That really isn't true anymore. There used to be separate Mac and PC models, the Mac used HFS+, The PC version used FAT32.
FAT32 is the default file system for Apple iPod now, unless you reformat it. If you do have a Mac, reformatting it and putting Journaled HFS+ isn't that bad of an idea, though journaling itself isn't totally necessary.
The iPod line was changing quicker than HP was getting updated models, currently a sub-generation behind with just getting the 30GB Photo in and Apple cut it from their own line, I think that's about a three or so month delay.
As the Register article points out, it points out that HP really wasn't about "invent", despite their logo.
Yep, any leak will be investigated unless the leak was perpetrated by a politician or the office of a person in the leading political party. In other words, might makes right.
That, and patenting business models and methods? Is that even constitutional? I don't think it follows the spirit anyway, though the same goes for the current 95 year copyright span, it isn't what I would consider "limited" protection, that protection shouldn't be extened by five years every five years, that's basically unlimited to me. Both would seem to stifle innovation rather than promote it. The point of the protections was not to protect specific companies but to enhance innovation.
I bought a Tapwave a few weeks ago. It's a pretty solid design, and for the price I paid, nothing beat it. It does everything I wanted it to do. I don't really play games, but using the stylus to play card games is genius. It can handle quite a lot of media, just about anything I throw at it, including video. The form factor is quite a bit smaller than PSP in thickness and width, and uses SD cards, with dual slots. The PSP has a single memory slot of a more expensive format and the disc drive is currently useless without a home recorder.
I think the company may be right to try to prevent the transfer of knowledge to another employer, but I don't think that necessarily means they are right to prevent the transfer of employment.
Yes. The HD-DVD laser is currently the same wavelength as Blu-Ray. The focusing mechanisms are a little different though, I hope not too different that both formats can't be unified within the same head should the format war actually hit the streets.
The "fight" over the standards seems to be a lot about which group will win out over the format royalties. The DVD consortium gets $20 for every set-top DVD player, and I think they get a tiny bit of money for every pressed DVD, I'm not totally sure.
I'd rather put that memory on the main board as conventional RAM. All current operating systems cache files in RAM before going to swap, provided it has the capacity.
The only inhibitor is RAM slots on the main board, but a lot of current boards can take 8GB of RAM.
Given that the Powermac G5s are positioned as pseudo-workstations given the price and configurations, I wouldn't be surprised if they used Xeons. All of Intel's CPU lines is supposedly going dual core by the end of 2006, though maybe Celeron will be delayed, I really haven't checked the roadmaps lately. I would expect the Intel equivalent of PowerMacs to be dual cpus, each CPU being dual core.
One of the big things that make Powermacs not workstation computers is the lack of ECC memory ability, at least the manual says ECC won't work. Another big thing is the inability to use the special features of nV Quadro and ATI Fire graphics cards series, both of which are industry standard for workstations.
The designer of custom computers says that going general purpose is a bad idea? Say it isn't so.
I think Cray had their chance, many times. They succeeded many times but also failed many times. There are certainly drawbacks to cheap modular supercomputers (read: clusters), but the cost of a true supercomputer is so high that not many universities, governments or corporations can afford them or justify spending the difference.
The problem is that the cost of developing custom computer chips (CPUs and supporting chipsets)m associated custom operating systems and other software is astronomical, and that the market for supercomputers is so competitive and so slim that there isn't much to spread the R&D over, and they so often end up losing money.
The other current top performers are PowerPC, Itanium and Opterons. Maybe not vanilla processors but not custom either.
BlueGene's PPC chips ARE custom for that line of computer, though VTech's Mac cluster is pretty much off-the-shelf.
Itanium isn't custom they are not hard to get, just that there isn't much demand. I think they are kind of nifty, though not competitive for general server use, might be OK for supercomputers, and has high-availability features not found in Xeon and Opteron.
