Except that Columbia TriStar (now Sony), MGM (IIRC, now owned by Sony) and Fox have all announced that they are commiting to Blu-Ray for their movies. IIRC, no major company has commited to putting movies on HD-DVD, although Warner is expected to because they sit on the DVD forum.
IIRC, those three make up for the majority of DVDs being released.
It looks interesting. I think if you try to get too much range and spread them too thin, you might get too many people trying to use any one particular access point.
Another problem is standardization, I think people want it to be an actual part of the 802.11 standard before using it.
802.11b/g works fine for Windows 2000. The Linux support situation is sad though. I really didn't have a problem with XP, but this was just before SP2. I should reinstall XP sometime now that I have more memory.
If you set up a client / bridge box you can pretend it is a wired connection, although your traffic might be sniffable by more people than it would be for a totally wired connection.
I think plasmas are a waste of money though, when the same size screen can be had in a somewhat deeper cabinet at half the cost. Even if plasmas are lighter, how often does it need to be moved? Is it worth paying an extra $2k to save a few kilograms and a few centimeters on a fixed display?
It is probably just a simplified means of describing the type of light source, based on location and dispersion. There is ambient and direct light, for example. Ambient light feels easier on my eyes anyway. Glare feels harsher.
I do hope some form of broader band service is made available.
If MS is using Windows Media Video HD, they'd need a 8Mbps sustained connection to bring it near-real-time. The best I've seen anywhere near me is 3Mbps for DSL, if you are lucky, and close to the CO; and 6Mbps for cable.
Another issue is that the service has to be more stable. With broadcast, if any radio station or transmitter goes down, I can just listen to or watch something else. If this hypothetical fast connection goes down, I can't call anyone without using a mobile phone, watch TV, use the internet, etc.
So that store only had three models that fit your basic criteria. What was wrong with those models?
I wouldn't want a camera phone because they aren't anywhere nearly as good as my standalone digital camera, I doubt a standard mobile phone will ever be as good without a major shift in optical technologies.
I still don't believe that those changes necessated completely scrapping the ATX standard, even the heat sink mounts could have been put in. Make it ATX 3.0 or whatever the next revision would have been.
The new method of positioning and cooling the video card is odd, but nothing that couldn't have been added to ATX just as easily.
I have an ATX based workstation that predates the conception of BTX that actually does similar things to help keep the video and CPU(s) cool.
The specification of CPU location could be added to ATX without having to go to a new standard. PCIe could have used the old ISA slot location such that we could choose whether to fill any given slot with PCIe or PCI, and it would have still fit the "new" cooling methods.
I've looked at it semi-seriously and most of it seems to be only tweaks on ATX while being intentionally incompatibile. Most of those tweaks can and have been done already, and IMO, BTX is mostly unnecessary.
I personally was slow to accept ATX simply because I had a legacy case and didn't want to upgrade for the sake of an upgrade. Now I have a small number of ATX based computers and I don't see the point of scrapping the entire system, possibly save for the drives, just to go to BTX. I bet most BTX boards will be pretty exclusive to PCIe or only provide a minimum of legacy PCI slots. With existing ATX boards and cases, I can at least keep more of my PCI cards becase most of them don't have PCIe equivalents and they still work.
They ought to ditch Xeon entirely, and perhaps even graft the AMD64 instruction set onto this chip.
I believe they will put the x64 set on all their x86 chips, but I doubt they'll dump Xeon. Xeon is mainly a server & workstation rated version of their desktop chip, not some pixie-dust chip.
Part of it is available higher cache, the rest is often better testing for multiprocessing, de-rated chips and they are also the chips that are tested to consume less power of a fab batch. Intel would also introduce features onto Xeon platforms to test them out and see if the market accepts them, such as dual channel memory (I have a PIII Xeon 500MHz with dual channel memory), hyperthreading, EM64T (x64) and so on before rolling it out to the masses.
If they do put a desktop version of Pentium M in the desktop, I would bet they'll make a Xeon M.
I'm with the other person in saying it isn't "dumbed down". Mobile chips are sometimes fabricated differently, and also designed differently so they have a greater power scale-down capabilities that it can shut off unnecessary bits of the chip.
A 2.0GHz Pentium M Dothan can reasonably hold its own against an AMD 3000+ or a P4 3.0GHz.
Decoding MPEG-2 video is something that can be done on any Radeon, and it cuts the CPU load of a high quality encode to a fourth of CPU-only.
I imagine if properly standardized, VC-1 and that H.xxx version of MPEG-4 being put into the next DVD format will be put in too. nVidia needs to get on board with this too.
