> You'll notice that, while slower by about 1M flop, the G5 is a 2Ghz processor, while the P4 is a 2.66GHZ processor. The G5 is more efficient.
Who gives a w00t? I can see comparing bang-per-buck, or for the green-minded, bang-per-kilowatt or bang-per-BTU of waste heat, but who buys on the basis of bang-per-Hz?
> Something which seems to get lost in the Mac/PC debates *sometimes* is the cost factor. I looked those graphs and thought "Wow - mac is faster at this benchmark". Then I looked up pricing - minimum I can get that mac for would be $1999. An equivalent PC system with the P4 2.66ghz is probably under $900 (didn't spec it out entirely, just did a rough lookup on Dell). Great - Mac is faster. But I can apparently get within reasonable range on PC hardware for probably 50% less cost.
Yeah, for this kind of benchmark it would probably be best to compare "the best you can get for $nnn", regardless of the number of processors involved.
Also, I doubt the relevance of most standard benchmarks to the choice of a desktop system. Most benchmarks dedicate the entire CPU to a single task (with a portion of the resources unavoidably diverted to the OS), but for a desktop system lots of people will have multiple applications running simultaneously, bringing in serious issues of context swapping, cache thrashing, memory bandwidth, etc. - to say nothing of graphics performance.
So give me a benchmark that measures overall desktop performance, comparing various systems with the same price (at various price points), with the price covering the video card and the OS as well as the CPU.
> It comes as no suprise that Microsoft isn't even living up to an antitrust settlement that is this painless. From day 1, it looked as if they had no intention of following it through, and now, it seems as if the lawsuit was never filed at all.
At least they didn't laugh about the settlement this time around.
> What the US calls a shrimp, Australians call a prawn.
Somehow it doesn't have quite the same ring to it if you call your schoolmate a "little prawn" when you shake him down for his lunch money during recess.
> And then proceeded to realize his oversight, turn is company around on a dime, and now has a large slice of that internet pie.
Heh. Eight years later and Microsoft's biggest contributions to internet culture are browser integration, Outlook backdoors, and e-mail trojans. I don't think he 'gets' the internet now any more than he did in 1995.
> Its ok to give away sex, but as soon as you charge for it you are a criminal.
> now I have to go put a kickstand on my horse.
For the benefit of us more strait-laced types, could you explain what the kickstand and horse have to do with sex, and whether they are used with the kind you give away or the kind you charge for?
> Reminds me of an older martial arts movie in which a teacher plants a small tree, then tells a small child to jump over it day in, day out, and as the tree and the child grow, the child is able to jump really high into the air.
> > "The movie looks like it will be set in the 1950s"
> So no Nazis then? Based on the existing trilogy, I just think you gotta have Nazis for it to work well, simply because of their obsession (in real life) with ancient artefacts and folklore...
Supposedly Ford wants to play a Indy his actual age, so there wasn't much flexibility in the date.
Given the poplarity of I & III vis-à-vis II you can expect the key artifact to be another Judeo-Christian thingy. That means high probability of a setting in the Middle East.
In such a case you may see KGB agents instead of Nazis as the foils, though they could probably pretend there was some kind of ex-Nazi organization in the area for the movie's purposes.
I'd like to see them work in a satirical encounter with James Bond...
> Ah. So now we begin to see what this is all about. Linux ate their lunch and they want revenge
Of course, these clowns aren't the people who owned it when Linux ate their lunch. They bought SCO so they could pretend their feelings were hurt, cry in public, and have IBM or the courts hand them a pacifier to stop the noise.
I'm kind of disappointed that the courts think lawsuit rights are a transferrable property.
Slashdot Mirror
> You'll notice that, while slower by about 1M flop, the G5 is a 2Ghz processor, while the P4 is a 2.66GHZ processor. The G5 is more efficient.
Who gives a w00t? I can see comparing bang-per-buck, or for the green-minded, bang-per-kilowatt or bang-per-BTU of waste heat, but who buys on the basis of bang-per-Hz?
That's just desperate benchmarketing spin.
> Something which seems to get lost in the Mac/PC debates *sometimes* is the cost factor. I looked those graphs and thought "Wow - mac is faster at this benchmark". Then I looked up pricing - minimum I can get that mac for would be $1999. An equivalent PC system with the P4 2.66ghz is probably under $900 (didn't spec it out entirely, just did a rough lookup on Dell). Great - Mac is faster. But I can apparently get within reasonable range on PC hardware for probably 50% less cost.
Yeah, for this kind of benchmark it would probably be best to compare "the best you can get for $nnn", regardless of the number of processors involved.
