Let's sentence all those grannies to life who, in their younger years, were mothers who carelessly broke mercury thermometers - which contained a lot more mercury than a half dozen CFLs.
What brand(s) of bulbs were you using? I have seen some that didn't last as long as they should but they were either no-name crap or were in places where they were turned off and on frequently.
Since sticking to the rule that you shouldn't turn a fluorescent off within 15min of turning it on, I haven't had any premature CFL bulb deaths.
So, if the numbers for both are correct and Linux users are ( probably not for long ) greater than iPhone users then, yes, Linux is a success. However, it just doesn't have the cachet of the iPhone.And I don't think the Chrome OS browser will change that unless they jazz up that interface - what I saw and the VM of it I used seemed rather cheesy. gOS is better, IMHO.
So that's a 2.73 to 1 advantage for MLC in base chip cost. I'm going to assume that the cost to manufacture the completed module isn't significantly different for either type and *may* be lower for SLC because it doesn't need as sophisticated wear-leveling as MLC and seems to offer higher write performance with less sophisticated controllers. ( These are assumptions based on various online reviews and manufacturer spec sheets).
The transition was invisible to most - and that was the problem. It's not as if there were companies pitched into either the SLC or MLC camp.
I only became aware of the transition back when USB flash drives were getting above 4 GB and found that finding ones >4GB with really fast writes speed was nearly impossible. I then stumbled onto a PDF from SuperTalent explaining the differences.
Of course, $$/GB matters in the consumer market. Lower cost is what drives it, but the SLC drive pricing doesn't reflect the difference in component cost. Let's not forget that the JMicron fiasco gave consumer SSDs a black eye, from which I don't think they've yet recovered. Also, SSD pricing in general, apart from the Intel models, doesn't seem to have changed significantly since the start of 2009, while HD pricing has followed the usual year-over-year pattern.
I agree with you about MLC but I can't see how it'll happen. There are only a handful of manufacturers and the average user has no idea of the differences, advantages and tradeoffs so unless some other tech comes along to shake things up, we're stuck with the status quo.
and the companies ( Hello, Samsung!) should be ashamed. It wasn't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increases by a factor of TWO. That's one of the lowest, most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.
So, I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life, a 40% reduction in write speed, without fancy controller redesign, and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous "benefits" of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway, through market forces and silicon die shrink
I have no idea if this would work on a large scale but, man o man, talk about thinking outside the box.
You argued, probably correctly, that's it's not feasible to put PV cells on automobiles. This man's work says that you can put them, feasibly, on what automobiles are traveling on.
Perhaps they should name this machine the Catch-22 - we need something this powerful to help solve the problems of nuclear fusion - which would be needed to power this box.
I'm no Intel fanboy - the last Intel CPU I bought were dual Pentium IIs, and that was only because AMD didn't yet have SMP capabilities.
But Intel are superior strategists and have deeper pockets and I truly feel that AMD should have been (more)aggressively pursuing a partnership or conglomerate that could better stand up to Chipzilla. As it is, they've lost a considerable amount of groud and it'll take another radical performance breakthrough from them and a truly colossal fuckup by Intel for them to be a contender again, not just a second-stringer.
You're right - and wrong. Intel went 64-bit before AMD but it was a very different 64-bit and was a really stupid decision on Intel's part because they had the know-how and the resources to pursue both paths to 64-bitness at the same time.
And, that's exactly what they had to do in the end. Their real stupidity was using the radical Itanic design when the necessary optimizing compilers weren't available and believing they could get away with (really) mediocre x86 support.
Also, the Itanium was either slower than the competing designs or not appreciably faster. From what I've seen in the last couple years, it's much improved but that's a day late and a dollar short.
