, not their performance or price. Those of you that are Mac zealots, have been steamrolled by the Apple marketing machine.
Example:
Let's pit 3 dual processor 1533mhz athlon XPs against 1 800mhz G4. Price point is $1600
In one corner, you have a single bottom end apple G4 tower at 800 mhz.
800MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2
cache
256MB SDRAM memory
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive
ATI Radeon 7500
56K internal modem
In the other corner we have 3u of Dual processor athlon goodness.
3 tyan tiger AMD 760mp chipset motherboards @ $504.
6 1800XP Athlons @ $303 (yes, they work).
3 256mb PC2100 registered ecc DDR ram @ $195.
3 1u cases w/300w power supplies @ $120.
3 40gb hard drives @ $159.
Price point is $1281.
Now rewrite your code.
Which takes 3 weeks, by which time Apple raises the price of the G4 another hundred dollars while the price of the cluster drops a hundred dollars.
(please note that in a previous version of this post I made that prediction, when in fact the price has dropped by over $300.)
Ok, that was a flame, let's stick to matters at hand.(Turned out to be not enough of a flame)
Referencing the altivec article, the ars technica article and the c't article (you know which one I'm talking about, that place where you dare not look, you'll find x86 there staring back at you) we can draw these assumptions:
The G4 with Altivec performs equally clock for clock with x86 w/SSE with some rare exceptions where it performs 100% faster clock for clock.
best case scenario for our similar priced systems using the best case for the G4 benchmark, rc5:
Single G4 800mhz 8,243,188 keys per second
6 AMD 1800XP 32,987,538 keys per second
300 dollars less expensive, x86 is 4 times as productive.
Seti@home using Ars Lambchop benching wu: Identical!
3.35 per work unit.
x86 is 6 times as productive for 300 dollars less.
CINT2000: base 648 - XP1800
CINT2000: base 242 - G4 800mhz
684 vs 242... and that is a single processor comparison!
If we can optimize to scale, x86 is 16 times as fast for 300 dollars less.
If you know of any benchmarks where Mac can compare favorably for the price, please let us all know. You are right, Mhz is not everything. But you have to get some numbers to back the claim that the G4 is even marginally close in performance to machines with well over twice the clock speed. I'm sure that will convince us all to run out and buy Macs for number crunching
This is where your love of Apple has led the company. You buy blindly so they sell overpriced shit and call it gold.
Debating Mac zealots is so easy because a Mac zealot's mind is weak enough to believe the Apple marketing lies.
Thank you SOOOOO much! 5% of the desktop market and STILL DROPPING, and these bucket heads seem to over run Slashdot. You would think they have 90% market share, but the only market they seem to have cornered is the market on suckers.
I works great... I'll never have to go through the arduous process of working my way through my start menue ever again.. or yours for that matter..
Apple is going for a firewire monopoly. If a drive manufacturer did this with IDE or SCSI, we would be up in arms. But apple users are used to dealing with the apple proprietary hardware monopoly, and no one else cares.
Long live USB 2.0, the open standard.
How many ads were "pushed" today?
:)
If they keep track, they are violating the law against collecting data on children under 13. That makes their ad pushing technology un-billable without breaking the law. Look for child protection act class action lawsuits against this company. Investors would be my target
If collecting data on children under 13 is against the law, how did they get the data for this study?
Motherfucker, this has been done before. Some communist cocksucker did it in hardware. I saw this bitch assed setup for sale somewhere and thought "hey this is a stupid motherfucking idea". This was back in the days of pentuim 90s. Those fucking pentiums were so "goddamn fast" that you could have more than on user on the same fucking computer.
Needless to say, the bitch hardware vendor did not last long. They got swallow by belkin like a cum load. Belkin axed their tech because reality was, fucking pentium 90s were slow assed pieces of shit.
the X box has had a poor showing... this was a gaming land grab by microsoft. All they would have to do is stop supporting Direct X on the desktop and they would own the entire PC gaming industry.. software AND hardware...