I'm not sure if there is anything special about Opterons now, other than having more hypertransport links, and being special binned parts to take higher temperatures and consume less wattage than a comparable Athlon64, much like Xeon is to Pentium4. I think 1xx Opterions are basically the same as Athlon64.
Maybe now, but not in all points of the past. Back in the mid-K7 era, there were times where there weren't any excellent chipsets for AMD. The leading choice was VIA, which really didn't sound like a good idea given their history of compatibility problems and non-compliance with PCI bus mastering. AMD made solid chipsets but they really didn't keep up with memory technologies. At least now, nVidia chipsets are available for AMD.
I don't care about FM. I don't know why some people call it a feature on an MP3 player. If a person thought that FM was worthwhile, why buy an MP3 player? It's just not on any list of features I care about. I have a couple home theater recievers, I think they get their name because an AM/FM reciever is built in, but I never use them. Same goes for cars. I'd use the FM tuner on a car only because most radio makers don't bother to put a proper line-in on their radios.
A screen is important though, but I doubt a.8" diagonal screen is going to be worthwhile on this cube player.
No. Sorry. You can't just compare the two. I seem to remember something about apples and oranges?
There are costs with making laptops that don't exist for desktops. Fabbing for power efficiency is more expensive. If it weren't more expensive, all those technologies would be in desktops too. Laptop drives have to be able to withstand many more starts and stops than desktop drives. The displays must be extremely thin, less than 1/4" thick and a lot more power efficient, so you can't just compare that cost with desktop displays.
That, and a LOT more stores have $500 laptops than you give credit for.
I doubt such an ISP allows reselling of bandwidth. No consumer-grade service allows this in the TOS, a carrier grade connection is required because, as the previous poster noted, you are reselling an oversold connection. A carrier grade connection is a guaranteed bandwidth connection, meaning not oversold.
A lot of the reason the first ISP in question is expensive is because they have to buy a carrier grade connection and resell that, and it basically cannibalizes their ability to pay for the carrier connection.
Besides, undercutting the competition using that competition's service, without paying for the rights to do so isn't a fair thing to do, as I noted above, it's actually being parasitic. The fair thing to do would be to buy a proper carrier connection, then resell it.
I think the best way to install a wisp is still with WRT54G.
I've tried with this unit and I disagree. The radio is weak. There aren't any store-bought wireless networking units that have a sufficient radio for easy long distance.
One thing I've learned is that different Western countries abide by different concepts. The US concept of common carrier might not be the same in Canada.
The cost/benefit point for processor caches is about 1MB or less. A 2MB cache CPU is maybe a percent or two faster than the same CPU with 1MB CPU. A 1MB cache CPU is maybe a percent or so faster than the same CPU with 512k cache. Except for commercial uses, the benefit of doubling cache is almost certainly not worth the extra money that the CPU makers ask.
For drives, from what I've seen, doubling cache rarely nets more than a low single digit in real-world speed increase.
You misunderstand me. I did NOT dismiss the processor cache as useless. Just that after a certain point, there is no point in increasing it.
That is an old and invalid example, the invalidity isn't necessarily because it is old.
K6-II / K6-III doesn't apply because the basic cache arcitecture is different. for II, the cache was expected to be on the main board, outside the FSB, for III, the cache was put on-die, inside the FSB.
For more relevant comparisons, see the comparison between 512MB and 1MB cache Athlon64s, or the Pentium M with 2MB cache against the same clock Celeraon M with 1MB cache.
It is reccomended reading. In fact, SATA-II is renamed SATA-IO, but it is a official standard.
Why? SATA-II is an obvious successor name. SATA-IO doesn't communicate that fact, or anything else, IMO. I expect another batch of confusion like extended RAM/expanded RAM, PCI-express/ PCI-eXtended and so on
Slashdot Mirror
That really isn't true anymore. There used to be separate Mac and PC models, the Mac used HFS+, The PC version used FAT32.
FAT32 is the default file system for Apple iPod now, unless you reformat it. If you do have a Mac, reformatting it and putting Journaled HFS+ isn't that bad of an idea, though journaling itself isn't totally necessary.
