Maybe if you're from a 3rd world country and this is your first exposure to a microsoft product, I'd understand... or maybe if it was 1996 and you're finally purchasing your first PC, but I don't think there are too many people left in developed countries who've reached adulthood who have escaped using some version of windows at least occasionally.
And if there is anybody who has somehow managed to do the task of never having worked with windows... I doubt it going looking for a book to learn it.
Ah but all work on the Cray-1 was programed to be as parallel as possible, so cpu to cpu isn't an appropriate comparison. Much more useful is device output, in which case the 136 MFLOPS is significantly better performance than the 52 MFLOPS.
That is of course not considering that the designers of the Java applet that runs the benchmark admit that you're moreso benchmarking the java effeciency of a given device with their app than the full performance of the device.
Well, also not considering the $6m to $8m price tag of the Cray-1 vs the $200 (after rebate and 2 year plan) price tag of the Droid. Even factoring in inflation, I think my droid wins the performance-per-dollar crown by a little bit.
It does mean though that the intial statement "15 times faster than the cpus in the cray-1" is not quite reality. more like 5 times faster.
For example, a tweaked Motorola Droid can hit 52 Mflop/s, which is more than 15 times faster than the CPUs used in the 1979 Cray-1.
"The Cray-1 had 12 pipelined functional units" and had "floating point performance generally about 136 MFLOPS. However, by using vector instructiosn carefully and building useful chains, the system could peak at 250 MFLOPS."
I'm sure the ACs in mom's basement who've got a good 3 or 4 years of computer experience (that's forever in the tech industry, right?) know way more than me.
I'll have to make sure I consult you guys now whenever I need to know something tech related... but how am I to know which AC is which?
To be (somewhat) fair, I don't blame Daniel Radcliffe for asking for 20m/movie cause it isn't likely he's ever going to break that typecast. He's pretty much making his life's salary right now.
There's a reason that nobody bothered to classify all those bugs in the amazon... who cares. As long as swatting them kills them, a bug is a bug.
Unless it secretes the cure for cancer or something, it's just not a big deal.
I care more about the species that are very unlike average life. those are the interesting ones. the stuff that lives on ocean floor heat vents, or generate their own light sources, etc.
Well, the article is flawed in their understanding of "first browser to fall", but even so, note that the hacker interviewed said that google chrome was so hard to hack because of a combination of the browser's sandboxing and windows 7's OS protections?
If it's mature and robust, explain to me why it is that MS is always reinventing it in drastic ways?
So they can resell windows to people who already own it?
Windows 7 is essentially vista with a new coat of paint, just like XP was a new coat of paint on top of windows 2000. Microsoft doesn't want you getting too used to your current experience, or else you won't buy the new one.
Vista was a fairly big upgrade over XP, but it's bad press (some of it fairly deserved, some not) somewhat obfuscated that.
Or why they seem to be constantly fixing it's bugs.
I get probably 3x as many update notifications for ubuntu as I do for windows. Hell my android phone bothers me more about updates than my copy of windows 7 does.
MS OTOH seems to change things all the time, even when there isn't a particularly compelling reason to do so.
As someone who works on 4 or 5 different versions of windows, I agree on this completely... However, it isn't because they HAD to change it. It didn't NEED to be changed. They changed it, as I said above, in order to sell it to people who already owned it. It's no different than honda making a new accord sleeker and sexier than the old one, or mountain dew slapping fancy graphics and a huge "NEW!!" lable on their newest flavor. You've got to find a way to convince someone that what you have to offer them now is somehow improved over the old product if you want them to buy it.
Some people look at the old product and say "there is nothing wrong here" and continue to use it.
Hell my version of XP at work is still using more or less the same theme and interface that I got used to in windows 95... and it's been 15 years.
I will say that I have come to like a lot of the stuff that windows 7 does though.
I've got a GTX 470 now, although most of my Wine experience was on an 8800 GTS.
I got WoW working well enough. it would still have graphical glitches and the occasional crash now and then that it's windows counterpart didn't have.
I couldn't get teamspeak to recognize a microphone (which is better than I did with the linux native client).
I got graphical corruption on 2d graphics in EVE.
I couldn't get mass effect 1 or 2 working at all.
I got homeworld 2 to start, but not play well.
I couldn't get freelancer working correctly.
I couldn't get diablo 2 working.
I couldn't get World in Conflict working.