I had better luck with CD burners than you did. All but one died only after I'd already upgraded to something faster. But, I've had terrible luck with hard drives. But saving them to tape? I suppose that could have been an option but that wouldn't have been cheap either and the place I was working as an admin had so many tape failures with better quality equipment than I could afford, that I simply couldn't see myself spending additional cash on a slow, finicky, and prone-to-failure solution. So backing up to CD-RW was still worth it until both hard drives and fast external enclosures became affordable. I bought a USB2.0/Firewire 400/eSATA Nexstar for $60 last weekend to put a $80 750 GB drive into. If only we'd had these things 10 years ago, I would have been a much happier man. I once paid $250 for a parallel-port enclosure and $200 for a 2 GB drive to put into it - in 1997 ( I think ). What was amazing was that I could get it to work, with lots of work. Most temperamental beast I've ever had the displeasure of owning.
Cheap ones? I bought nothing but brand name, expensive CDR/RW years ago and I find that most of them, particularly the RWs are hosed. I was paying as much as $5/each in 1997-2000.
is to get its shit together Fab-wise. They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecture but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.
Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants, they're back to being the budget brand.
If he goes ahead with blocking Google entirely, which should be easy as pie, he'll soon have nothing but crumbs. If I ran Google, I would apologize to Rupert for the egregious theft of his content, promise NEVER to index his content again, except he's willing to pay a small fee per line and immediately flush all references to Murdoch, his content, businesses, etc.
On the upside for him, I'm sure Bing will pick up the slack - not that most of us will know or care.
Slashdot Mirror
And, so many anti-anything-but-M$hit trolls hide behind Anonymous COWARD. Go away until you're ready to come
out of the shadows.
I totally agree. I think Monkey Boy's trolls have been doing a bangup job of defending their corporate interest.
It's worse than you think - the Windows official version is 6.1.7600; Linux is only at 2.6.32.
At least one M$ lover has gone the distance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ina_Fried
Let's sentence all those grannies to life who, in their younger years, were mothers who carelessly broke mercury thermometers - which contained a lot more mercury than a half dozen CFLs.
What brand(s) of bulbs were you using? I have seen some that didn't last as long as they should but they were either no-name crap or were in places where they were turned off and on frequently.
Since sticking to the rule that you shouldn't turn a fluorescent off within 15min of turning it on, I haven't had any premature CFL bulb deaths.
This link put mobile phone users at 3.3 billion at end of 2007:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/global%20markets/2008/05/26/158188/Mobile-phone.htm
This Wikipedia page put worldwide PC users at 1 billion as of June 2008 - see Market and Sales paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
So, if the numbers for both are correct and Linux users are ( probably not for long ) greater than iPhone users
then, yes, Linux is a success. However, it just doesn't have the cachet of the iPhone.And I don't think the Chrome OS
browser will change that unless they jazz up that interface - what I saw and the VM of it I used seemed rather cheesy.
gOS is better, IMHO.
So that's a 2.73 to 1 advantage for MLC in base chip cost. I'm going to assume that the cost to manufacture the completed module isn't significantly different for either type and *may* be lower for SLC because it doesn't need as sophisticated wear-leveling as MLC and seems to offer higher write performance with less sophisticated controllers.
( These are assumptions based on various online reviews and manufacturer spec sheets).
Current pricing on newegg.com for Intel SSDs:
Intel X25-E Extreme SSDSA2SH064G1 2.5" 64GB $799 ($12.48/GB)
Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G1 80GB $259 ($3.24/GB)
So, by the time it becomes a consumer product, the spread is 3.85 to 1 in favor of MLC for the Intel drives.
The transition was invisible to most - and that was the problem. It's not as if there were companies pitched into either the SLC or MLC camp.
I only became aware of the transition back when USB flash drives were getting above 4 GB and found that finding ones >4GB with really fast writes speed was nearly impossible. I then stumbled onto a PDF from SuperTalent explaining the differences.
Of course, $$/GB matters in the consumer market. Lower cost is what drives it, but the SLC drive pricing doesn't reflect the difference in component cost.
Let's not forget that the JMicron fiasco gave consumer SSDs a black eye, from which I don't think they've yet recovered.
