Seeing that Seagate's specs on that particular drive is an average operating draw of just 13 measly watts, it sounds like it could power quite a few. Given that the *max* 12V draw under spinup is rated at 2.8 amps, and that this power supply has a peak 12V current of 70 amps, even accounting for the rest of your system, you're probably going to run out of room to mount those drives before you run out of power.
That's some relatively old hardware. Put in a video card that can draw 100 watts by itself, then start playing a game that maxes out both your CPU and your video card!
As to your question about who needs that much power, nobody, at least not in a single power supply. Machines that really need that much have multiple, redundant power supplies. This is just about getting idiots to pay big money for bragging rights.
steve
Re:how about a good power supply instead?
on
A Kilowatt of Power
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well... there's a lot of room to fudge, and like so man other people have said, it's about amperage. Just about a week ago, I showed a coworker a couple of power supplies, one rated at 400 watts, the other at 425 watts. As I recall, the 400-watt power supply (which was quite expensive) could deliver upwards of 30 amps on the +12V line, where the 425-watt unit maxed out at 18.
Even assuming that both of those supplies reached their published specs, if he's trying to run a high-draw, overclocked CPU and a high-draw video card (both of which draw their power from the +12V line, and even without overclocking can pull more than 18 amps), then it's fairly obvious that just reaching the rated specs - even at 425 watts - isn't *always* enough.
I have a machine that draws upwards of 700 watts. But, that machine has 4 processers, 10 disks, and a few more goodies on it. And it doesn't use just one power supply, but three redundant supplies!
"and AMD isn't exactly innovative, it's just the underdog"
While other companies put the memory controller on the CPU and gave the CPUs low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnects, you *do* have to hand it to AMD for actually bringing that to commodity-level hardware. And you have to shake your head at the fact that Intel, who traditionally has enjoyed smaller, better manufacturing capabilities, *could* have done it significantly earlier than AMD, but just didn't care to try anything new. I can't fathom why they would sink billions into R&D on the Itanium, when there were plenty of options of real, proven advances that would have been much easier, faster, and cheaper.
When Adobe releases a 64-bit version of Photoshop (which will supposedly happen with the next release), then we'll see a lot of things happen.
Right now, the only things that *most* pc users don't have any apps that can take advantage of the 64-bitness, aside from the extra registers that you get when you run in 64-bit mode. However, Photoshop lives and dies on memory size, and there are a LOT of people that already buy 3 or 4 gigs of memory for Photoshop right now, and will happily buy more when they can actually use it - and since you're talking about people that already drop several grand on the computer, nearly another grand on Photoshop, and often thousands more on related scanning and printing equipment, manufacturers are more likely to take their needs into consideration than someone who blows $90 on a printer and $60 on a video game.
Yes, I know, Adobe talks about improved memory usage on a 64-bit OS, but that's because of the OS' memory advantages, not Photoshop's. CS2 is still a 32-bit application, and even on a 64-bit OS, can't use more than about 3 gigs. Look in up on Adobe's site.
Not that I'd have the money for it, but 8 or 16 gigs of RAM would let me work on some of my 200+ megapixel, images (16-bit colors, not 8-bit) with a useful number of history and cache states, even if I used a few layers. If that much memory seems excessive, 200 million pixels, 6 bytes/pixel, that's 1.2 gigabytes just to hold a single image in memory. Add that much more for each layer, and then throw in history and cache states.
Now, back to the topic at hand... I don't imagine that many people will deck out their laptop with 4+ gigs of memory.
Shorter-lived animals develop faster. No kidding. You can house-train a dog by 1 or 2 months old. When your lifespan is only about 10 years, you can't waste two or three of them on learning where to defecate.
Chimps develop faster than humans because they DIE SOONER. They also live in a more hostile environment, and aren't afforded the 18 or 20 years of care and coddling that humans are.
Umm.... you mean the days when you could rank high by repeating certain words 7,000 times in really small text (or even in the same color as the background) at the bottom of your page? I don't know if I'd call those the "good" old days. And besides, it was still optimizing then, the optimizing was just done differently.
Now, instead of trying to create the illusion of having relevant content, you have to create the illusion of both relevant content *and* popularity.
In theory, the ability to run to chips of different speeds was there even in the Athlon MP, as it had independant busses from the morthbridge. In practice, it didn't work very well, either.
One of these days, I'll put more effort into looking for a cheap laptop - it doesn't even need a battery, as long as it has a working display, power supply, and keyboard. I'm going to rip it apart, mount the LCD in a frame, and build it into my wall. But I see how much people want for something like a Pentium 166 laptop, and I think that they're out of their minds.
Sticking a nice 19" LCD in the wall would be even nicer, but lots more money as well.