The iPod line was changing quicker than HP was getting updated models, currently a sub-generation behind with just getting the 30GB Photo in and Apple cut it from their own line, I think that's about a three or so month delay.
As the Register article points out, it points out that HP really wasn't about "invent", despite their logo.
and this article doesn't matter...
In truth, not a whole lot of the articles posted on slashdot really matter. Why I keep coming here is a mystery, maybe I should form a slash-anon.
Yep, any leak will be investigated unless the leak was perpetrated by a politician or the office of a person in the leading political party. In other words, might makes right.
I'm going home, you fscking maroon.
Ouuuch. Calling someone a dark shade of red is fightin' words.
That, and patenting business models and methods? Is that even constitutional? I don't think it follows the spirit anyway, though the same goes for the current 95 year copyright span, it isn't what I would consider "limited" protection, that protection shouldn't be extened by five years every five years, that's basically unlimited to me. Both would seem to stifle innovation rather than promote it. The point of the protections was not to protect specific companies but to enhance innovation.
I think what you are looking for is the AMD Turion?
My impression is that Turion os a comparable AMD alternative.
I bought a Tapwave a few weeks ago. It's a pretty solid design, and for the price I paid, nothing beat it. It does everything I wanted it to do. I don't really play games, but using the stylus to play card games is genius. It can handle quite a lot of media, just about anything I throw at it, including video. The form factor is quite a bit smaller than PSP in thickness and width, and uses SD cards, with dual slots. The PSP has a single memory slot of a more expensive format and the disc drive is currently useless without a home recorder.
I think the company may be right to try to prevent the transfer of knowledge to another employer, but I don't think that necessarily means they are right to prevent the transfer of employment.
All the new formats require multiple lasers.
Yes. The HD-DVD laser is currently the same wavelength as Blu-Ray. The focusing mechanisms are a little different though, I hope not too different that both formats can't be unified within the same head should the format war actually hit the streets.
The "fight" over the standards seems to be a lot about which group will win out over the format royalties. The DVD consortium gets $20 for every set-top DVD player, and I think they get a tiny bit of money for every pressed DVD, I'm not totally sure.
Superdrive wasn't in the stock models at all, it was (and still is?) a build to order option.
I'd rather put that memory on the main board as conventional RAM. All current operating systems cache files in RAM before going to swap, provided it has the capacity.
The only inhibitor is RAM slots on the main board, but a lot of current boards can take 8GB of RAM.
Given that the Powermac G5s are positioned as pseudo-workstations given the price and configurations, I wouldn't be surprised if they used Xeons. All of Intel's CPU lines is supposedly going dual core by the end of 2006, though maybe Celeron will be delayed, I really haven't checked the roadmaps lately. I would expect the Intel equivalent of PowerMacs to be dual cpus, each CPU being dual core.
One of the big things that make Powermacs not workstation computers is the lack of ECC memory ability, at least the manual says ECC won't work. Another big thing is the inability to use the special features of nV Quadro and ATI Fire graphics cards series, both of which are industry standard for workstations.
The designer of custom computers says that going general purpose is a bad idea? Say it isn't so.
I think Cray had their chance, many times. They succeeded many times but also failed many times. There are certainly drawbacks to cheap modular supercomputers (read: clusters), but the cost of a true supercomputer is so high that not many universities, governments or corporations can afford them or justify spending the difference.
The problem is that the cost of developing custom computer chips (CPUs and supporting chipsets)m associated custom operating systems and other software is astronomical, and that the market for supercomputers is so competitive and so slim that there isn't much to spread the R&D over, and they so often end up losing money.
The other current top performers are PowerPC, Itanium and Opterons. Maybe not vanilla processors but not custom either.
BlueGene's PPC chips ARE custom for that line of computer, though VTech's Mac cluster is pretty much off-the-shelf.
