I have to disagree in regards to the MMX and SSE/SSE2 extensions on Intel CPU's.
These extensions were designed specifically to speed up operation of multimedia programs, something that Microsoft and lot of software publishers wanted for some time. I mean look at Windows Media Player, RealPlayer and its successor RealOne, software DVD players, video editing programs, image editing programs, etc.--all of them take advantage of MMX and SSE/SSE2 extensions. Even on the Macintosh side, Motorola added the AltiVec registers specifically to speed up multimedia processing on Mac's.
The big problem with Intel's Itanium CPU is the fact to get the best performance you have to program in Itanium native mode, which is VERY different than what you get on a x86-class CPU. Small wonder why the amount of software available of Itanium CPU's are still relatively small.
3) Windows will finally release a 64 bit OS (also note: they could have done this YEARS ago under Alpha, but didn't - Windows NT under Alpha only could access a 32 bit address space.) Microsoft will hail this as a revolutionary breakthrough - "Windows AYCABTU is the first 64 bit OS for the home user!" *nix and Apple users will scratch their heads in puzzlement.
We know that Microsoft actually bothered to write an Itanium-native 64-bit version of Windows XP Professional; it doesn't take much to figure out that Microsoft is right now coding an Athlon 64/Opteron 64-bit native version of Windows XP. My guess is that Windows XP for the Athlon 64 will be released commercially about the same time as the Athlon 64 is released (circa September 2003).
I've heard that Microsoft is developing an Athlon 64/Opteron native version of Windows XP; if that is true then gaming companies involved with PC-based games may be already creating games that run in native Athlon 64/Opteron 64-bit mode under Windows XP as I type this.
I think Intel is currently dismissing 64-bit computing except for specialized needs because the vast majority of current mainstream software doesn't support 64-bit operations.
But I think that will change almost overnight once operating software that supports the Athlon 64/Opteron becomes widely available. We know that Linux is being ported to run in native Athlon 64/Opteron mode as I type this; I also believe that Microsoft is working on an Athlon 64/Opteron compatible version of Windows XP that will be available by time the Athlon 64 is released in circa September 2003 (we won't see the production version of Windows Longhorn until at least the late spring of 2004 (IMHO), well after the new AMD CPU's become widely available).
Let me ask you this question: why is it that Rush Limbaugh's web site with its US$39.95 per year Rush 24/7 premium content service is a major moneymaker? Is it because Americans want more conservative views and are willing to pay for it?
The increasing aversion to liberal views in the USA is a good reason why liberal premium content sites like Salon.com are heading towards F***** Company status, if you get my gist.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
The real reason you can hear the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CDDA is because the studios are putting a lot more effort into the mastering process for the new formats. They want the audiophiles to hear the difference. They want people to believe the technology is actually an improvement, when in reality it's just a better mastering for an individual disc.
They BETTER master a SACD or DVD Audio disc correctly because we are talking about new formats with a signal-to-noise ratio of over 110 dB and left-to-right separation probably almost as large, and one wrong move during the mastering process is going to result in audiable gaffes that stand out like a sore thumb.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
I still have a couple of digitally-mastered CD's of symphony orchestras, and frankly, the early ones were not exactly fun to listen to because the strong treble frequency energy of a large section of violins sound quite harsh and it gets to you after a while.
I've listened to a xylophone "live" and a CD recording of an xylophone and the CD recording was not exactly fun to listen to because the higher notes sounded a bit harsh.
Small wonder why when the tecnnology became available at a practical price the Sony SACD and Panasonic DVD Audio formats were developed.
While LP's do sound great on the first play, you do have to remember that by definition LP's are a physical contact music storage format, which means both the LP disc and phono cartridge needle will wear out sooner or later even if you use very expensive cleaning methods mentioned by other posters.
Besides, you have two other issues with LP's--the signal-to-noise ratio is at best 65-68 dB (while CD's are in the 95 dB range), and left-to-right separation for LP's is at best 30 dB (while CD's are more like 92-95 dB).