I have an old DEC server with dual P-133s in it, and 96 megs of RAM. Back in the day, it must have been extremely expensive. About six years ago, I picked it up for $40. Right now it's my home router running Linux, but in the past I've installed Windows 2000 on it, and it was pretty usable.
Seeing that even maxing out my 6 megabit line doesn't get the load on the machine above 0.05, I keep thinking about doing something a bit more demanding with it, but in reality, I'll probably just be lazy and let it sit there. It's nice and quiet, passive heat sinks and everything.
A 5-year apprenticeship that teaches them how to sweat a fitting, tighten fixtures, and adhere to the plumbing code. That's it. They should stick to that, and leave infectious disease to someone who, again, actually knows something about that area.
"Why is it so hard to believe that us humans are responsible for global warming?"
Because that would involve a moral obligation to change our ways. If, instead, you had said that human activity caused climate change on a distant, ininhabitted asteroid, you'd have little problem getting people to accept it.
Yep, it's the Americans. Sure. I visitted a town in Mexico where an oil refinery was located. One of the engineers at the plant said that it was the cleanest in Mexico, and about equivalent to the dirtiest one in the USA.
All of the steel factories in China cranking out a huge chunk of the world's supply, with next to no emissions controls - some still operating with none whatsoever. Yep, it's the Americans.
Russian industry pouring massive amounts of pollution into all of the major rivers. Yep, it's the Americans.
It's money. Really. If money weren't involved, good old W could sign a bill to increase the CAFE by twenty MPG over the next twenty years, and there we'd go. But the average shmoe using a 400+ CID V8 to haul a 3-ton SUV around don't want to pay an extra 15% for a design that gets better mileage, and the car companies don't want to lose out on revenue. To top it off, neither W nor his friends and supporters want to lose money when gas consumption gets cut in half.
Oddly enough, it's greed that has created such wealth that even the "poor" people in developed nations live lives that would make the majority of people who have ever lived on this planet envious - but it's that same greed that's going to run us all down the crapper.
Sorry, man, but we're doomed. Yes, it's a pretty cynical viewpoint, but hey... that doesn't mean that it doesn't hold true.
Eh. We'll just continue to truck in cheap food from dirt-poor countries, make some token attempts to reduce emissions, and buy larger air conditioners. Life will go on. It's the people in the poor nations that will suffer the most.
What's most significant isn't that it's getting warmer - it's that according to a pattern that goes back for millions of years, we *should* be in an ice age right now.
Whether our activities were solely responsible for the conditions right now is one that will be debated by emotional persons with agendas - on BOTH sides - until they die. What's not so controversial is the fact that our current activities can *not* be making anything better.
"But plumbers argue that the devices could spread diseases such as cholera and severe acute respiratory syndrome and emit deadly sewer gas into restrooms -- allegations both conservationists and manufacturers strongly dispute."
Evidently, the fact that cholera has to be ingested is lost on them... it's a no-touch toilet, and if you get down on your knees and lick it, you have what's coming to you.
As for acute respiratory syndrome, they'd have to come up with some plausible way to show that respiratory infections are spread in urine. Plumbers should stick to tightening leaky fixtures, and leave disease control to people that actually went to school(*)...
(*) I'm sure that any plumbers here will be offended. But you're seemingly atypical, I have yet to speak with a plumber that had anything more than a high-school education - if that.
Is not whether or not a toilet spreads germs, it's about a form of non-representative government. The plumbing code is the same as the electrical code, where the vast majority of municipalities have simple said "Whatever the N.E.C. (or IAPMO) says is law."
That means that laws are effectively passed by a small group of people - who may have nothing more than the economic interest of their own trade union in mind - and there's no vote, no deliberation, no senate, no president, no governer, nothing - it's law, and you can shut up and take it, or you can... well, shut up and take it.
You're missing the key differences between addiction and acting based on previous experience. In fact, you don't seem to understand what an addiction is at all. When you act based on the outcome of previous decisions, you generally go for what has produced a positive result. And if you felt like it, you could try something else just to see if it worked better.
In an addiction, you *have* to "get your fix", even if the outcome is painful, or otherwise negative - and you don't really have a choice in the matter, you can't just say "Well, maybe I'll try *not* taking this drug..."
True addiction isn't "I like to do this, and I do it a lot." True addiction is "I can't stop doing this no matter how badly I want to." Patterns aren't addiction.
Slashdot Mirror
A kilowatt for bittorrent? I leave my bittorrents running on an Eden CPU, the whole machine uses something like 20 or 25 watts while it's running.
steve
Seeing that Seagate's specs on that particular drive is an average operating draw of just 13 measly watts, it sounds like it could power quite a few. Given that the *max* 12V draw under spinup is rated at 2.8 amps, and that this power supply has a peak 12V current of 70 amps, even accounting for the rest of your system, you're probably going to run out of room to mount those drives before you run out of power.
steve
That's some relatively old hardware. Put in a video card that can draw 100 watts by itself, then start playing a game that maxes out both your CPU and your video card!
