Have you not heard of.NET (will eventually be a complete replacement for the Windows API)? The NT Kernal (say goodbye to the win9x codebase), DirectX 8 (or 7 was the version where they got rid of a LOT of crap)?
XBOX $199 MOD $99-149 Risk of ruining your XBox when soldering the mod chip: minimal but possible.
Add the price of your favorite keyboard and mouse and it's more cost effective to just buy a cheap PC or a "Net PC" with Linux (ThinkNic's go for only $249 WITH a keyboard and mouse).
For me, I'll keep my XBox of the games, and my cheap x86 box for Linux.
His argument is not just as weak, you just haven't searched for the answers. There are many places in the Old Testament that eludes to Christ or a saviour. The radical difference is that salvation was through Christ after Christ because Christ fullfilled the Law (religious Law). Before hand there were tons of religious laws that one had to follow for salvation. This poses a lot of good questions like "Why not Christ in the first place?", but already we are getting into subjects that entire books have been written on. As far as infants ore Native Americans, we are trivialzing God's grace when we ask these questions. God claims in his word that EVERYONE will have the chance to acknolwedge him, regardless of our inability to define the logistics.
Material good is a very narrow way to seek God's goodness. The bottom line is that there is evil in the world: "Shit Happens". Also, following Christ and "being religious" are two different things (although there is a relation). Remember that many people are religious for the sake of religion (religiosity) and they are very judgmental and bitter people. I think those who are "non-religious" are probably much happier with thier lives.
Based on Larry's faith (and mine) living by the God's moral law has nothing to do with burning in hell or not. Salvation is based on faith alone - thank God!
The existance of atoms and quanta can be proven with mathematics (besides scientific observation). I know of know mathematical formula or scientific experimant that _proves_ the big bang theory, or that proves the age of the earth, or that even comes close to proving that our scientific means are not fallable in the first place.
It's still faith. It's not blind faith, but it's still a matter of faith.
It's not unreasonable to expect an adult to behave responsibly at 18 or even younger - it's just that we're generally treated like kids. I don't mean to sound pias, but I know a lot of people who would easily pass these six questions.
Apparently you are right - then I'm extremely unimpressed. It seems that, aside from small exceptions, that games like MOHAA and RTCW look better then AA. Nevertheless, my orginal contention that the game runs smooth on a GF2 still stants - my roommate was just playing it with such a setup today.
Eh, but Dell's have exceptional screens when you pay the buco bucks for their higher end "mutlimedia" laptops. Most affordable laptops still have screens that have some level of ghosting, although it has gotten much better of late.
There have been many attempts to emulate the PPC on the x86, it is just that they have all come to nothing.
It's called business. Millions of dollars have been invested to emulate x86 on a PPC because there is a market for it. I personally have not seen a large investment for PPC emulation on the x86 most likely because there is no market to invest the millions.
And here we go with an uniformed Apple elitist droning on about his superior hardware quality. I will commend Apple's recent efforts and say that they offer the most elegent package for the home user, however, they could do the same with x86 hardware. Just because you can but cheap x86 hardware does not mean that you can not build a very high quality x86 box. As an x86 OEM, apple could still build their funky cases, still design a proprietary motherboard (which most OEM's do currently), and still tightly control the hardware.
Now that Mac OS X is truly ready for prime time with 10.2, all Apple needs is to be able to produce machines that will impress the MHz/GHz-obsessed, cock-measuring crowd.
Actually, since Apple is so focused on the multimedia segment, they are really hurting on the hardware side. My $1000 Athlon box is out rendering $3000 G4 boxes. Why? Mainly because of Apples very slow FSB, and relatively slow chips. And no, I'm not just talking about clock speed, even Carmack admits that PPC's are slower then x86's for Doom, and that optimizations for Altivec only have significant value in a limited number of situations. This isn't to say that PPC's are awesome for certain tasks, especially where raw performance is not required. As you said, coupled with OS 10.2, Apple has a very good consumer product.
I'm not saying as a business decision that Apple should do this, but I'm saying that from a purely technical standpoint it would not affect the quality of Apple products.
What's interesting - and I don't mean to start a religious war - is that with minimal application development experience I can sit down with C# and create a reasonable fast GUI (P3-550 is my workstation at work). Now maybe this is the case with Java now, but a couple of years ago this was not possible. With C# I didn't need to do special optimizations - I don't have the experience to even understand what that means (I'm a Web Application Developer).
But this is capitalism. Part of MS's strategy is to control the desktop. This is business. It's not MS's fault if Sun can't create a good Java Client experience (it's gotten a lot better of late, however). The only restrictions MS should have is to not be allowed to write strong-armed OEM agreements to prevent Java from being pre-installed by OEM's. Other then that, it's MS's product, and if Sun can't cut a deal with them to integrate Java with it, that's business.