The limitations of the original 44.1 KHz sampling frequency for the Compact Disc format is the reason why we're seeing the advent of the Sony Super Audio CD and Panasonic DVD Audio formats. Since both SACD and DVD Audio digitally sample at vastly higher rates than the CD format, the result is vastly clearer reproduction of musical instruments with lots of treble frequency energy such as pianos, woodwind instruments, trumpets, coronets, chimes, and cymbals. I've heard SACD discs and the sound quality is nothing short of amazing, with sound quality so clear you'd swear you listening to a live band or orchestra.
But that kludge actually came out okay because the larger box meant more space for better artwork on the front of the box and better blurb information on the back of the box.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
Yeah but on the other hand the "vast majority of people" aren't listening to symphonic orchestras! How different does pop culture music sound?
If you're talking a standard rock band, music on SACD or DVD Audio will still sound better because a lot of today's rock music has a lot of treble frequency energy, and having clearer treble sampling results in much clearer sound.
Oh, I should add that trumpet and coronet brass instruments also benefit from the clear treble sound of the new formats, too.
Re:Cassette decks s will continue to sell
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The extra quality benefit of the CD will not (unfortunately) be enough to lure people to immediately rush out and buy new equipment. Personally, I would love to have better sound audio, but I'm not prepared to pay the (currently) huge premium to have it.
Actually, back in the 1980's there were a LOT of people looking forward to getting Compact Discs. You have to remember compared to LP turntables, CD's offered the following advantages:
1. It didn't require lots of finicky setup to get it working correctly.
2. Cared for properly, CD's way, way, outlasted LP discs.
3. CD's didn't suffer from wow and flutter, background hiss and low frequency turntable rumble.
4. The storage requirements for CD's was much smaller than LP's.
Sure, the early CD's did sound a bit harsh in the treble frequencies but careful mastering by recording engineers more or less overcame that issue.
It is that convenient size factor that has allowed DVD's to take off in popularity; the MCA/Philips Laserdisc and RCA Selectavision disc formats didn't become widely popular due to fairly stiff storage requirements, while in contrast DVD's same size factor as CD's made them very popular even though most DVD packaging is about 25% larger than CD's.
Compact Disc value not worth it.
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the entire problem boils down to this: Compact Discs are just too expensive in terms of bang for the buck for today's consumers.
Let's face it: consumers will balk at shelling out US$18 per album-length audio CD; at these prices there is just too much economic incentive to pirate music, to say the least. Even at US$20 per disc, DVD's are usually a better deal because not only do you get a full-length movie, but often you get lots of background material on the production of the movie, deleted scenes, commentary tracks by the director/actors, and so on.
Take for example the four-disc Extended Edition DVD set of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which you can get for around US$30 at most discount retailers. You not only get superior picture quality, but two different top-quality audio tracks (Dolby Digital EX and DTS-ES), FOUR audio commentary tracks, and two Supplementary discs with so much information it would take days to view them all even quickly. This is something no audio CD can hope to match, that's to be sure.
Now, if album-length CD's were priced at US$11 per disc, then the incentive for consumers for buy the disc goes way up and the incentive to pirate music goes way down.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I respectfully disagree on this.
Listen to a recording of a regular symphonic orchestra on a normal Compact Disc and then listen to a recording of a symphonic orchestra with SACD or DVD Audio disc; the CD recording sounds quite harsh because at treble frequencies as CD's doesn't sample the higher frequencies smoothly. Because SACD and DVD Audio can sample treble frequencies far more cleanly, the result is that the harshness of the violin, woodwind instruments and cymbals are missing, resulting in a more natural sound; that's why some people have noted that SACD and DVD Audio discs have a warmer sound due to the lack of treble frequency harshness.
However, jumbo jets do make sense for this reason: as part of improved environmental protections airports will start to impose slot restrictions (e.g., limiting the number of takeoffs and landings per day) in order to reduce air pollution and noise impact on local communities. Since you can only fly in and out of airports so many times per day, that means the only way to get more passenger growth in the future is to fly larger and larger planes on longer international routes.
Some airports such as London Heathrow (LHR) in England, Frankfurt-am-Main (FRA) in Germany, New York City John F. Kennedy (JFK), Chicago O'Hare (ORD), Los Angeles International (LAX), San Francisco International (SFO) in the USA, Tokyo Narita (NRT) in Japan and Sydney Kingsford International (SYD) in Australia are already reaching this point; the easiest solution is to fly in bigger and bigger planes. It's not surprising that Boeing 747's are common sights at these airports.