TI supposedly had a 1080p chip a bit ago, they just didn't think there was a market for it.
There are a few LCD and LCOS projection displays that are available in 1080p and higher resolutions, like 2k x 1.5k. Apple's desktop displays are into this range, the same goes for some other products.
I'm not sure exactly what the frame rate is, but 1080p video needs only to be 24 or 30fps, not 60.
The tasks you name are probably better assigned to non-conventional computing devices.
For many technology improvements, there needs to be an application for it that justifies buying the advancement in order to sell it beyond the few early adopters, life cycle replacers (businesses), those whose computers had finally broken down and are not worth repairing. Even these people don't necessarily get the latest unless it is for research, design, media creation, etc, or the gamers, it seems the ones that have to show how much money they can spend.
4000+ dosen't mean "roughly equivlant to a P4 @ 4.0GHz", but instead "roughly equivlant to a Thunderbird @ 4.0GHz",
I think AMD tries to claim it, but I'm not convinced it is true. I went to a lecture given by an AMD engineer, and he said the processor rating really was based on the equivalent speed Intel product. A problem here is that the vastly different architectures and computer topologies make the different brand CPUs better at different things, butit is an average based on a range of benchmarks.
You have a very good point. IIRC, a lot of 10,000 lumen bulbs are used in multimedia projectors rated 1000 lumens or so, so the video projector manufacturers are at least being honest that the rated light is the output, and not the input. I would think that an overhead panel + overhead machine wouldn't get better efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Columbia TriStar (now Sony), MGM (IIRC, now owned by Sony) and Fox have all announced that they are commiting to Blu-Ray for their movies. IIRC, no major company has commited to putting movies on HD-DVD, although Warner is expected to because they sit on the DVD forum.
IIRC, those three make up for the majority of DVDs being released.
It looks interesting. I think if you try to get too much range and spread them too thin, you might get too many people trying to use any one particular access point.
Another problem is standardization, I think people want it to be an actual part of the 802.11 standard before using it.
802.11b/g works fine for Windows 2000. The Linux support situation is sad though. I really didn't have a problem with XP, but this was just before SP2. I should reinstall XP sometime now that I have more memory.
If you set up a client / bridge box you can pretend it is a wired connection, although your traffic might be sniffable by more people than it would be for a totally wired connection.
I think plasmas are a waste of money though, when the same size screen can be had in a somewhat deeper cabinet at half the cost. Even if plasmas are lighter, how often does it need to be moved? Is it worth paying an extra $2k to save a few kilograms and a few centimeters on a fixed display?
It is probably just a simplified means of describing the type of light source, based on location and dispersion. There is ambient and direct light, for example. Ambient light feels easier on my eyes anyway. Glare feels harsher.
The penile deficiency comment adds an unnecessary element of mockery to an otherwise reasonable post, and it is overused too.
I have that card, or a similar version of it.
I was kind of disappointed with it. It does work.
I am under the impression that you still get best results with an exterior antenna. I have an exterior antenna, but in my attic.
I do hope some form of broader band service is made available.
If MS is using Windows Media Video HD, they'd need a 8Mbps sustained connection to bring it near-real-time. The best I've seen anywhere near me is 3Mbps for DSL, if you are lucky, and close to the CO; and 6Mbps for cable.
Another issue is that the service has to be more stable. With broadcast, if any radio station or transmitter goes down, I can just listen to or watch something else. If this hypothetical fast connection goes down, I can't call anyone without using a mobile phone, watch TV, use the internet, etc.
So that store only had three models that fit your basic criteria. What was wrong with those models?
I wouldn't want a camera phone because they aren't anywhere nearly as good as my standalone digital camera, I doubt a standard mobile phone will ever be as good without a major shift in optical technologies.
Even if you don't have anything to hide, it still doesn't mean it's any of their damn business.
Most or all of the music and movies on my computers are legit.
I'm not sure how using one tracking program is insurance from other tracking programs.
idle and full load system power
A system with Athlon64 3500+ uses 85 watts at idle, others take more power at idle.
I still don't believe that those changes necessated completely scrapping the ATX standard, even the heat sink mounts could have been put in. Make it ATX 3.0 or whatever the next revision would have been.
The new method of positioning and cooling the video card is odd, but nothing that couldn't have been added to ATX just as easily.
I didn't say that ATX didn't have an advantage, but for as long as I had a good case, I couldn't justify tossing it.
Now that I already have a few ATX cases, I'm not absolutely certain BTX is necessary versus a new X.0 revision of ATX to add what BTX does.