Everytime I've heard someone say this I think to myself, "Did they actually benchmark the program"? The reason I ask is because most of the time Java developers jump for joy when a small utility runs fast on reasonable hardware. What they don't bother to mention is that you better not be running Winamp in the background because your CPU is hosed rendering graphics. So even though it's responsive, it's inconclusive because one has to consider A) How much system resources are required and B) How complex is application in question.
Neither of these questions can be answered in a simple forum, and must be scientifically analyzed. I think anecdotally the reason people whined so much about Java on the Client side is because it performed slowly, regardless of the exceptions.
Okay we can be a literalist about everything but let's try to figure out what Franklin was really saying. He wasn't saying "give up freedom to go around shooting people", he was talking about the freed of America: Freedom of Speech, Democracy, etc.
Remember though that Intel's bus has a much higher latency that limits it's performance in certain applications. When DDR400 becomes available it will be a superior solution then the Rambus solution that Intel used. Like CPU's, the FSB on each platform can't be compared Clock for Clock.
I second video editing. With high speed disk drives (10-15K RPM, 3.5ms access time, etc.) my bottleneck is always Premier eating up my CPU. I do not do video editing professionally, just for fun. I want to render in real time, but I'm actually rendering at over 10times realtime if there's a lot of filters and/or effects.
AFAIK - and this is based on earlier P4 systems - although Intel's bus has a higher throughput it also has a higher latency. Only applications that demand throughput gain an advantage, while many applications can actually run slower on these "quad pumped" busses. DDR memory has the same problem when compared to SDR memory, but nowhere to the degree of RAMBUS memory. AMD seems to have found a balance. For the future we can only hope that QDR will not have the same latency issues. However, I share a similar concern and I wonder why AMD didn't go to 400mhz DDR. You don't have the latency of the Intel platform, but you have great throughput. I can only speculate that it's because AMD runs at a much lower clock rate that the extra bus speed would do little for real world performance.
Interesting. Of late I've found that most ISP's (ATTBI included) have blocked these ports. Also, many people use some sort of a "Broadband Router" which either block everything incoming or just sets up a subnet using NAT. So, this leaves dial up users not using AOL, MSN, or any other ISP not blocking NetBIOS.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you not heard of .NET (will eventually be a complete replacement for the Windows API)? The NT Kernal (say goodbye to the win9x codebase), DirectX 8 (or 7 was the version where they got rid of a LOT of crap)?
XBOX $199
MOD $99-149
Risk of ruining your XBox when soldering the mod chip: minimal but possible.
Add the price of your favorite keyboard and mouse and it's more cost effective to just buy a cheap PC or a "Net PC" with Linux (ThinkNic's go for only $249 WITH a keyboard and mouse).
For me, I'll keep my XBox of the games, and my cheap x86 box for Linux.
His argument is not just as weak, you just haven't searched for the answers. There are many places in the Old Testament that eludes to Christ or a saviour. The radical difference is that salvation was through Christ after Christ because Christ fullfilled the Law (religious Law). Before hand there were tons of religious laws that one had to follow for salvation. This poses a lot of good questions like "Why not Christ in the first place?", but already we are getting into subjects that entire books have been written on. As far as infants ore Native Americans, we are trivialzing God's grace when we ask these questions. God claims in his word that EVERYONE will have the chance to acknolwedge him, regardless of our inability to define the logistics.
Material good is a very narrow way to seek God's goodness. The bottom line is that there is evil in the world: "Shit Happens". Also, following Christ and "being religious" are two different things (although there is a relation). Remember that many people are religious for the sake of religion (religiosity) and they are very judgmental and bitter people. I think those who are "non-religious" are probably much happier with thier lives.
Based on Larry's faith (and mine) living by the God's moral law has nothing to do with burning in hell or not. Salvation is based on faith alone - thank God!
The existance of atoms and quanta can be proven with mathematics (besides scientific observation). I know of know mathematical formula or scientific experimant that _proves_ the big bang theory, or that proves the age of the earth, or that even comes close to proving that our scientific means are not fallable in the first place.
It's still faith. It's not blind faith, but it's still a matter of faith.
It's not unreasonable to expect an adult to behave responsibly at 18 or even younger - it's just that we're generally treated like kids. I don't mean to sound pias, but I know a lot of people who would easily pass these six questions.
I agree with you. I think that J# was probably a huge waste of time and money for MS.
Of course, when the next Java review comes out no one will by crying conspiracy.
Just like the PS2! Dumbass.
Apparently you are right - then I'm extremely unimpressed. It seems that, aside from small exceptions, that games like MOHAA and RTCW look better then AA. Nevertheless, my orginal contention that the game runs smooth on a GF2 still stants - my roommate was just playing it with such a setup today.
Eh, but Dell's have exceptional screens when you pay the buco bucks for their higher end "mutlimedia" laptops. Most affordable laptops still have screens that have some level of ghosting, although it has gotten much better of late.