I think what makes the Toyota Prius particularly quirky is the instrument panel of the car--it is essentially a small electronic display on the top center of the front dash supplemented by a CRT-like display. This is definitely quite different than what you see on just about every other automobile.
A380 could be the quietest jumbo jet around
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Airbus is designing the A380 so it meets the extremely strict British Quiet Craft 2 (QC2) standard, which is actually 2 dB quieter than the extremely strict ICAO Stage IV standard for engine noise emissions that will come into force in 2006.
In short, the A380 will be quieter than today's A320 small jet for takeoffs and landings!
They're going to need planes the size of the A380 anyway by 2010 for this reason: slot control restrictions at many airports for air and noise pollution control reasons.
That means fewer flights per day into many airports, and the only way to accommodate future passenger growth with few flights per day into airports is to buy bigger planes. This will lead to Boeing finally building an airliner using blended-wing body configuration, which will allow 600-800 passengers per plane flying at Mach 0.86 up to 9,000 nautical miles.
SFO ready for the A380, more or less.
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is where the 2000 opening of San Francisco International Airport's (SFO) new International Terminal has proved to be much more visionary than people think.
Because the terminal was built in the late 1990's when what was then the Airbus A3XX project was well-advanced, the architects of the new terminal were able to design gates at the end of Concourses A and G (the two concourses that are the International gates) to conform to the 80 x 80 meter (262 x 262 feet) standard for parking gate space used by the A380. Even the Federal Inspection Service (Customs and Immigration) areas were expanded so they could easily accommodate the influx of 500+ passengers per plane. A recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on accommodating larger airliners at US airports notes that SFO only needs to spend about US$70 million to make the airport fully A380-compatible, with the primary cost being runway exit ramp widening to accommodate the wider stance of the A380.
In short, once the A380 starts its flight testing phase don't be surprised that the plane is a fairly frequent visitor to SFO because SFO could be used as a reference standard for A380 airport compatibility.
Mind you, Boeing did this back in the 1960's
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
While Airbus' new assembly buildings for the A380 superjumbo airliner are impressive, don't forget that Boeing had to do the exact same thing some 37 years ago when the 747 airliner project was launched.
In a way, Boeing's project was more ambitious because they had to do the following:
1. Expand what was then a small regional airfield (Paine Field) to accommodate the production line for the 747, including new longer runways.
2. Expand the parking ramp to enormous size to accommodate 747's in the final completion stage after being rolled out of the assembly line.
3. Build the world's roomiest assembly buildings and a huge paintshop building that could paint a completed 747.
4. Upgrade the ship ports in the nearby city of Everett, WA to accommodate 747 parts, including fuselage sections.
5. Build a special railroad spur line to the assembly plant, with one of the steepest gradients ever attempted for a non-cog line railroad.
And all that construction mentioned above had to be done with the Pacific Northwest's notoriously rainy weather.
What Airbus is doing at Toulouse and Hamburg are pretty much just extensions to their current large assembly plants--nothing akin to what Boeing had to do from scratch to create the 747 assembly line.
Linux went mainstream when IBM supported it
on
The Linux Uprising
·
· Score: 1
I think the turning point for Linux going mainstream is when IBM spent over US$1 billion to port Linux to work on IBM's mainframe and AS/400 systems.
Pushing Linux via small vendors is one thing, but when it has official IBM sanction, that's quite something else. I can probably safely say that IBM is probably the most important Linux supporter in the world right now because of IBM's name recognition among the Fortune 500 crowd.
Both Honda and Toyota are working on scaling up their hybrid drivetrain technologies for more powerful applications down the road. Already, rumors abound of the replacement of the Acura RL luxury sedan possibly including a model that has a variant of the Honda Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid drive system with 200 bhp gasoline and 100 bhp electric motor! Imagine getting something like 35-40% better fuel mileage than what the current Acura RL can do.
I'm surprised the article does not mention the Honda Civic Hybrid.
