Why isn't there more use of minidiscs or zip disks. In the case of minidiscs the technology has been long established is availabe and is pretty reliable.
Quite simple, really. This is part of Sony's 'Mavica' line. This line is designed for ease of use above all else. The old Mavica's were floppy-based, so you just popped the floppy in, took a couple pictures, and popped the floppy in your computer, no special software. Much simpler than using any kind of adapter.
This new one is a similar premise. Only with CD-R. Something like 99% of new computers can read CD-Rs, so it's a completely safe bet. Heck, now iMac users can use a Mavica. You just pop in that 77mm CD-R, take a couple pictures, and pop the 77mm CD-R in your computer. No special drivers, no adapters... That is the point.
I wonder how many people will get a coaster full of memories when the CD-R fails to burn or drains the last few amps from the batteries.
Well, according to the review (did you read the review? The reviewers TRIED to make it fail by banging the sides of it, shaking it, (everything short of dropping it) and it didn't burn a coaster for them. Of course, as one respondent has already mentioned, a good CD-R drive, with good software and hardware support, produces coasters about as often as someone mis-loads 35mm, so it shouldn't be an issue. Also, the camera SHOULD (if it's like My Sony DSC F-505) be smart enough to refuse to take the picture if there isn't enough power left to save it.
Digital Cameras are at the stage where they don't need marketing gimmicks (floppy disks, CD-R etc). What people need is something as usuable as a 35mm camera - you take your pictures, fill up a media storage unit, change it and take more.
Again, that's the point! You just take your pictures, fill up a storage unit, change it, and take more! Then, rather than using a cable, adapter, or special software, you're ready to go. And, with the popularity of their floppy-based Mavica's, the floppy drive isn't a gimmick anymore. It's an ease-of-use feature. And that's exactly what you claim to be advocating, is ease-of-use...
But, that's just my $.02... You're perfectly free to disagree...
hehe... Yeah, we have the same problem in Portland, OR... Every time I see a car with California plates, and an Oregon temp tag, I make sure to cut them off, flip them off, or do something otherwise nasty to them... I figure if they think the locals are rude, they'll move away!
To quote former Oregon governor Tom McCall, "Thank you for visiting Oregon. Now leave."
That's right, kiddies. Sony isn't claiming that they are making a Game-Boy-style handheld game, just that they're making an easier-to-transport version of the PlayStation. That's where the confusion is coming in. So, I'll say it again: THIS WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A HANDHELD!
Remember the old Compaq Portable? Or IBM's line of 'Luggable' PS/2s? That is what this is equivalent to. A fully-functional, normal PlayStation, just designed to be more easily taken from one place to the other. And, with an add-on screen, you can use it in other locales, too; like a car. But not all on it's own. You can tell that just by looking at it.
So, you'll have to wait a little longer for them to release a handheld that can play PS games. (Although, using CDs as media, it will be awkward to impliment. Either a single device, that is unweidly because of it's size (and the danger of skipping,) or a two-piece system where you have the CD player portion on your belt (pocket, etc) and have a seperate hand-held part with the screen and controls. There are two ways to impliment this system:
Wire the two together.
Use Bluetooth (or similar technology) to have them connect wirelessly. This would be preferred, but unlikely.
Read the British news story linked in the main story. It's only 6 miles from English shore (they declared independence when Britain only claimed 3 miles of sea.) It has a helipad, and concrete gets TOUGHER with age (to an extent) so it's MORE sturdy now than it was in WW2!
And, all they need is one or two high-end servers (one rack's worth would be enough,) electricity (probably a generator already there,) and a high speed internet connection (satellite?)
Look, I'm not taking issue with the other things you said, but just get it that people are not stupid.
To quote someone famous "A person is smart. But people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." That pretty much sums it up. I worked in a call center for a year, and have seen first hand how stupid some can be. Not just ignorant of computers, as you suggest, but just plain stupid. I was perfectly happy to help someone who just didn't know how to do something. As long as they were reasonably intelligent, could follow directions, and had a desire to actually learn how to solve the problem, it was all good. But, then there were those people who just refused to listen and/or learn. When someone calls in for the third time this week asking how to get their web browser to to 'Back' a page, then I get angry.