Itanium isn't custom they are not hard to get, just that there isn't much demand. I think they are kind of nifty, though not competitive for general server use, might be OK for supercomputers, and has high-availability features not found in Xeon and Opteron.
I'm not sure if there is anything special about Opterons now, other than having more hypertransport links, and being special binned parts to take higher temperatures and consume less wattage than a comparable Athlon64, much like Xeon is to Pentium4. I think 1xx Opterions are basically the same as Athlon64.
Never?
Maybe now, but not in all points of the past. Back in the mid-K7 era, there were times where there weren't any excellent chipsets for AMD. The leading choice was VIA, which really didn't sound like a good idea given their history of compatibility problems and non-compliance with PCI bus mastering. AMD made solid chipsets but they really didn't keep up with memory technologies. At least now, nVidia chipsets are available for AMD.
I don't care about FM. I don't know why some people call it a feature on an MP3 player. If a person thought that FM was worthwhile, why buy an MP3 player? It's just not on any list of features I care about. I have a couple home theater recievers, I think they get their name because an AM/FM reciever is built in, but I never use them. Same goes for cars. I'd use the FM tuner on a car only because most radio makers don't bother to put a proper line-in on their radios.
.8" diagonal screen is going to be worthwhile on this cube player.
A screen is important though, but I doubt a
No. Sorry. You can't just compare the two. I seem to remember something about apples and oranges?
There are costs with making laptops that don't exist for desktops. Fabbing for power efficiency is more expensive. If it weren't more expensive, all those technologies would be in desktops too. Laptop drives have to be able to withstand many more starts and stops than desktop drives. The displays must be extremely thin, less than 1/4" thick and a lot more power efficient, so you can't just compare that cost with desktop displays.
That, and a LOT more stores have $500 laptops than you give credit for.
I doubt such an ISP allows reselling of bandwidth. No consumer-grade service allows this in the TOS, a carrier grade connection is required because, as the previous poster noted, you are reselling an oversold connection. A carrier grade connection is a guaranteed bandwidth connection, meaning not oversold.
A lot of the reason the first ISP in question is expensive is because they have to buy a carrier grade connection and resell that, and it basically cannibalizes their ability to pay for the carrier connection.
Besides, undercutting the competition using that competition's service, without paying for the rights to do so isn't a fair thing to do, as I noted above, it's actually being parasitic. The fair thing to do would be to buy a proper carrier connection, then resell it.
I think the best way to install a wisp is still with WRT54G.
I've tried with this unit and I disagree. The radio is weak. There aren't any store-bought wireless networking units that have a sufficient radio for easy long distance.
One thing I've learned is that different Western countries abide by different concepts. The US concept of common carrier might not be the same in Canada.
The cost/benefit point for processor caches is about 1MB or less. A 2MB cache CPU is maybe a percent or two faster than the same CPU with 1MB CPU. A 1MB cache CPU is maybe a percent or so faster than the same CPU with 512k cache. Except for commercial uses, the benefit of doubling cache is almost certainly not worth the extra money that the CPU makers ask.
For drives, from what I've seen, doubling cache rarely nets more than a low single digit in real-world speed increase.
OK, I mispelled Celeron.
You misunderstand me. I did NOT dismiss the processor cache as useless. Just that after a certain point, there is no point in increasing it.
That is an old and invalid example, the invalidity isn't necessarily because it is old.
K6-II / K6-III doesn't apply because the basic cache arcitecture is different. for II, the cache was expected to be on the main board, outside the FSB, for III, the cache was put on-die, inside the FSB.
For more relevant comparisons, see the comparison between 512MB and 1MB cache Athlon64s, or the Pentium M with 2MB cache against the same clock Celeraon M with 1MB cache.
It is reccomended reading. In fact, SATA-II is renamed SATA-IO, but it is a official standard.
Why? SATA-II is an obvious successor name. SATA-IO doesn't communicate that fact, or anything else, IMO. I expect another batch of confusion like extended RAM/expanded RAM, PCI-express/ PCI-eXtended and so on