That's potentially another 8 billion dollars in their pockets annually, and growing all the time. Let us hope X Box 2 meets the same fate. Think, the only decent Open GL programmer is Carmack, and he is launching rockets. That leaves the entire world of game developers in Direct X land...in microsoft's pocket. If they owned the hardware too, welcome to 100 dollar games and Apple priced X boxes as the only viable gaming platform. Crippled of course so you still need a real PC, also in Microsoft's pocket.
is broken... please try again.
What do you want to bet Lindows contains some Windows source that they are busy cleaning up before final release? or they are using strait Windows binaries in some cases that they cannot release the source for because they don't have them. Perhaps they stuffed them in some sort of .pak file but they would be there for all to see if they released the source now. Who knows?
What I would like to know is what is the definition of an "End User"? Anyone outside the company that gets a binary should have the source? If that is the case is there any way for the big distros to compete with each other without destroying the whole?
No, you can never be to political on slashdot :)
It is an absurd price. But even if you don't run an individual piece of fiber to every home, you have to have an individual port on a fiber multiplexer or fiber router(!) to branch out to the thirty houses you might find currently hung off the local junction box. That would be a cool $10,000 per port plus another $10,000 for the backplane supporting 24 houses. That would be 4166666 of these neighborhood units, 173611 more one level up, 7233 at the central offices. That's $1,086,877,500,000 in upstream termination gear. We can assume that these things cost at least $1000 for $100,000,000,000 on the downstream end (can you imagine the bean counters at seimens cackleing with glee). A hundred billion at the consumer end and a little over a trillion on the monopoly phone/cable cable end. And we haven't even laid the first inch of fiber, purchased right of way, gotten local building permits, cleared through the FCC cash cow, moved to IPv6 (look at the numbers, it's manditory), Beefed up the backbone, selected a standard, drilled holes through people's houses, dug up their 10 thousand dollar landscaping, contracted with the major content/isp/software providers, etc, etc, etc...
This is dead before it started, all to get 10mb/s to the desktop. 10 megabits per second. There are just too many major players who would not profit from it that could kill it in the blink of an eye. Or they'll support it on the interim, then kill the companies profiting from it in order to gut the infrastructure for their own petty plans.
We get this rolling we might as well give everyone a free $10,000 PC at home too. It would only add about 1% to the final cost.
Better to rely on wireless neighborhood networks and mesh routing to aggregate your 50 odd DSL and cable connections. Read Rob Flickenger's book to find out more about that one.
Now we just need someone to foot the bill to run 100 million last mile fiber connections to everyone's houses at 1 million dollars a mile.
100,000,000,000,000
Yours now for only a Hundred Trillion Dollars!
Go Ahead and laugh. There are 100 million phone lines in the US and to quote a sig, "Information may want to be free, but fiber want's to be a million dollars a mile."
All of this is evidence that they are finally getting their house in order.
You admit that microsoft's house was out of order. And by using the word "getting" you imply that they are not there yet. All while the alternative's houses are in order...
So why bother with IIS?
We will have your comment removed because it infringes on our intellectual property. Then we will kill your dog. We will have you fired. And you will be ceremoniously executed for your insolence.
You mean I'm supposed to mouse with my hand?
Just when I covered my entire floor with sorbothane...
Where be my harpoon?
That night, in the mid-watch, when the old man - as his wont at intervals - stepped forth from the scuttle in which he leaned, and went to his pivot-hole, he suddenly thrust out his face fiercely, snuffing up the sea air as a sagacious ship's dog will, in drawing nigh to some barbarous isle. He declared that a whale must be near. Soon that peculiar odor, sometimes to a great distance given forth by the living sperm whale, was palpable to all the watch; nor was any mariner surprised when, after inspecting the compass, and then the dog-vane, and then ascertaining the precise bearing of the odor as nearly as possible, Ahab rapidly ordered the ship's course to be slightly altered, and the sail to be shortened.