And this isn't restricted to people that could be considered 'dumb'. I've helped a CEO of a Fortune 1000 company, I've helped doctors, laywers, pilots, NETWORK ADMINISTRATORS! My last job was as Engineering-level technical support for Intel's server division. That meant that I was the last line of support for Intel-manufactured server boards and platforms. I dealt with the heads of technical support at large OEMs, distributors, and resellers. By the time they got to me, the customer had been through three levels of technical support, and had better know their stuff. I would get calls daily from someone who was the head network administrator for <Insert large multinational bank here>, or <Insert state government here>, or even <Insert tobacco/food company here> who didn't know diddly squat about how to run Windows 98, much less administer an 8-way file server running NetWare! And I don't mean the manager of the department, but the guy who actually administers the server.
So, I'm sorry to say, equating an average user to a lobotomized flatworm is perfectly legitimate. Don't disagree until you have worked tech support for something other than an engineering department. To quote someone else famous, "The ability to speak does not make one intelligent."
Yup. Mr. Clancy REALLY likes his realism... Unfortunately, to be very real, he would have had to stretch out the underwater fight scenes to about half an hour to an hour each... (Like in his books. Try Red Storm Rising or SSN for some ultra-realistic portrayals of submarine operations... My submariner friend actually recommended SSN because it was co-written by a former submariner.)
Yes, submarines actually use what is called Very Low Frequency or VLF (Sometimes called Ultra Low Frequency or ULF.) Unfortunately, they only get in the neighborhood of 1 character every 3 seconds. (If I remember what my US Navy Sumbariner friend said.) Yes, that is a whopping.3 baud. But, the good part is that the chosen radio frequency actually travels through the Earth, so the US Navy actually only has two broadcast antennas, both in the mainland U.S., to broadcast to all US Navy subs. They really only use it to tell a sub to come to periscope depth so they can recieve a higher speed satellite-based message. (It's kind of like emailing someone to tell them to turn on ICQ...)
Phrases like "due process" and "guilty until proven innocent" are coming to mind.
I don't know why... They obviously aren't being observed... Ain't the U.S. legal system great? All you have to do nowadays is threaten a lawsuit, even an unfounded one, and a company will cave in at the expense of users/consumers...
I, for one, agree. I went to MI2 expecting to see a great action movie, with lots of very cool stunts, and some serious Woo-moves. I didn't go to it expecting to see 'Schindler's List'. Yes, Gladiator was good. Yes, Gladiator had a more in-depth plot. This wasn't meant to be Gladiator! This was meant to be a great action flick! As one respondent said Why is it that apologists for really bad movies always pull out the same tired cliche about ``intellectual stimulation?'' Personally, I'm not apologizing, I'm saying that MI2 was a damned good movie. You were just expecing it to be more. Heck, I was expecting Star Wars, Episode 1 to be more, and was sorely disappointed...
Right after Metallica presented Napster with those 300,000 names, I wrote the following letter, and sent a copy to each band member:
I have been a long-time fan of your band. I was listening to your music when the most prominent way of getting to know your music was through a method known as "tape trading." I have seen many statements directly from you and other members of your band commenting on this practice, and in all, you promoted this practice.
It has come to my attention that you have recently filed a lawsuit against Napster, Inc. to force them to revoke the memberships of approximately 330,000 users for violation of your copyright. I am a large proponent of free speech, and of freedom in general. While I have only used the 'Napster' program once, and did not find it particularly useful; I have found that the use of Napster is more akin to tape trading than that of pirating. From my 'chatting' with other Napster users, combined with public comments and interviews of Napster users; most of them appear to be in their late teens and/or early twenties. Most do not have a lot of money (many are college students.) Back when you first started, this was your primary audience; and that audience participated in tape trading.
I have become thoroughly disgusted with your handling of this matter, and am writing to tell you that you have lost (what was) a loyal fan. I own all of your albums, plus I have a few concerts from early in your career that I acquired through tape trading. In trying to decide what to do to protest your actions, I considered making every single album of yours I have available on Napster. But, I would rather that demand for your work go DOWN. I am now going to destroy all of your albums I own, and will be active in spreading the word about your despicable acts.