Unlike the Toyota Prius, the Civic Hybrid is much more like a real car, since the Civic Hybrid is based on the standard Honda Civic four-door sedan. Also, Honda designed the car so its interior amenities and general driving feel is almost the same as the gasoline-only Civic sedan, so it doesn't have the quirky feel of the Prius with its somewhat strange instrument panel.
First, make sure the 300A is running at 450MHz (why wouldn't you run those CPUs at 450?).
Be very careful about overclocking Celeron A 300 MHz CPU's. Some motherboards don't like to be setup this way, make VERY sure you have proper CPU cooling, and make sure there is adequate ventilation of hot air away from the CPU.
Then, make sure you're running older versions of your DVD playback software (WinDVD 2.x, for example).
I'd recommend WinDVD 3.x versions and PowerDVD XP 4.0, because they are better compatible with today's DVD's.
Next, make sure your video card has at least DVD playback assist (a Voodoo3/TNT card will do fine).
Wrongo. Get at least an ATI Rage 128 chipset card (XPert 128, XPert 2000 and Rage Fury), because you want both Hardward Motion Compensation (HWMC) and Inverse Discrete Cosine Transform (iDCT) to lower CPU usage by as much as 45%, critically important for slower CPU's.
NEXT, make absolutely sure you have enough RAM to avoid disk swapping.
You want at least 128 MB of RAM installed for this to happen.
Finally, make sure you're running Win95/98, and close out all programs but your DVD playback program.
Yep. It's a good idea to disable any software firewall programs like ZoneAlarm or antivirus programs like McAfee VirusScan in order to free up as much CPU cycles as possible to process DVD playback.
Actually, the Celeron A 300 MHz CPU is barely sufficient to do DVD playback--and that's assumming you have an ATI graphics card with the Rage 128 or Radeon chipset.
For decent all software DVD playback, it's probably better to get at least Celeron A 466 MHz CPU at minimum; given that WinDVD 4.0 and PowerDVD XP 4.0 support all the known CPU multimedia extensions (AMD's 3DNow! and 3DNow! Professional, Intel's MMX, SSE/SSE2), a Coppermine-core Celeron 566 MHz (which has both MMX and SSE extensions) is a more appropriate minimum CPU for decently smooth DVD playback.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree in regards to the MMX and SSE/SSE2 extensions on Intel CPU's.
These extensions were designed specifically to speed up operation of multimedia programs, something that Microsoft and lot of software publishers wanted for some time. I mean look at Windows Media Player, RealPlayer and its successor RealOne, software DVD players, video editing programs, image editing programs, etc.--all of them take advantage of MMX and SSE/SSE2 extensions. Even on the Macintosh side, Motorola added the AltiVec registers specifically to speed up multimedia processing on Mac's.
The big problem with Intel's Itanium CPU is the fact to get the best performance you have to program in Itanium native mode, which is VERY different than what you get on a x86-class CPU. Small wonder why the amount of software available of Itanium CPU's are still relatively small.
However, you're referring to the Itanium compatible version of Windows XP.
I'm referring to the Athlon 64/Opteron compatible version of Windows XP, which is probably in the development phase currently.
3) Windows will finally release a 64 bit OS (also note: they could have done this YEARS ago under Alpha, but didn't - Windows NT under Alpha only could access a 32 bit address space.) Microsoft will hail this as a revolutionary breakthrough - "Windows AYCABTU is the first 64 bit OS for the home user!" *nix and Apple users will scratch their heads in puzzlement.
We know that Microsoft actually bothered to write an Itanium-native 64-bit version of Windows XP Professional; it doesn't take much to figure out that Microsoft is right now coding an Athlon 64/Opteron 64-bit native version of Windows XP. My guess is that Windows XP for the Athlon 64 will be released commercially about the same time as the Athlon 64 is released (circa September 2003).
Little late asking that question.
I've heard that Microsoft is developing an Athlon 64/Opteron native version of Windows XP; if that is true then gaming companies involved with PC-based games may be already creating games that run in native Athlon 64/Opteron 64-bit mode under Windows XP as I type this.
I think Intel is currently dismissing 64-bit computing except for specialized needs because the vast majority of current mainstream software doesn't support 64-bit operations.