I had to resort to VMs to run diablo 2, alpha centauri, civ 2, full tilt poker etc.
The linux native version doom3 worked quite well actually though. That's about it.
I tried a couple open source games, and while they were admirable attemtps, none of the ones I tried had anything like the finish or polish of a commercial game... which is understandable of course. Maybe I didn't try the right ones, but none of them really grabbed me at all.
After a year of this, I decided to just dual boot into the OS that the games I wanted to play were meant to run on. Things have been so much better since.
Depending on which test you believe, 127 to 132. Hi.
Not much to spend it on? are these people brain dead meat puppets? Motorcycles, Cars, Jetpacks, Overpriced stereos...
You can't have both? I've got a pair of Sennheiser HD 650s with a pretty impressive amp and source, had a modified LS1, have a 21" speed boat, and own a Ps3 and wii (360 redringed on me), and two computers.
I can list 90,000 things other than videogames to spend my high-earning money on that is not only more fun, but get's you way more chicks...
A sports car is more impressive to a lady than a 6 digit Xbox achievement point number.
depends entirely on the lady in question. I submit that you're going to want to spend more time long term with the lady who digs gaming than the one who's only interested in you because you can afford to drive her around in an M6 or 911.
Playing a single player video game is no different than reading a book or watching a movie except that the experience is interactive. Playing a multiplayer video game is a lot more interactive with your friends than sitting around watching the game.
No no, don't get me wrong. I use windows at work because I have to as well. I dual boot it at home to play games because most games I want to play are windows native and I got tired of fighting with WINE and VMs trying to get 80 to 90% functionality... I boot into Linux for web browsing, email, IM, i.e. essentially everything but gaming.
I neither love nor hate windows. It is what it is. It's a mature, robust OS that covers the vast majority of needs of most people... just like the other two do.
My point was that most people who don't know anything about how to properly use their computer when it comes to security (don't click on the flashing ads on the suspect web pages. don't install software you don't know the source of. don't click on links in emails from people you don't know. scan for malware on a regular basis, etc. etc) are using windows.
These same people would, in theory, be just as careless under OSX or linux, the difference is due to the lack of viruses/malware/developed exploits for thsoe operating systems (currently), those users would be playing traditional russian roulette around with a gun with only 1 bullet instead of the fully loaded gun that windows represents.
I man the systems support line for a major software company. I work with these people every day. They're not bad people, they just have never had any training on how not to be security retarded, and they don't really want any training because they have other stuff to worry about... until they find out they have a massive security breach and they're about to get sued.
Perhaps because 98% of the people out there who are retarded when it comes to securely using their PCs happen to use windows?
Also because 85%+ market share is where the money is? I guarantee you that if Linux or OSX had 85% of the market share, Either OS would be identically compromised on a similar widespread basis.
Speaking of which, at hacking competitions, which OS is usually the one to fall first?
It's a hacked up version of linux. Even if you could get WINE working with it, You're only going to be able to get a few windows games working. However, that's not what the OS is intended for. It's a platform for a web browser. It's the most minimalistic OS since the 80s.
It'll probably run flash games just fine, but you can do that with any existing system so why go to ChromeOS just for that?
Actually, considering you can get Chrome on all 3 major OSes as it is, I don't understand why anybody would use ChromeOS on a real PC at all anyway. Maybe on a little netbook or something... but on a real pc/laptop? why?
I think anyone who spends a lot of time on games past about 16 years needs some help growing up. The need to play so much indicates (to me) that they don't have enough interesting, more important things to think about.
I think you may want to check the main target demographics for every $300+ console since the PS1.
Also, "important" is subjective. Unless you're the president, the pope, or a nobel prize winning physicist, chances are the stuff you're working on that you think is "important" is probably not worth a hill of beans to the rest of humanity at large.
nope. lost it in the divorce in the late 80s. No clue where it went after my mother sold it. Such a shame. I told him to dig up the VIN number and contact the DMV to see if they will track it down. He doesn't want to cause he's sure it's probably been wrecked and destroyed by now. He'd rather not know.
That thing was a monster. He had glass packs on it, and he would drive it around the neighborhood sunday mornings to wake people up. It sounded like angry buffalo charging.
He took it to the track one time and ran low 11s. With proper traction it would have run 9s, but he refused to tub the rear end because it was also a show car.
I didn't say SUVs were safer, I said they made people feel safer.