You are only hurting your fans by your actions. If this was "only on the advice of your lawyers," I highly suggest getting a lawyer that cares less about money, and more about what is right.
I included in each envelope a piece of one of their CDs, broken. (The broken vinyl record of 'Kill 'Em All' in Lars')
If you are also maddened by what they have done, I encourage you to write a similar letter. You can mail them at:
Band member name - Metallica C/O Elektra Entertainment Group 345 North Maple Drive, Suite 123 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Or through their agency:
Band member name - Metallica C/O Q-Prime, Inc. 729 7th Ave, 16th Floor New York, NY 10019
...when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time.
On the weekend that they monitored, I (not knowing I was 'being monitored') downloaded two songs by the unsigned garage band Electric Gypsy. I know for a fact that they are unsigned, because I was chatting with a band member on Napster's chat room. So, they missed at least one download that weekend. Also, I was sharing at least three Metallica songs at the time, and wasn't banned. Of course, I have since deleted all Metallica songs from my hard drive, and have destroyed all of my Metallica CD's, tapes, and records; along with sending each band member a letter expressing my disapproval of their actions.
Also, IBM does not hold a patent on copper interconnects, it's just that they happen to own the only fabs capable of making them. (AMD's copper-capable fab is co-owned by IBM, with the agreement that AMD will only use it for AMD-branded chips.)
Intel has stated (dang it, where's a link to that press release?) that at the present time, they don't need to move to copper to keep up. They may move to copper in a year or two, but not right away. Remember, the big thing with copper interconnects is that it lets you use smaller trace widths, and Intel seems to be doing just fine at.18 without moving to copper. They have even said that they could get down to.13 before needing to move to copper.
And, for the record, 'Coppermine' was never meant to imply copper interconnects. That codename (named after a river in Arizona) was in use internally to Intel before copper interconnects were a big deal.
Those help, but RAID controller speed doesn't affect overall speed as much as you might think. The biggest speed improvements for RAID controllers are: bus improvements (new 64-bit controllers,) interface improvements (Ultra-160 or Fibre-Channel,) more cache (Yes, 128MB of cache helps ALOT in Database applications,) and, more channels (it really helps to have your drives distributed among a few channels. That's why three-channel RAID controllers are so good.)
Huge memory spaces. Which means more than the 8GB that appears to be supported at this point.
Actually, the current limit on Intel servers is 64GB. One of the servers I supported when I worked at Intel was their OCPRF100. An eight-way behemoth that had 64 DIMM slots, each one capable of taking a 1GB PC-100 DIMM. The big problem is OS support. NT (including 2000 Adv. Server) only support 8GB (they claim more, but they're lying,) and most other high-end server OSes either peak at 8 or 16. 64-bit Linux doesn't have that limitation, but of course, it's only for use on the upcoming 'Itanium' processors. From what I've heard, Win64's limit will be 32GB, but that's just a rumor.
The relevant thing from Intel would be to see vastly better I2O controllers. THAT is what would fill Sun's heart with fear...
With current 64-bit, 66MHz PCI (528MB/s of bandwidth as opposed to 32/33 PCI's 133MB/s,) and the upcoming PCI-X (1GB/s+ bandwidth,) system bandwidth is improving. Combine that with gigabit ethernet, Ultra-320 and Ultra-640 SCSI, and in the next two years, bandwidth will no longer be an issue. (PCI-X, GigabitE, and Ultra-160+ all need I2O.)
I just miss playing Quake 3 on that eight-way system...
That was probably the beta of MacOS X Server, with the old MacOS 9-style interface. The big thing here is the brand new 'Aqua' interface. Check out This link for more info on the desktop version of OS X.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, this is not fake CPUs but rather remarked CPUs. A fake CPU would mean that some other company has started up a fabrication facility (costing on the order of US $1,000,000,000) to manufacture fake Athlon processors. The only way someone could make money selling 'fake' Athlons would be if they could produce the processors cheaper than AMD. Very doubtful, since they would have to product MORE than AMD. Not to mention the fact that there are only 4 companies in the world with fabrication facilities that could produce Athlons. (Intel, Motorola, IBM, and, of course, AMD.)