The acute policy dictating these movements was sufficiently vindicated at daybreak, by the sight of a long sleek on the sea directly and lengthwise ahead, smooth as oil, and resembling in the pleated watery wrinkles bordering it, the polished metallic-like marks of some swift tide- rip, at the mouth of a deep, rapid stream.
"Man the mast-heads! Call all hands
And the purpose of this is?
:)
Let's review. Implementing Altivec requires a code rewrite. If your application lends itself to parallel processing, why rely on a single processor that executes 4 instructions at a time when you could use 6 processors, that are clocked 50% faster and most of the time execute 4 instructions in parallel and somtimes are reduced to two in comparison. You can still execute 6, 100% faster by clock speed at a given price. As long as you are going to have to rewrite your code, might as well rewrite it for a cluster.
So, in our example, we pit 3 dual processor 1533mhz athlon XPs against 1 800mhz G4. Price point is $1600
In one corner, you have a single bottom end apple G4 tower at 800 mhz.
800MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2
cache
256MB SDRAM memory
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive
ATI Radeon 7500
56K internal modem
In the other corner we have 3u of Dual processor athlon goodness.
3 tyan tiger AMD 760mp chipset motherboards @ $522.
6 1800XP Athlons @ $624 (yes they work).
3 256mb PC2100 registered ecc DDR ram @ $195.
3 1u cases w/300w power supplies @ $120.
3 40gb hard drives @ $162.
Price point is $1623.
Now rewrite your code.
Which takes 3 weeks, by which time Apple raises the price of the G4 another hundred dollars while the price of the cluster drops a hundred dollars.
Ok, that was a flame, let's stick to matters at hand.
Refrencing this article, the ars technica article and the c't article (you know which one I'm talking about, that place where you dare not look, you'll find x86 there staring back at you) we can draw these assumptions:
The G4 with Altivec performs equily clock for clock with x86 w/SSE with some rare exceptions where it performs 100% faster clock for clock.
best case scenario for our similar priced systems using your best case for the G4 benchmark, rc5:
Single G4 800mhz 8,243,188 keys per second
6 AMD 1800XP 32,987,538 keys per second
Same price, x86 is 4 times as productive.
Seti@home using Ars Lambchop benching wu: Identicle!
3.35 per work unit.
x86 is 6 times as productive for the same price.
CINT2000: base 648 - XP1800
CINT2000: base 242 - G4 800mhz
684 vs 242... and that is a single processor comparison!
If we can optimise to scale, x86 is 16 times as fast for the same price
If you know of any benchmarks where Mac can compare favorably for the price, please let us all know. You are right, Mhz is not everything. But you have to get some numbers to back the claim that the G4 is even marginally close in performance to machines with well over twice the clockspeed. I'm sure that will convince us all to run out and buy Macs for number crunching
There are persistent and non-persistent variations in jupiters atmosphere. The great red spot, for instance, is a 12,000 km by 25,000 km by 8 km "tall" variation from the "surface" of Jupiter. 2.4 billion cubic kilometers of gas which is denser than the surrounding gasses forced upward by heat. This is an example of a continuously variable local gravity anomaly. We know that the red spot's composition and shape changes constantly and we cannot predict it's future. A recent collision with with a smaller white spot also drasticly changed it's color to a much lighter shade.
Jupiter also spins, so exibiting the same flattened sphere shape, and resulting reduced local gravity of the poles, that the earth has. To assume jupiter's metallic hydrogen core exibits no topographic variations is also unrealistic for purposes of calculating gravitational variations.
Additionally, imagine and iron bodied asteroid orienting itself to Jubiter's amazingly large magnetic field like and iron fileing would to a common magnet. This would change the meteorite's angle of incedence to the solar wind making it more or less "aerodynamic". We could change a meteors resistance to the solar wind by modifying it's reflectivity only to have our work undone because a previously stable meteor would begin to tumble, drasticly altering it's coefficient of drag.
Again, there are just too many variables.