Also, SSD pricing in general, apart from the Intel models, doesn't seem to have changed significantly since the start of 2009, while HD pricing has followed the usual year-over-year pattern.
I agree with you about MLC but I can't see how it'll happen. There are only a handful of manufacturers and the average user has no idea of the differences, advantages and tradeoffs so unless some other tech comes along to shake things up, we're stuck with the status quo.
and the companies ( Hello, Samsung!) should be ashamed. It wasn't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increases
by a factor of TWO. That's one of the lowest, most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.
So, I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life, a 40% reduction in write speed, without fancy controller
redesign, and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous "benefits" of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway, through market forces and silicon die shrink
http://www.solarroadways.com/
I have no idea if this would work on a large scale but, man o man, talk about thinking
outside the box.
You argued, probably correctly, that's it's not feasible to put PV cells on automobiles.
This man's work says that you can put them, feasibly, on what automobiles are traveling on.
Perhaps they should name this machine the Catch-22 - we need something this powerful to help solve
the problems of nuclear fusion - which would be needed to power this box.
I'm no Intel fanboy - the last Intel CPU I bought were dual Pentium IIs, and that was only because
AMD didn't yet have SMP capabilities.
But Intel are superior strategists and have deeper pockets and I truly feel that AMD should have been (more)aggressively pursuing a partnership or conglomerate that could better stand up to Chipzilla.
As it is, they've lost a considerable amount of groud and it'll take another radical performance breakthrough from them and a truly colossal fuckup by Intel for them to be a contender again, not just a second-stringer.
You're right - and wrong. Intel went 64-bit before AMD but it was a very different 64-bit and was a really stupid decision on Intel's part because they had the know-how and the resources to pursue both paths to 64-bitness at the same time.
And, that's exactly what they had to do in the end.
Their real stupidity was using the radical Itanic design when the necessary optimizing compilers weren't available and believing they could get away with (really) mediocre x86 support.
Also, the Itanium was either slower than the competing designs or not appreciably faster.
From what I've seen in the last couple years, it's much improved but that's a day late and a dollar short.
I had better luck with CD burners than you did. All but one died only after I'd already upgraded to something faster.
But, I've had terrible luck with hard drives.
But saving them to tape?
I suppose that could have been an option but that wouldn't have been cheap either and the place I was working as an admin had so many tape failures with better quality equipment than I could afford, that I simply couldn't see myself spending additional cash on a slow, finicky, and prone-to-failure solution.
So backing up to CD-RW was still worth it until both hard drives and fast external enclosures became affordable.
I bought a USB2.0/Firewire 400/eSATA Nexstar for $60 last weekend to put a $80 750 GB drive into. If only we'd had these things 10 years ago, I would have been a much happier man.
I once paid $250 for a parallel-port enclosure and $200 for a 2 GB drive to put into it - in 1997 ( I think ). What was amazing was that I could get it to work, with lots of work.
Most temperamental beast I've ever had the displeasure of owning.
Cheap ones? I bought nothing but brand name, expensive CDR/RW years ago and I find that most
of them, particularly the RWs are hosed. I was paying as much as $5/each in 1997-2000.
is to get its shit together Fab-wise. They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecture
but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.
Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants,
they're back to being the budget brand.
Sad, but true.
If he goes ahead with blocking Google entirely, which should be easy as pie, he'll soon have nothing but crumbs.
If I ran Google, I would apologize to Rupert for the egregious theft of his content, promise NEVER to index his content again, except he's willing to pay a small fee per line and immediately flush all references to Murdoch, his content, businesses, etc.
On the upside for him, I'm sure Bing will pick up the slack - not that most of us will know or care.
Rupert has pubs? I guess they won't be free as in beer!
Okay, you really have to write in paragraphs. This
is just an impossible read.
I'm filing that under Too Much Information, but thanks.
I knew that - Opera was my go-to browser from 1998 up until Firefox 1.5. I even paid for a license back when they still charged for it.
Cold weather, hot women, health care, and common sense. If their food is any good, maybe I'll move also