What is actually being done is called remarking. It means that someone has taken a slow speed processor (in this case, a 650MHz processor) and soldered a resistor onto it so it will think it is a 700MHz processor. Then they changed the markings on the chip (hence the term 'remarking') to make it look like it is supposed to be a 700MHz chip. This was a large problem with Intel chips back when the Pentiums were being made, which is why Intel instituted the dreaded 'multiplier lock'. This makes it EXTREMELY difficult to remark Pentium II and Pentium III chips. Unfortunately, AMD decided to make it fairly simple to remark their chips. This helps people who want to 'overclock' their chips on purpose, but it also helps people who want to cheat their customers out of money...
Disclaimer: I used to work for Intel's server division, so I may be biased...
Athlon processors draw massive amounts of power. I'm not positive how much heat they put out, but their 800MHz processor draws approx. 2.5 times as much power as a Pentium III 800MHz. That may be where the concern comes from. I know from my experience with Intel servers that they last years. I had one customer call in asking what server he should buy to replace his old one, which had been running non-stop (no reboots) for four years. He finally thought it was time to replace it.
Obviously, AMD hasn't been making 'server' level processors that long, so we can't be sure how dependable their products are, but I would assume that they would last that long just fine...
From the sounds of it, it looks more like they are going to fully open up their APIs, not the source code. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen MS give out their source code even to developers. (Heck, even Intel doesn't have the full source code for Win64!)
Yeah, I applied to get an internship with Rotary when they first started up, but they weren't looking. I wish I could get a job with them now...
As to the "...orbit with 1/5 the kerosene a 747 uses?" Remember, it doesn't have the payload of a 747. It can only carry a few thousand pounds, not the hundred thousand or so a 747 can carry. I never really did understand their comparison to a 747. They should have compared it to an Atlas booster AND an airliner.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simple, really. This is part of Sony's 'Mavica' line. This line is designed for ease of use above all else. The old Mavica's were floppy-based, so you just popped the floppy in, took a couple pictures, and popped the floppy in your computer, no special software. Much simpler than using any kind of adapter.
This new one is a similar premise. Only with CD-R. Something like 99% of new computers can read CD-Rs, so it's a completely safe bet. Heck, now iMac users can use a Mavica. You just pop in that 77mm CD-R, take a couple pictures, and pop the 77mm CD-R in your computer. No special drivers, no adapters... That is the point.
Well, according to the review (did you read the review? The reviewers TRIED to make it fail by banging the sides of it, shaking it, (everything short of dropping it) and it didn't burn a coaster for them. Of course, as one respondent has already mentioned, a good CD-R drive, with good software and hardware support, produces coasters about as often as someone mis-loads 35mm, so it shouldn't be an issue. Also, the camera SHOULD (if it's like My Sony DSC F-505) be smart enough to refuse to take the picture if there isn't enough power left to save it.
Again, that's the point! You just take your pictures, fill up a storage unit, change it, and take more! Then, rather than using a cable, adapter, or special software, you're ready to go. And, with the popularity of their floppy-based Mavica's, the floppy drive isn't a gimmick anymore. It's an ease-of-use feature. And that's exactly what you claim to be advocating, is ease-of-use...
But, that's just my $.02... You're perfectly free to disagree...
L. Ron Hubbard isn't alive to read all the bad press...
hehe... Yeah, we have the same problem in Portland, OR... Every time I see a car with California plates, and an Oregon temp tag, I make sure to cut them off, flip them off, or do something otherwise nasty to them... I figure if they think the locals are rude, they'll move away!
To quote former Oregon governor Tom McCall, "Thank you for visiting Oregon. Now leave."
That's right, kiddies. Sony isn't claiming that they are making a Game-Boy-style handheld game, just that they're making an easier-to-transport version of the PlayStation. That's where the confusion is coming in. So, I'll say it again: THIS WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A HANDHELD!