I would love that I didn't have to worry about the 6000lb monstrosities on the roads driven by cindy lou doing her makeup or joe-bob halfway through his 6pack. I would much rather we were all driving around cars that were under a ton and a half here. Not just for Fuel economy reasons, but for performane too. You get way better peformance taking 100lbs off a car than you do adding 10hp to it. Ask Lotus.
Even our "performance" vehicles are stupid heavy. There is no reason that the new camaro should be 3900lbs and the new challenger well over two tons. Only ford seems to have some idea that weight is the enemy (and at 3400lbs, the new 2011 5.0 mustang is still losing the battle of the bulge. The equivilent 1993 mustang 5.0 weighed 3100lbs).
The problem is that America has a taste for cars that are as bloated as we are. That's just the way it is, and they're here to stay because as I pointed out earlier, people just don't feel safe in that 2400lb car if they're surrounded by 6000lb behemoths driven by idiots. The behemoths aren't going away until we get $7 a gallon gas too.
to an extent, of course you're right, but I think you discount just how much "chasing horsepower" and "fuel economy" are really at odds, and it turns out it's for the same reason you just stated.
If you artificially restrict the amount of fuel that can possibly be spent, for instance installing that 1.7L 70hp 4cylinder engine in a 2800lb car, most (american) buyers are going to look at it and say "oh my god that's so slow, how can I merge into traffic? how can I get out of the way of (other) crazy drivers, how can I etc. etc.
They'll look in the next spot at the dealership, at the same model in 3400lb "LX" trim with all the safety airbags you can fit into every nook and crany, power everything, the deluxe stereo, the moonroof, and the body kit... with the 250hp 3.6L v6, and say "I'll take this one!"
So, Let's say I develop a new engine technology, and I can either make that first car produce the same 70hp with a 1.3L engine now, making another 5mpg, or I can make the 3.6L v6 in the second car make 280hp... which one is today's american consumer more likely to buy?
the "fall apart in a wreck" is somewhat by design. the car takes the brunt of the impact instead of the driver.
It does mean though that what would have been a dent to hammer out and repaint in the 60s is now a shattered and exploded front end, bent frame, and "car is totaled" assessment by your insurance.
Oh I know exactly it was the 4.90 gears. I don't know why he had gears that high, I imagine the powerband on that engine was pretty damn wide.
According to my father, it was 500 hp to the wheels, and the reason it wasn't making more was because it was tuned more to survive the 300hp nitrous shot than to make top end N/A hp. Never made 100% sense to me, but it was the early 80s. maybe they don't know what they know now.
VW lupo -vs- the lady in the ford expedition that she bought so she could feel "safe" on the road
=
healthy dent on the expedition and horrible crushed doom to the lupo.
Have you seen american highways lately? people who can't drive their way out of a paper bag are routinely crusing around in 3 ton tanks, and you have to be in another 3 ton tank to survive the impact with them.
I think you might be surprised if you look into what the economy commuter cars from the 70s and 80s actually got.
They were lighter, and had smaller/less powerful engines.
"30mpg!" has been about the average for good mileage for a long time now. Every time we hit a new development in engine technology that'll give us a more effecient engine, we either use it to make more horsepower with the same given displacement, or the government mandates some other safety/emissions technology that pulls us right back down again.
I'm not saying that we (well, the auto industry) can't do better. Of course they can. Europe has turbodeisel deathboxes that get 70+ mpg. I'm saying that we, as americans, don't WANT better gas mileage. We want the huge rwd musclecar with the 7liter V8, or the tricked out awd import pushing 21psi through what might otherwise be an effecient 4banger.
Note, My father did own one of those "8mpg" 70s cars. It was a 71 challenger with a built 440 with a radical cam and solid lifters in it. it had about 500hp BEFORE the 300hp nitrous shot, and it had 4.90 gears in back. If you know anything about cars, you know that the above is about as bad a reciepe you can have for gas mileage short of towing a boat behind it (which he also did. my dad was a crazy guy), and it took all that to get down to 8mpg.
Slashdot Mirror
but windows just isn't that hard to use.
Maybe if you're from a 3rd world country and this is your first exposure to a microsoft product, I'd understand... or maybe if it was 1996 and you're finally purchasing your first PC, but I don't think there are too many people left in developed countries who've reached adulthood who have escaped using some version of windows at least occasionally.