But I think that will change almost overnight once operating software that supports the Athlon 64/Opteron becomes widely available. We know that Linux is being ported to run in native Athlon 64/Opteron mode as I type this; I also believe that Microsoft is working on an Athlon 64/Opteron compatible version of Windows XP that will be available by time the Athlon 64 is released in circa September 2003 (we won't see the production version of Windows Longhorn until at least the late spring of 2004 (IMHO), well after the new AMD CPU's become widely available).
Let me ask you this question: why is it that Rush Limbaugh's web site with its US$39.95 per year Rush 24/7 premium content service is a major moneymaker? Is it because Americans want more conservative views and are willing to pay for it?
The increasing aversion to liberal views in the USA is a good reason why liberal premium content sites like Salon.com are heading towards F***** Company status, if you get my gist.
The real reason you can hear the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CDDA is because the studios are putting a lot more effort into the mastering process for the new formats. They want the audiophiles to hear the difference. They want people to believe the technology is actually an improvement, when in reality it's just a better mastering for an individual disc.
They BETTER master a SACD or DVD Audio disc correctly because we are talking about new formats with a signal-to-noise ratio of over 110 dB and left-to-right separation probably almost as large, and one wrong move during the mastering process is going to result in audiable gaffes that stand out like a sore thumb.
I still have a couple of digitally-mastered CD's of symphony orchestras, and frankly, the early ones were not exactly fun to listen to because the strong treble frequency energy of a large section of violins sound quite harsh and it gets to you after a while.
I've listened to a xylophone "live" and a CD recording of an xylophone and the CD recording was not exactly fun to listen to because the higher notes sounded a bit harsh.
Small wonder why when the tecnnology became available at a practical price the Sony SACD and Panasonic DVD Audio formats were developed.
While LP's do sound great on the first play, you do have to remember that by definition LP's are a physical contact music storage format, which means both the LP disc and phono cartridge needle will wear out sooner or later even if you use very expensive cleaning methods mentioned by other posters.
Besides, you have two other issues with LP's--the signal-to-noise ratio is at best 65-68 dB (while CD's are in the 95 dB range), and left-to-right separation for LP's is at best 30 dB (while CD's are more like 92-95 dB).
The limitations of the original 44.1 KHz sampling frequency for the Compact Disc format is the reason why we're seeing the advent of the Sony Super Audio CD and Panasonic DVD Audio formats. Since both SACD and DVD Audio digitally sample at vastly higher rates than the CD format, the result is vastly clearer reproduction of musical instruments with lots of treble frequency energy such as pianos, woodwind instruments, trumpets, coronets, chimes, and cymbals. I've heard SACD discs and the sound quality is nothing short of amazing, with sound quality so clear you'd swear you listening to a live band or orchestra.
But that kludge actually came out okay because the larger box meant more space for better artwork on the front of the box and better blurb information on the back of the box.
Yeah but on the other hand the "vast majority of people" aren't listening to symphonic orchestras! How different does pop culture music sound?
If you're talking a standard rock band, music on SACD or DVD Audio will still sound better because a lot of today's rock music has a lot of treble frequency energy, and having clearer treble sampling results in much clearer sound.
Oh, I should add that trumpet and coronet brass instruments also benefit from the clear treble sound of the new formats, too.
The extra quality benefit of the CD will not (unfortunately) be enough to lure people to immediately rush out and buy new equipment. Personally, I would love to have better sound audio, but I'm not prepared to pay the (currently) huge premium to have it.
Actually, back in the 1980's there were a LOT of people looking forward to getting Compact Discs. You have to remember compared to LP turntables, CD's offered the following advantages:
1. It didn't require lots of finicky setup to get it working correctly.
2. Cared for properly, CD's way, way, outlasted LP discs.
3. CD's didn't suffer from wow and flutter, background hiss and low frequency turntable rumble.
4. The storage requirements for CD's was much smaller than LP's.
Sure, the early CD's did sound a bit harsh in the treble frequencies but careful mastering by recording engineers more or less overcame that issue.
It is that convenient size factor that has allowed DVD's to take off in popularity; the MCA/Philips Laserdisc and RCA Selectavision disc formats didn't become widely popular due to fairly stiff storage requirements, while in contrast DVD's same size factor as CD's made them very popular even though most DVD packaging is about 25% larger than CD's.