Remember the old Compaq Portable? Or IBM's line of 'Luggable' PS/2s? That is what this is equivalent to. A fully-functional, normal PlayStation, just designed to be more easily taken from one place to the other. And, with an add-on screen, you can use it in other locales, too; like a car. But not all on it's own. You can tell that just by looking at it.
So, you'll have to wait a little longer for them to release a handheld that can play PS games. (Although, using CDs as media, it will be awkward to impliment. Either a single device, that is unweidly because of it's size (and the danger of skipping,) or a two-piece system where you have the CD player portion on your belt (pocket, etc) and have a seperate hand-held part with the screen and controls. There are two ways to impliment this system:
From page 3, bold added by me.
hehehe... I'd like to see a graph that shows how much is rational...
HEY! My Hyundai is plenty fast!
Read the British news story linked in the main story. It's only 6 miles from English shore (they declared independence when Britain only claimed 3 miles of sea.) It has a helipad, and concrete gets TOUGHER with age (to an extent) so it's MORE sturdy now than it was in WW2!
And, all they need is one or two high-end servers (one rack's worth would be enough,) electricity (probably a generator already there,) and a high speed internet connection (satellite?)
To quote someone famous "A person is smart. But people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." That pretty much sums it up. I worked in a call center for a year, and have seen first hand how stupid some can be. Not just ignorant of computers, as you suggest, but just plain stupid. I was perfectly happy to help someone who just didn't know how to do something. As long as they were reasonably intelligent, could follow directions, and had a desire to actually learn how to solve the problem, it was all good. But, then there were those people who just refused to listen and/or learn. When someone calls in for the third time this week asking how to get their web browser to to 'Back' a page, then I get angry.
And this isn't restricted to people that could be considered 'dumb'. I've helped a CEO of a Fortune 1000 company, I've helped doctors, laywers, pilots, NETWORK ADMINISTRATORS! My last job was as Engineering-level technical support for Intel's server division. That meant that I was the last line of support for Intel-manufactured server boards and platforms. I dealt with the heads of technical support at large OEMs, distributors, and resellers. By the time they got to me, the customer had been through three levels of technical support, and had better know their stuff. I would get calls daily from someone who was the head network administrator for <Insert large multinational bank here>, or <Insert state government here>, or even <Insert tobacco/food company here> who didn't know diddly squat about how to run Windows 98, much less administer an 8-way file server running NetWare! And I don't mean the manager of the department, but the guy who actually administers the server.
So, I'm sorry to say, equating an average user to a lobotomized flatworm is perfectly legitimate. Don't disagree until you have worked tech support for something other than an engineering department. To quote someone else famous, "The ability to speak does not make one intelligent."
Yup. Mr. Clancy REALLY likes his realism... Unfortunately, to be very real, he would have had to stretch out the underwater fight scenes to about half an hour to an hour each... (Like in his books. Try Red Storm Rising or SSN for some ultra-realistic portrayals of submarine operations... My submariner friend actually recommended SSN because it was co-written by a former submariner.)
Yes, submarines actually use what is called Very Low Frequency or VLF (Sometimes called Ultra Low Frequency or ULF.) Unfortunately, they only get in the neighborhood of 1 character every 3 seconds. (If I remember what my US Navy Sumbariner friend said.) Yes, that is a whopping .3 baud. But, the good part is that the chosen radio frequency actually travels through the Earth, so the US Navy actually only has two broadcast antennas, both in the mainland U.S., to broadcast to all US Navy subs. They really only use it to tell a sub to come to periscope depth so they can recieve a higher speed satellite-based message. (It's kind of like emailing someone to tell them to turn on ICQ...)
I don't know why... They obviously aren't being observed... Ain't the U.S. legal system great? All you have to do nowadays is threaten a lawsuit, even an unfounded one, and a company will cave in at the expense of users/consumers...
Hear, hear!
I, for one, agree. I went to MI2 expecting to see a great action movie, with lots of very cool stunts, and some serious Woo-moves. I didn't go to it expecting to see 'Schindler's List'. Yes, Gladiator was good. Yes, Gladiator had a more in-depth plot. This wasn't meant to be Gladiator! This was meant to be a great action flick! As one respondent said Why is it that apologists for really bad movies always pull out the same tired cliche about ``intellectual stimulation?'' Personally, I'm not apologizing, I'm saying that MI2 was a damned good movie. You were just expecing it to be more. Heck, I was expecting Star Wars, Episode 1 to be more, and was sorely disappointed...