And if there is anybody who has somehow managed to do the task of never having worked with windows... I doubt it going looking for a book to learn it.
Hmm, According to wikipedia, I can get a DeLorean DMC-12 for about $20k to $30k in good condition.
How much does it cost to build a flux capacitor?
the droid makes a really poor bench.
actually my droid's battery gets pretty damn warm when i'm playing robo tower defense or making a long phone call.
I'm not saying I can heat the room with it, but it might keep my ear warm in winter.
Ah but all work on the Cray-1 was programed to be as parallel as possible, so cpu to cpu isn't an appropriate comparison. Much more useful is device output, in which case the 136 MFLOPS is significantly better performance than the 52 MFLOPS.
That is of course not considering that the designers of the Java applet that runs the benchmark admit that you're moreso benchmarking the java effeciency of a given device with their app than the full performance of the device.
Well, also not considering the $6m to $8m price tag of the Cray-1 vs the $200 (after rebate and 2 year plan) price tag of the Droid. Even factoring in inflation, I think my droid wins the performance-per-dollar crown by a little bit.
It does mean though that the intial statement "15 times faster than the cpus in the cray-1" is not quite reality. more like 5 times faster.
For example, a tweaked Motorola Droid can hit 52 Mflop/s, which is more than 15 times faster than the CPUs used in the 1979 Cray-1.
"The Cray-1 had 12 pipelined functional units" and had "floating point performance generally about 136 MFLOPS. However, by using vector instructiosn carefully and building useful chains, the system could peak at 250 MFLOPS."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1
I'm sure the ACs in mom's basement who've got a good 3 or 4 years of computer experience (that's forever in the tech industry, right?) know way more than me.
I'll have to make sure I consult you guys now whenever I need to know something tech related... but how am I to know which AC is which?
Oh noes...
I knew someone would notice that. The shift key is apparently my enemy today.
To be (somewhat) fair, I don't blame Daniel Radcliffe for asking for 20m/movie cause it isn't likely he's ever going to break that typecast. He's pretty much making his life's salary right now.
There's a reason that nobody bothered to classify all those bugs in the amazon... who cares. As long as swatting them kills them, a bug is a bug.
Unless it secretes the cure for cancer or something, it's just not a big deal.
I care more about the species that are very unlike average life. those are the interesting ones. the stuff that lives on ocean floor heat vents, or generate their own light sources, etc.
also, 5.5 million is still a lot of anything.
Well, the article is flawed in their understanding of "first browser to fall", but even so, note that the hacker interviewed said that google chrome was so hard to hack because of a combination of the browser's sandboxing and windows 7's OS protections?
If it's mature and robust, explain to me why it is that MS is always reinventing it in drastic ways?
So they can resell windows to people who already own it?
Windows 7 is essentially vista with a new coat of paint, just like XP was a new coat of paint on top of windows 2000. Microsoft doesn't want you getting too used to your current experience, or else you won't buy the new one.
Vista was a fairly big upgrade over XP, but it's bad press (some of it fairly deserved, some not) somewhat obfuscated that.
Or why they seem to be constantly fixing it's bugs.
I get probably 3x as many update notifications for ubuntu as I do for windows. Hell my android phone bothers me more about updates than my copy of windows 7 does.
MS OTOH seems to change things all the time, even when there isn't a particularly compelling reason to do so.
As someone who works on 4 or 5 different versions of windows, I agree on this completely... However, it isn't because they HAD to change it. It didn't NEED to be changed. They changed it, as I said above, in order to sell it to people who already owned it. It's no different than honda making a new accord sleeker and sexier than the old one, or mountain dew slapping fancy graphics and a huge "NEW!!" lable on their newest flavor. You've got to find a way to convince someone that what you have to offer them now is somehow improved over the old product if you want them to buy it.
Some people look at the old product and say "there is nothing wrong here" and continue to use it.
Hell my version of XP at work is still using more or less the same theme and interface that I got used to in windows 95... and it's been 15 years.
I will say that I have come to like a lot of the stuff that windows 7 does though.
I've got a GTX 470 now, although most of my Wine experience was on an 8800 GTS.
I got WoW working well enough. it would still have graphical glitches and the occasional crash now and then that it's windows counterpart didn't have.
I couldn't get teamspeak to recognize a microphone (which is better than I did with the linux native client).
I got graphical corruption on 2d graphics in EVE.