I think the entire problem boils down to this: Compact Discs are just too expensive in terms of bang for the buck for today's consumers.
Let's face it: consumers will balk at shelling out US$18 per album-length audio CD; at these prices there is just too much economic incentive to pirate music, to say the least. Even at US$20 per disc, DVD's are usually a better deal because not only do you get a full-length movie, but often you get lots of background material on the production of the movie, deleted scenes, commentary tracks by the director/actors, and so on.
Take for example the four-disc Extended Edition DVD set of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which you can get for around US$30 at most discount retailers. You not only get superior picture quality, but two different top-quality audio tracks (Dolby Digital EX and DTS-ES), FOUR audio commentary tracks, and two Supplementary discs with so much information it would take days to view them all even quickly. This is something no audio CD can hope to match, that's to be sure.
Now, if album-length CD's were priced at US$11 per disc, then the incentive for consumers for buy the disc goes way up and the incentive to pirate music goes way down.
I respectfully disagree on this.
Listen to a recording of a regular symphonic orchestra on a normal Compact Disc and then listen to a recording of a symphonic orchestra with SACD or DVD Audio disc; the CD recording sounds quite harsh because at treble frequencies as CD's doesn't sample the higher frequencies smoothly. Because SACD and DVD Audio can sample treble frequencies far more cleanly, the result is that the harshness of the violin, woodwind instruments and cymbals are missing, resulting in a more natural sound; that's why some people have noted that SACD and DVD Audio discs have a warmer sound due to the lack of treble frequency harshness.
However, jumbo jets do make sense for this reason: as part of improved environmental protections airports will start to impose slot restrictions (e.g., limiting the number of takeoffs and landings per day) in order to reduce air pollution and noise impact on local communities. Since you can only fly in and out of airports so many times per day, that means the only way to get more passenger growth in the future is to fly larger and larger planes on longer international routes.
Some airports such as London Heathrow (LHR) in England, Frankfurt-am-Main (FRA) in Germany, New York City John F. Kennedy (JFK), Chicago O'Hare (ORD), Los Angeles International (LAX), San Francisco International (SFO) in the USA, Tokyo Narita (NRT) in Japan and Sydney Kingsford International (SYD) in Australia are already reaching this point; the easiest solution is to fly in bigger and bigger planes. It's not surprising that Boeing 747's are common sights at these airports.
I think what makes the Toyota Prius particularly quirky is the instrument panel of the car--it is essentially a small electronic display on the top center of the front dash supplemented by a CRT-like display. This is definitely quite different than what you see on just about every other automobile.
Actually, Airbus is designing the A380 so it meets the extremely strict British Quiet Craft 2 (QC2) standard, which is actually 2 dB quieter than the extremely strict ICAO Stage IV standard for engine noise emissions that will come into force in 2006.
In short, the A380 will be quieter than today's A320 small jet for takeoffs and landings!
They're going to need planes the size of the A380 anyway by 2010 for this reason: slot control restrictions at many airports for air and noise pollution control reasons.
That means fewer flights per day into many airports, and the only way to accommodate future passenger growth with few flights per day into airports is to buy bigger planes. This will lead to Boeing finally building an airliner using blended-wing body configuration, which will allow 600-800 passengers per plane flying at Mach 0.86 up to 9,000 nautical miles.
This is where the 2000 opening of San Francisco International Airport's (SFO) new International Terminal has proved to be much more visionary than people think.
Because the terminal was built in the late 1990's when what was then the Airbus A3XX project was well-advanced, the architects of the new terminal were able to design gates at the end of Concourses A and G (the two concourses that are the International gates) to conform to the 80 x 80 meter (262 x 262 feet) standard for parking gate space used by the A380. Even the Federal Inspection Service (Customs and Immigration) areas were expanded so they could easily accommodate the influx of 500+ passengers per plane. A recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on accommodating larger airliners at US airports notes that SFO only needs to spend about US$70 million to make the airport fully A380-compatible, with the primary cost being runway exit ramp widening to accommodate the wider stance of the A380.
In short, once the A380 starts its flight testing phase don't be surprised that the plane is a fairly frequent visitor to SFO because SFO could be used as a reference standard for A380 airport compatibility.