Right after Metallica presented Napster with those 300,000 names, I wrote the following letter, and sent a copy to each band member:
I have been a long-time fan of your band. I was listening to your music when the most prominent way of getting to know your music was through a method known as "tape trading." I have seen many statements directly from you and other members of your band commenting on this practice, and in all, you promoted this practice.
It has come to my attention that you have recently filed a lawsuit against Napster, Inc. to force them to revoke the memberships of approximately 330,000 users for violation of your copyright. I am a large proponent of free speech, and of freedom in general. While I have only used the 'Napster' program once, and did not find it particularly useful; I have found that the use of Napster is more akin to tape trading than that of pirating. From my 'chatting' with other Napster users, combined with public comments and interviews of Napster users; most of them appear to be in their late teens and/or early twenties. Most do not have a lot of money (many are college students.) Back when you first started, this was your primary audience; and that audience participated in tape trading.
I have become thoroughly disgusted with your handling of this matter, and am writing to tell you that you have lost (what was) a loyal fan. I own all of your albums, plus I have a few concerts from early in your career that I acquired through tape trading. In trying to decide what to do to protest your actions, I considered making every single album of yours I have available on Napster. But, I would rather that demand for your work go DOWN. I am now going to destroy all of your albums I own, and will be active in spreading the word about your despicable acts.
You are only hurting your fans by your actions. If this was "only on the advice of your lawyers," I highly suggest getting a lawyer that cares less about money, and more about what is right.
I included in each envelope a piece of one of their CDs, broken. (The broken vinyl record of 'Kill 'Em All' in Lars')
If you are also maddened by what they have done, I encourage you to write a similar letter. You can mail them at:
Band member name - MetallicaC/O Elektra Entertainment Group
345 North Maple Drive, Suite 123
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Or through their agency:
Band member name - MetallicaC/O Q-Prime, Inc.
729 7th Ave, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
I know others have said this, but....
On the weekend that they monitored, I (not knowing I was 'being monitored') downloaded two songs by the unsigned garage band Electric Gypsy. I know for a fact that they are unsigned, because I was chatting with a band member on Napster's chat room. So, they missed at least one download that weekend. Also, I was sharing at least three Metallica songs at the time, and wasn't banned. Of course, I have since deleted all Metallica songs from my hard drive, and have destroyed all of my Metallica CD's, tapes, and records; along with sending each band member a letter expressing my disapproval of their actions.
Also, IBM does not hold a patent on copper interconnects, it's just that they happen to own the only fabs capable of making them. (AMD's copper-capable fab is co-owned by IBM, with the agreement that AMD will only use it for AMD-branded chips.)
Intel has stated (dang it, where's a link to that press release?) that at the present time, they don't need to move to copper to keep up. They may move to copper in a year or two, but not right away. Remember, the big thing with copper interconnects is that it lets you use smaller trace widths, and Intel seems to be doing just fine at .18 without moving to copper. They have even said that they could get down to .13 before needing to move to copper.
And, for the record, 'Coppermine' was never meant to imply copper interconnects. That codename (named after a river in Arizona) was in use internally to Intel before copper interconnects were a big deal.
Disclaimer: I used to work for Intel's server division, so I may be biased...
Yup. You see a noted difference when moving from an old Ultra-Narrow 5400 RPM drive to a brand new Fibre-Channel 10,000 RPM drive...
Those help, but RAID controller speed doesn't affect overall speed as much as you might think. The biggest speed improvements for RAID controllers are: bus improvements (new 64-bit controllers,) interface improvements (Ultra-160 or Fibre-Channel,) more cache (Yes, 128MB of cache helps ALOT in Database applications,) and, more channels (it really helps to have your drives distributed among a few channels. That's why three-channel RAID controllers are so good.)