As to your question about who needs that much power, nobody, at least not in a single power supply. Machines that really need that much have multiple, redundant power supplies. This is just about getting idiots to pay big money for bragging rights.
steve
Well... there's a lot of room to fudge, and like so man other people have said, it's about amperage. Just about a week ago, I showed a coworker a couple of power supplies, one rated at 400 watts, the other at 425 watts. As I recall, the 400-watt power supply (which was quite expensive) could deliver upwards of 30 amps on the +12V line, where the 425-watt unit maxed out at 18.
Even assuming that both of those supplies reached their published specs, if he's trying to run a high-draw, overclocked CPU and a high-draw video card (both of which draw their power from the +12V line, and even without overclocking can pull more than 18 amps), then it's fairly obvious that just reaching the rated specs - even at 425 watts - isn't *always* enough.
steve
I have a machine that draws upwards of 700 watts. But, that machine has 4 processers, 10 disks, and a few more goodies on it. And it doesn't use just one power supply, but three redundant supplies!
steve
"and AMD isn't exactly innovative, it's just the underdog"
While other companies put the memory controller on the CPU and gave the CPUs low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnects, you *do* have to hand it to AMD for actually bringing that to commodity-level hardware. And you have to shake your head at the fact that Intel, who traditionally has enjoyed smaller, better manufacturing capabilities, *could* have done it significantly earlier than AMD, but just didn't care to try anything new. I can't fathom why they would sink billions into R&D on the Itanium, when there were plenty of options of real, proven advances that would have been much easier, faster, and cheaper.
steve
When Adobe releases a 64-bit version of Photoshop (which will supposedly happen with the next release), then we'll see a lot of things happen.
Right now, the only things that *most* pc users don't have any apps that can take advantage of the 64-bitness, aside from the extra registers that you get when you run in 64-bit mode. However, Photoshop lives and dies on memory size, and there are a LOT of people that already buy 3 or 4 gigs of memory for Photoshop right now, and will happily buy more when they can actually use it - and since you're talking about people that already drop several grand on the computer, nearly another grand on Photoshop, and often thousands more on related scanning and printing equipment, manufacturers are more likely to take their needs into consideration than someone who blows $90 on a printer and $60 on a video game.
Yes, I know, Adobe talks about improved memory usage on a 64-bit OS, but that's because of the OS' memory advantages, not Photoshop's. CS2 is still a 32-bit application, and even on a 64-bit OS, can't use more than about 3 gigs. Look in up on Adobe's site.
Not that I'd have the money for it, but 8 or 16 gigs of RAM would let me work on some of my 200+ megapixel, images (16-bit colors, not 8-bit) with a useful number of history and cache states, even if I used a few layers. If that much memory seems excessive, 200 million pixels, 6 bytes/pixel, that's 1.2 gigabytes just to hold a single image in memory. Add that much more for each layer, and then throw in history and cache states.
Now, back to the topic at hand... I don't imagine that many people will deck out their laptop with 4+ gigs of memory.
steve
Shorter-lived animals develop faster. No kidding. You can house-train a dog by 1 or 2 months old. When your lifespan is only about 10 years, you can't waste two or three of them on learning where to defecate.
Chimps develop faster than humans because they DIE SOONER. They also live in a more hostile environment, and aren't afforded the 18 or 20 years of care and coddling that humans are.
steve
Umm.... you mean the days when you could rank high by repeating certain words 7,000 times in really small text (or even in the same color as the background) at the bottom of your page? I don't know if I'd call those the "good" old days. And besides, it was still optimizing then, the optimizing was just done differently.
Now, instead of trying to create the illusion of having relevant content, you have to create the illusion of both relevant content *and* popularity.
steve
... and so did the Alphas, as the AthlonMP used a bus licensced from the Alpha. :-)
steve
Opteron systems aren't SMP. They're NUMA.
In theory, the ability to run to chips of different speeds was there even in the Athlon MP, as it had independant busses from the morthbridge. In practice, it didn't work very well, either.
steve
... which one will still function a year from now.
steve
One of these days, I'll put more effort into looking for a cheap laptop - it doesn't even need a battery, as long as it has a working display, power supply, and keyboard. I'm going to rip it apart, mount the LCD in a frame, and build it into my wall. But I see how much people want for something like a Pentium 166 laptop, and I think that they're out of their minds.