While Airbus' new assembly buildings for the A380 superjumbo airliner are impressive, don't forget that Boeing had to do the exact same thing some 37 years ago when the 747 airliner project was launched.
In a way, Boeing's project was more ambitious because they had to do the following:
1. Expand what was then a small regional airfield (Paine Field) to accommodate the production line for the 747, including new longer runways.
2. Expand the parking ramp to enormous size to accommodate 747's in the final completion stage after being rolled out of the assembly line.
3. Build the world's roomiest assembly buildings and a huge paintshop building that could paint a completed 747.
4. Upgrade the ship ports in the nearby city of Everett, WA to accommodate 747 parts, including fuselage sections.
5. Build a special railroad spur line to the assembly plant, with one of the steepest gradients ever attempted for a non-cog line railroad.
And all that construction mentioned above had to be done with the Pacific Northwest's notoriously rainy weather.
What Airbus is doing at Toulouse and Hamburg are pretty much just extensions to their current large assembly plants--nothing akin to what Boeing had to do from scratch to create the 747 assembly line.
I think the turning point for Linux going mainstream is when IBM spent over US$1 billion to port Linux to work on IBM's mainframe and AS/400 systems.
Pushing Linux via small vendors is one thing, but when it has official IBM sanction, that's quite something else. I can probably safely say that IBM is probably the most important Linux supporter in the world right now because of IBM's name recognition among the Fortune 500 crowd.
They're coming.
Both Honda and Toyota are working on scaling up their hybrid drivetrain technologies for more powerful applications down the road. Already, rumors abound of the replacement of the Acura RL luxury sedan possibly including a model that has a variant of the Honda Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid drive system with 200 bhp gasoline and 100 bhp electric motor! Imagine getting something like 35-40% better fuel mileage than what the current Acura RL can do.
I'm surprised the article does not mention the Honda Civic Hybrid.
Unlike the Toyota Prius, the Civic Hybrid is much more like a real car, since the Civic Hybrid is based on the standard Honda Civic four-door sedan. Also, Honda designed the car so its interior amenities and general driving feel is almost the same as the gasoline-only Civic sedan, so it doesn't have the quirky feel of the Prius with its somewhat strange instrument panel.
Some comments about your remarks:
First, make sure the 300A is running at 450MHz (why wouldn't you run those CPUs at 450?).
Be very careful about overclocking Celeron A 300 MHz CPU's. Some motherboards don't like to be setup this way, make VERY sure you have proper CPU cooling, and make sure there is adequate ventilation of hot air away from the CPU.
Then, make sure you're running older versions of your DVD playback software (WinDVD 2.x, for example).
I'd recommend WinDVD 3.x versions and PowerDVD XP 4.0, because they are better compatible with today's DVD's.
Next, make sure your video card has at least DVD playback assist (a Voodoo3/TNT card will do fine).
Wrongo. Get at least an ATI Rage 128 chipset card (XPert 128, XPert 2000 and Rage Fury), because you want both Hardward Motion Compensation (HWMC) and Inverse Discrete Cosine Transform (iDCT) to lower CPU usage by as much as 45%, critically important for slower CPU's.
NEXT, make absolutely sure you have enough RAM to avoid disk swapping.
You want at least 128 MB of RAM installed for this to happen.
Finally, make sure you're running Win95/98, and close out all programs but your DVD playback program.
Yep. It's a good idea to disable any software firewall programs like ZoneAlarm or antivirus programs like McAfee VirusScan in order to free up as much CPU cycles as possible to process DVD playback.
Actually, the Celeron A 300 MHz CPU is barely sufficient to do DVD playback--and that's assumming you have an ATI graphics card with the Rage 128 or Radeon chipset.
For decent all software DVD playback, it's probably better to get at least Celeron A 466 MHz CPU at minimum; given that WinDVD 4.0 and PowerDVD XP 4.0 support all the known CPU multimedia extensions (AMD's 3DNow! and 3DNow! Professional, Intel's MMX, SSE/SSE2), a Coppermine-core Celeron 566 MHz (which has both MMX and SSE extensions) is a more appropriate minimum CPU for decently smooth DVD playback.