Actually, the current limit on Intel servers is 64GB. One of the servers I supported when I worked at Intel was their OCPRF100. An eight-way behemoth that had 64 DIMM slots, each one capable of taking a 1GB PC-100 DIMM. The big problem is OS support. NT (including 2000 Adv. Server) only support 8GB (they claim more, but they're lying,) and most other high-end server OSes either peak at 8 or 16. 64-bit Linux doesn't have that limitation, but of course, it's only for use on the upcoming 'Itanium' processors. From what I've heard, Win64's limit will be 32GB, but that's just a rumor.
With current 64-bit, 66MHz PCI (528MB/s of bandwidth as opposed to 32/33 PCI's 133MB/s,) and the upcoming PCI-X (1GB/s+ bandwidth,) system bandwidth is improving. Combine that with gigabit ethernet, Ultra-320 and Ultra-640 SCSI, and in the next two years, bandwidth will no longer be an issue. (PCI-X, GigabitE, and Ultra-160+ all need I2O.)
I just miss playing Quake 3 on that eight-way system...
That was probably the beta of MacOS X Server, with the old MacOS 9-style interface. The big thing here is the brand new 'Aqua' interface. Check out This link for more info on the desktop version of OS X.
Uh, my phone doesn't have that option... (Sprint PCS) Do you have a URL for it?
Well... Almost. The 1GHz Athlon draws 65 watts. That's bad enough.
The 'Katmai' 600MHz chip uses 37 watts. The 'Coppermine' 800MHz chip uses only 26 watts. (Okay, so it's more like 2 to 1 than 2.5 to 1...) You can find this information at support.intel.com. Also, the link mentioned in another response shows the wattages of many x86 compatible processors.
Or didn't you wonder why you need an 'Athlon-certified' power supply?
As has been mentioned elsewhere, this is not fake CPUs but rather remarked CPUs. A fake CPU would mean that some other company has started up a fabrication facility (costing on the order of US $1,000,000,000) to manufacture fake Athlon processors. The only way someone could make money selling 'fake' Athlons would be if they could produce the processors cheaper than AMD. Very doubtful, since they would have to product MORE than AMD. Not to mention the fact that there are only 4 companies in the world with fabrication facilities that could produce Athlons. (Intel, Motorola, IBM, and, of course, AMD.)
What is actually being done is called remarking. It means that someone has taken a slow speed processor (in this case, a 650MHz processor) and soldered a resistor onto it so it will think it is a 700MHz processor. Then they changed the markings on the chip (hence the term 'remarking') to make it look like it is supposed to be a 700MHz chip. This was a large problem with Intel chips back when the Pentiums were being made, which is why Intel instituted the dreaded 'multiplier lock'. This makes it EXTREMELY difficult to remark Pentium II and Pentium III chips. Unfortunately, AMD decided to make it fairly simple to remark their chips. This helps people who want to 'overclock' their chips on purpose, but it also helps people who want to cheat their customers out of money...
Disclaimer: I used to work for Intel's server division, so I may be biased...
Athlon processors draw massive amounts of power. I'm not positive how much heat they put out, but their 800MHz processor draws approx. 2.5 times as much power as a Pentium III 800MHz. That may be where the concern comes from. I know from my experience with Intel servers that they last years. I had one customer call in asking what server he should buy to replace his old one, which had been running non-stop (no reboots) for four years. He finally thought it was time to replace it.
Obviously, AMD hasn't been making 'server' level processors that long, so we can't be sure how dependable their products are, but I would assume that they would last that long just fine...
Because Athlons are easier to remark. Just solder a resistor, and it's running faster. A Pentium III is very hard to change its multiplier.
From the sounds of it, it looks more like they are going to fully open up their APIs, not the source code. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen MS give out their source code even to developers. (Heck, even Intel doesn't have the full source code for Win64!)
Yeah, I applied to get an internship with Rotary when they first started up, but they weren't looking. I wish I could get a job with them now...
As to the "...orbit with 1/5 the kerosene a 747 uses?" Remember, it doesn't have the payload of a 747. It can only carry a few thousand pounds, not the hundred thousand or so a 747 can carry. I never really did understand their comparison to a 747. They should have compared it to an Atlas booster AND an airliner.