I couldn't get mass effect 1 or 2 working at all.
I got homeworld 2 to start, but not play well.
I couldn't get freelancer working correctly.
I couldn't get diablo 2 working.
I couldn't get World in Conflict working.
I had to resort to VMs to run diablo 2, alpha centauri, civ 2, full tilt poker etc.
The linux native version doom3 worked quite well actually though. That's about it.
I tried a couple open source games, and while they were admirable attemtps, none of the ones I tried had anything like the finish or polish of a commercial game... which is understandable of course. Maybe I didn't try the right ones, but none of them really grabbed me at all.
After a year of this, I decided to just dual boot into the OS that the games I wanted to play were meant to run on. Things have been so much better since.
They also must have low IQ's as well...
Depending on which test you believe, 127 to 132. Hi.
Not much to spend it on? are these people brain dead meat puppets? Motorcycles, Cars, Jetpacks, Overpriced stereos...
You can't have both? I've got a pair of Sennheiser HD 650s with a pretty impressive amp and source, had a modified LS1, have a 21" speed boat, and own a Ps3 and wii (360 redringed on me), and two computers.
I can list 90,000 things other than videogames to spend my high-earning money on that is not only more fun, but get's you way more chicks...
A sports car is more impressive to a lady than a 6 digit Xbox achievement point number.
depends entirely on the lady in question. I submit that you're going to want to spend more time long term with the lady who digs gaming than the one who's only interested in you because you can afford to drive her around in an M6 or 911.
Playing a single player video game is no different than reading a book or watching a movie except that the experience is interactive. Playing a multiplayer video game is a lot more interactive with your friends than sitting around watching the game.
No no, don't get me wrong. I use windows at work because I have to as well. I dual boot it at home to play games because most games I want to play are windows native and I got tired of fighting with WINE and VMs trying to get 80 to 90% functionality... I boot into Linux for web browsing, email, IM, i.e. essentially everything but gaming.
I neither love nor hate windows. It is what it is. It's a mature, robust OS that covers the vast majority of needs of most people... just like the other two do.
My point was that most people who don't know anything about how to properly use their computer when it comes to security (don't click on the flashing ads on the suspect web pages. don't install software you don't know the source of. don't click on links in emails from people you don't know. scan for malware on a regular basis, etc. etc) are using windows.
These same people would, in theory, be just as careless under OSX or linux, the difference is due to the lack of viruses/malware/developed exploits for thsoe operating systems (currently), those users would be playing traditional russian roulette around with a gun with only 1 bullet instead of the fully loaded gun that windows represents.
I man the systems support line for a major software company. I work with these people every day. They're not bad people, they just have never had any training on how not to be security retarded, and they don't really want any training because they have other stuff to worry about... until they find out they have a massive security breach and they're about to get sued.
Perhaps because 98% of the people out there who are retarded when it comes to securely using their PCs happen to use windows?
Also because 85%+ market share is where the money is? I guarantee you that if Linux or OSX had 85% of the market share, Either OS would be identically compromised on a similar widespread basis.
Speaking of which, at hacking competitions, which OS is usually the one to fall first?
It's a hacked up version of linux. Even if you could get WINE working with it, You're only going to be able to get a few windows games working. However, that's not what the OS is intended for. It's a platform for a web browser. It's the most minimalistic OS since the 80s.
It'll probably run flash games just fine, but you can do that with any existing system so why go to ChromeOS just for that?
Actually, considering you can get Chrome on all 3 major OSes as it is, I don't understand why anybody would use ChromeOS on a real PC at all anyway. Maybe on a little netbook or something... but on a real pc/laptop? why?
I think anyone who spends a lot of time on games past about 16 years needs some help growing up. The need to play so much indicates (to me) that they don't have enough interesting, more important things to think about.
I think you may want to check the main target demographics for every $300+ console since the PS1.
Also, "important" is subjective. Unless you're the president, the pope, or a nobel prize winning physicist, chances are the stuff you're working on that you think is "important" is probably not worth a hill of beans to the rest of humanity at large.
nope. lost it in the divorce in the late 80s. No clue where it went after my mother sold it. Such a shame. I told him to dig up the VIN number and contact the DMV to see if they will track it down. He doesn't want to cause he's sure it's probably been wrecked and destroyed by now. He'd rather not know.