Sticking a nice 19" LCD in the wall would be even nicer, but lots more money as well.
steve
I have an old DEC server with dual P-133s in it, and 96 megs of RAM. Back in the day, it must have been extremely expensive. About six years ago, I picked it up for $40. Right now it's my home router running Linux, but in the past I've installed Windows 2000 on it, and it was pretty usable.
Seeing that even maxing out my 6 megabit line doesn't get the load on the machine above 0.05, I keep thinking about doing something a bit more demanding with it, but in reality, I'll probably just be lazy and let it sit there. It's nice and quiet, passive heat sinks and everything.
steve
A 5-year apprenticeship that teaches them how to sweat a fitting, tighten fixtures, and adhere to the plumbing code. That's it. They should stick to that, and leave infectious disease to someone who, again, actually knows something about that area.
steve
"Why is it so hard to believe that us humans are responsible for global warming?"
Because that would involve a moral obligation to change our ways. If, instead, you had said that human activity caused climate change on a distant, ininhabitted asteroid, you'd have little problem getting people to accept it.
steve
Yep, it's the Americans. Sure. I visitted a town in Mexico where an oil refinery was located. One of the engineers at the plant said that it was the cleanest in Mexico, and about equivalent to the dirtiest one in the USA.
All of the steel factories in China cranking out a huge chunk of the world's supply, with next to no emissions controls - some still operating with none whatsoever. Yep, it's the Americans.
Russian industry pouring massive amounts of pollution into all of the major rivers. Yep, it's the Americans.
steve
It's money. Really. If money weren't involved, good old W could sign a bill to increase the CAFE by twenty MPG over the next twenty years, and there we'd go. But the average shmoe using a 400+ CID V8 to haul a 3-ton SUV around don't want to pay an extra 15% for a design that gets better mileage, and the car companies don't want to lose out on revenue. To top it off, neither W nor his friends and supporters want to lose money when gas consumption gets cut in half.
Oddly enough, it's greed that has created such wealth that even the "poor" people in developed nations live lives that would make the majority of people who have ever lived on this planet envious - but it's that same greed that's going to run us all down the crapper.
Sorry, man, but we're doomed. Yes, it's a pretty cynical viewpoint, but hey... that doesn't mean that it doesn't hold true.
steve
Eh. We'll just continue to truck in cheap food from dirt-poor countries, make some token attempts to reduce emissions, and buy larger air conditioners. Life will go on. It's the people in the poor nations that will suffer the most.
steve
What's most significant isn't that it's getting warmer - it's that according to a pattern that goes back for millions of years, we *should* be in an ice age right now.
Whether our activities were solely responsible for the conditions right now is one that will be debated by emotional persons with agendas - on BOTH sides - until they die. What's not so controversial is the fact that our current activities can *not* be making anything better.
steve
It's sterile coming out, but not after it's sat around. Urine is high in nitrogen, and bacteria looooove nitrogen.
steve
"But plumbers argue that the devices could spread diseases such as cholera and severe acute respiratory syndrome and emit deadly sewer gas into restrooms -- allegations both conservationists and manufacturers strongly dispute."
Evidently, the fact that cholera has to be ingested is lost on them... it's a no-touch toilet, and if you get down on your knees and lick it, you have what's coming to you.
As for acute respiratory syndrome, they'd have to come up with some plausible way to show that respiratory infections are spread in urine. Plumbers should stick to tightening leaky fixtures, and leave disease control to people that actually went to school(*)...
(*) I'm sure that any plumbers here will be offended. But you're seemingly atypical, I have yet to speak with a plumber that had anything more than a high-school education - if that.
steve
Is not whether or not a toilet spreads germs, it's about a form of non-representative government. The plumbing code is the same as the electrical code, where the vast majority of municipalities have simple said "Whatever the N.E.C. (or IAPMO) says is law."
That means that laws are effectively passed by a small group of people - who may have nothing more than the economic interest of their own trade union in mind - and there's no vote, no deliberation, no senate, no president, no governer, nothing - it's law, and you can shut up and take it, or you can... well, shut up and take it.
steve
No ??? here...
1. Make album.
2. Release in less-than-CD quality on a $8 device
3. Charge $16 extra.
4. Profit!
steve
You're missing the key differences between addiction and acting based on previous experience. In fact, you don't seem to understand what an addiction is at all. When you act based on the outcome of previous decisions, you generally go for what has produced a positive result. And if you felt like it, you could try something else just to see if it worked better.
In an addiction, you *have* to "get your fix", even if the outcome is painful, or otherwise negative - and you don't really have a choice in the matter, you can't just say "Well, maybe I'll try *not* taking this drug..."
True addiction isn't "I like to do this, and I do it a lot." True addiction is "I can't stop doing this no matter how badly I want to." Patterns aren't addiction.
steve