Also, I doubt the relevance of most standard benchmarks to the choice of a desktop system. Most benchmarks dedicate the entire CPU to a single task (with a portion of the resources unavoidably diverted to the OS), but for a desktop system lots of people will have multiple applications running simultaneously, bringing in serious issues of context swapping, cache thrashing, memory bandwidth, etc. - to say nothing of graphics performance.
So give me a benchmark that measures overall desktop performance, comparing various systems with the same price (at various price points), with the price covering the video card and the OS as well as the CPU.
Somebody set us up the bomb, that's what.
> It comes as no suprise that Microsoft isn't even living up to an antitrust settlement that is this painless. From day 1, it looked as if they had no intention of following it through, and now, it seems as if the lawsuit was never filed at all.
At least they didn't laugh about the settlement this time around.
At least not in public.
> What the US calls a shrimp, Australians call a prawn.
Somehow it doesn't have quite the same ring to it if you call your schoolmate a "little prawn" when you shake him down for his lunch money during recess.
> Yup, Linux is just a non-threatening, passing obstacle along the road to complete IT domination by Microsoft.
"There'll never be more than 640K Linux installations."
>
They've also got a CELF-Abuse hot line.
"CELF" is easier to pronounce than "CEGnu/LF"...
> And then proceeded to realize his oversight, turn is company around on a dime, and now has a large slice of that internet pie.
Heh. Eight years later and Microsoft's biggest contributions to internet culture are browser integration, Outlook backdoors, and e-mail trojans. I don't think he 'gets' the internet now any more than he did in 1995.
> or thought that a real breakthru would be an algorithm to factor large PRIME numbers.
I've been seeing that quote for years, and never once snapped to why everyone was quoting it!
This is the guy that managed to overlook the internet when he wrote The Road Ahead in 1995.
> Its ok to give away sex, but as soon as you charge for it you are a criminal.
> now I have to go put a kickstand on my horse.
For the benefit of us more strait-laced types, could you explain what the kickstand and horse have to do with sex, and whether they are used with the kind you give away or the kind you charge for?
> As a curious person (who wishes that she too had the "flexibility of a salamander")
Ummm, what application of this talent did you have in mind, precisely?
> Reminds me of an older martial arts movie in which a teacher plants a small tree, then tells a small child to jump over it day in, day out, and as the tree and the child grow, the child is able to jump really high into the air.
On Krypton they start with small buildings.
> > "The movie looks like it will be set in the 1950s"
> So no Nazis then? Based on the existing trilogy, I just think you gotta have Nazis for it to work well, simply because of their obsession (in real life) with ancient artefacts and folklore...
Supposedly Ford wants to play a Indy his actual age, so there wasn't much flexibility in the date.
Given the poplarity of I & III vis-à-vis II you can expect the key artifact to be another Judeo-Christian thingy. That means high probability of a setting in the Middle East.
In such a case you may see KGB agents instead of Nazis as the foils, though they could probably pretend there was some kind of ex-Nazi organization in the area for the movie's purposes.
I'd like to see them work in a satirical encounter with James Bond...
> Ah. So now we begin to see what this is all about. Linux ate their lunch and they want revenge
Of course, these clowns aren't the people who owned it when Linux ate their lunch. They bought SCO so they could pretend their feelings were hurt, cry in public, and have IBM or the courts hand them a pacifier to stop the noise.
I'm kind of disappointed that the courts think lawsuit rights are a transferrable property.
> You know, at first, I thought that McBride was insane -- totally reckless or totally corrupt. But now, I'm starting to think the man is just stupid.
A whiff of fresh green cash tends to have a detrimental effect on some people's IQ.
Recall the lady who stole $4,000,000 from her employer in hopes of coming out ahead in the 419 scam. This boils down to the same thing, ultimately.
> Besides, I hear no rumours on the street (what a marvellous phrase, unattributable yet pseudo-meaningful...) that IBM are interested.
I think he misunderstood it when he heard someone say "1BM is going ot 0wn SC0 before this is over."
That seems to have an "it's not about sex" ring to it.
That's the whole problem. The media companies want to invest their money in the sure sell, so we keep getting sequels and boy bands.
For media-based entertainment products, "quality" involves a bit of variety, a bit of risk.
Read the f'ing what?
The version without the internet?
> Blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft Worms is about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.
No, it's more like blaming Ford's executives for their SUV rollover deaths.
A perfectly reasonable assignment of blame, if you think the execs are aware of the problem and won't make the decisions necessary to fix it.
> Is it just me, or have 'Gates and Security' become another oxymoron term, like 'Microsoft Works'?
For Gates and other MS execs, "security" is just another marketing buzzword.
And that's exactly what they're selling.
> All it takes is for one of those spammers with 15 million email addresses to get infected...
That would be the big Whore-all virus everyone is expecting?