That thing was a monster. He had glass packs on it, and he would drive it around the neighborhood sunday mornings to wake people up. It sounded like angry buffalo charging.
He took it to the track one time and ran low 11s. With proper traction it would have run 9s, but he refused to tub the rear end because it was also a show car.
I miss that thing.
I didn't say SUVs were safer, I said they made people feel safer.
I would love that I didn't have to worry about the 6000lb monstrosities on the roads driven by cindy lou doing her makeup or joe-bob halfway through his 6pack. I would much rather we were all driving around cars that were under a ton and a half here. Not just for Fuel economy reasons, but for performane too. You get way better peformance taking 100lbs off a car than you do adding 10hp to it. Ask Lotus.
Even our "performance" vehicles are stupid heavy. There is no reason that the new camaro should be 3900lbs and the new challenger well over two tons. Only ford seems to have some idea that weight is the enemy (and at 3400lbs, the new 2011 5.0 mustang is still losing the battle of the bulge. The equivilent 1993 mustang 5.0 weighed 3100lbs).
The problem is that America has a taste for cars that are as bloated as we are. That's just the way it is, and they're here to stay because as I pointed out earlier, people just don't feel safe in that 2400lb car if they're surrounded by 6000lb behemoths driven by idiots. The behemoths aren't going away until we get $7 a gallon gas too.
to an extent, of course you're right, but I think you discount just how much "chasing horsepower" and "fuel economy" are really at odds, and it turns out it's for the same reason you just stated.
If you artificially restrict the amount of fuel that can possibly be spent, for instance installing that 1.7L 70hp 4cylinder engine in a 2800lb car, most (american) buyers are going to look at it and say "oh my god that's so slow, how can I merge into traffic? how can I get out of the way of (other) crazy drivers, how can I etc. etc.
They'll look in the next spot at the dealership, at the same model in 3400lb "LX" trim with all the safety airbags you can fit into every nook and crany, power everything, the deluxe stereo, the moonroof, and the body kit... with the 250hp 3.6L v6, and say "I'll take this one!"
So, Let's say I develop a new engine technology, and I can either make that first car produce the same 70hp with a 1.3L engine now, making another 5mpg, or I can make the 3.6L v6 in the second car make 280hp... which one is today's american consumer more likely to buy?
the "fall apart in a wreck" is somewhat by design. the car takes the brunt of the impact instead of the driver.
It does mean though that what would have been a dent to hammer out and repaint in the 60s is now a shattered and exploded front end, bent frame, and "car is totaled" assessment by your insurance.
Oh I know exactly it was the 4.90 gears. I don't know why he had gears that high, I imagine the powerband on that engine was pretty damn wide.
According to my father, it was 500 hp to the wheels, and the reason it wasn't making more was because it was tuned more to survive the 300hp nitrous shot than to make top end N/A hp. Never made 100% sense to me, but it was the early 80s. maybe they don't know what they know now.
Let's assume a collision:
VW lupo
-vs-
the lady in the ford expedition that she bought so she could feel "safe" on the road
=
healthy dent on the expedition and horrible crushed doom to the lupo.
Have you seen american highways lately? people who can't drive their way out of a paper bag are routinely crusing around in 3 ton tanks, and you have to be in another 3 ton tank to survive the impact with them.
I think you might be surprised if you look into what the economy commuter cars from the 70s and 80s actually got.
They were lighter, and had smaller/less powerful engines.
"30mpg!" has been about the average for good mileage for a long time now. Every time we hit a new development in engine technology that'll give us a more effecient engine, we either use it to make more horsepower with the same given displacement, or the government mandates some other safety/emissions technology that pulls us right back down again.
I'm not saying that we (well, the auto industry) can't do better. Of course they can. Europe has turbodeisel deathboxes that get 70+ mpg. I'm saying that we, as americans, don't WANT better gas mileage. We want the huge rwd musclecar with the 7liter V8, or the tricked out awd import pushing 21psi through what might otherwise be an effecient 4banger.
Note, My father did own one of those "8mpg" 70s cars. It was a 71 challenger with a built 440 with a radical cam and solid lifters in it. it had about 500hp BEFORE the 300hp nitrous shot, and it had 4.90 gears in back. If you know anything about cars, you know that the above is about as bad a reciepe you can have for gas mileage short of towing a boat behind it (which he also did. my dad was a crazy guy), and it took all that to get down to 8mpg.