The original Doom3 demo performed very well on GF3 (this is before the Ti500 was even available).
Americas Army is based on a recent build of the Unreal engine, not the unreal2003 engine - trust me, the graphics aren't all that impressive.
Also, Americas Army plays decently on a P3-700 with a GF2 at 800x600 (the lowest the Unreal engine supports anyway).
There have been many attempts to emulate the PPC on the x86, it is just that they have all come to nothing.
It's called business. Millions of dollars have been invested to emulate x86 on a PPC because there is a market for it. I personally have not seen a large investment for PPC emulation on the x86 most likely because there is no market to invest the millions.
And here we go with an uniformed Apple elitist droning on about his superior hardware quality. I will commend Apple's recent efforts and say that they offer the most elegent package for the home user, however, they could do the same with x86 hardware. Just because you can but cheap x86 hardware does not mean that you can not build a very high quality x86 box. As an x86 OEM, apple could still build their funky cases, still design a proprietary motherboard (which most OEM's do currently), and still tightly control the hardware.
Now that Mac OS X is truly ready for prime time with 10.2, all Apple needs is to be able to produce machines that will impress the MHz/GHz-obsessed, cock-measuring crowd.
Actually, since Apple is so focused on the multimedia segment, they are really hurting on the hardware side. My $1000 Athlon box is out rendering $3000 G4 boxes. Why? Mainly because of Apples very slow FSB, and relatively slow chips. And no, I'm not just talking about clock speed, even Carmack admits that PPC's are slower then x86's for Doom, and that optimizations for Altivec only have significant value in a limited number of situations. This isn't to say that PPC's are awesome for certain tasks, especially where raw performance is not required. As you said, coupled with OS 10.2, Apple has a very good consumer product.
I'm not saying as a business decision that Apple should do this, but I'm saying that from a purely technical standpoint it would not affect the quality of Apple products.
What's interesting - and I don't mean to start a religious war - is that with minimal application development experience I can sit down with C# and create a reasonable fast GUI (P3-550 is my workstation at work). Now maybe this is the case with Java now, but a couple of years ago this was not possible. With C# I didn't need to do special optimizations - I don't have the experience to even understand what that means (I'm a Web Application Developer).
But this is capitalism. Part of MS's strategy is to control the desktop. This is business. It's not MS's fault if Sun can't create a good Java Client experience (it's gotten a lot better of late, however). The only restrictions MS should have is to not be allowed to write strong-armed OEM agreements to prevent Java from being pre-installed by OEM's. Other then that, it's MS's product, and if Sun can't cut a deal with them to integrate Java with it, that's business.
Everytime I've heard someone say this I think to myself, "Did they actually benchmark the program"? The reason I ask is because most of the time Java developers jump for joy when a small utility runs fast on reasonable hardware. What they don't bother to mention is that you better not be running Winamp in the background because your CPU is hosed rendering graphics. So even though it's responsive, it's inconclusive because one has to consider A) How much system resources are required and B) How complex is application in question.
Neither of these questions can be answered in a simple forum, and must be scientifically analyzed. I think anecdotally the reason people whined so much about Java on the Client side is because it performed slowly, regardless of the exceptions.
Extremely well put.
Okay we can be a literalist about everything but let's try to figure out what Franklin was really saying. He wasn't saying "give up freedom to go around shooting people", he was talking about the freed of America: Freedom of Speech, Democracy, etc.
Remember though that Intel's bus has a much higher latency that limits it's performance in certain applications. When DDR400 becomes available it will be a superior solution then the Rambus solution that Intel used. Like CPU's, the FSB on each platform can't be compared Clock for Clock.
I second video editing. With high speed disk drives (10-15K RPM, 3.5ms access time, etc.) my bottleneck is always Premier eating up my CPU. I do not do video editing professionally, just for fun. I want to render in real time, but I'm actually rendering at over 10times realtime if there's a lot of filters and/or effects.
AFAIK - and this is based on earlier P4 systems - although Intel's bus has a higher throughput it also has a higher latency. Only applications that demand throughput gain an advantage, while many applications can actually run slower on these "quad pumped" busses. DDR memory has the same problem when compared to SDR memory, but nowhere to the degree of RAMBUS memory. AMD seems to have found a balance. For the future we can only hope that QDR will not have the same latency issues. However, I share a similar concern and I wonder why AMD didn't go to 400mhz DDR. You don't have the latency of the Intel platform, but you have great throughput. I can only speculate that it's because AMD runs at a much lower clock rate that the extra bus speed would do little for real world performance.
Interesting. Of late I've found that most ISP's (ATTBI included) have blocked these ports. Also, many people use some sort of a "Broadband Router" which either block everything incoming or just sets up a subnet using NAT. So, this leaves dial up users not using AOL, MSN, or any other ISP not blocking NetBIOS.