I have an ATX based workstation that predates the conception of BTX that actually does similar things to help keep the video and CPU(s) cool.
The specification of CPU location could be added to ATX without having to go to a new standard. PCIe could have used the old ISA slot location such that we could choose whether to fill any given slot with PCIe or PCI, and it would have still fit the "new" cooling methods.
I've looked at it semi-seriously and most of it seems to be only tweaks on ATX while being intentionally incompatibile. Most of those tweaks can and have been done already, and IMO, BTX is mostly unnecessary.
I personally was slow to accept ATX simply because I had a legacy case and didn't want to upgrade for the sake of an upgrade. Now I have a small number of ATX based computers and I don't see the point of scrapping the entire system, possibly save for the drives, just to go to BTX. I bet most BTX boards will be pretty exclusive to PCIe or only provide a minimum of legacy PCI slots. With existing ATX boards and cases, I can at least keep more of my PCI cards becase most of them don't have PCIe equivalents and they still work.
They ought to ditch Xeon entirely, and perhaps even graft the AMD64 instruction set onto this chip.
I believe they will put the x64 set on all their x86 chips, but I doubt they'll dump Xeon. Xeon is mainly a server & workstation rated version of their desktop chip, not some pixie-dust chip.
Part of it is available higher cache, the rest is often better testing for multiprocessing, de-rated chips and they are also the chips that are tested to consume less power of a fab batch. Intel would also introduce features onto Xeon platforms to test them out and see if the market accepts them, such as dual channel memory (I have a PIII Xeon 500MHz with dual channel memory), hyperthreading, EM64T (x64) and so on before rolling it out to the masses.
If they do put a desktop version of Pentium M in the desktop, I would bet they'll make a Xeon M.
I'm with the other person in saying it isn't "dumbed down". Mobile chips are sometimes fabricated differently, and also designed differently so they have a greater power scale-down capabilities that it can shut off unnecessary bits of the chip.
A 2.0GHz Pentium M Dothan can reasonably hold its own against an AMD 3000+ or a P4 3.0GHz.
Decoding MPEG-2 video is something that can be done on any Radeon, and it cuts the CPU load of a high quality encode to a fourth of CPU-only.
I imagine if properly standardized, VC-1 and that H.xxx version of MPEG-4 being put into the next DVD format will be put in too. nVidia needs to get on board with this too.
Given that it is a plug-in, I really don't see what the threat is for a person that doesn't want the feature. Just don't install the plug-in.
TI supposedly had a 1080p chip a bit ago, they just didn't think there was a market for it.
There are a few LCD and LCOS projection displays that are available in 1080p and higher resolutions, like 2k x 1.5k. Apple's desktop displays are into this range, the same goes for some other products.
I'm not sure exactly what the frame rate is, but 1080p video needs only to be 24 or 30fps, not 60.
Why the odd aspect ratio? that is 1.5, not 16:9. the largest resolution HDTV is 1920 x 1080.
Any Radeon can decode MPEG-2 in 1080i without trouble. nVidia chips aren't enabled for this, although they do have the computational power.
Even Microsoft's WMV9 only needs 3GHz equivalent CPU to play 1080p movies.
Opera was several times faster than Mozilla. Firefox was about the same as Mozilla. A page that took 10 in Mozilla and Firefox.
The page took 10 whats? And how many of these whats did Opera take to render it?
I am disappointed that picture save-to-directory like wallpapers in Firefox gobbles CPU and makes the browser unresponsive for a second or two.
The tasks you name are probably better assigned to non-conventional computing devices.
For many technology improvements, there needs to be an application for it that justifies buying the advancement in order to sell it beyond the few early adopters, life cycle replacers (businesses), those whose computers had finally broken down and are not worth repairing. Even these people don't necessarily get the latest unless it is for research, design, media creation, etc, or the gamers, it seems the ones that have to show how much money they can spend.
4000+ dosen't mean "roughly equivlant to a P4 @ 4.0GHz", but instead "roughly equivlant to a Thunderbird @ 4.0GHz",
I think AMD tries to claim it, but I'm not convinced it is true. I went to a lecture given by an AMD engineer, and he said the processor rating really was based on the equivalent speed Intel product. A problem here is that the vastly different architectures and computer topologies make the different brand CPUs better at different things, butit is an average based on a range of benchmarks.
You have a very good point. IIRC, a lot of 10,000 lumen bulbs are used in multimedia projectors rated 1000 lumens or so, so the video projector manufacturers are at least being honest that the rated light is the output, and not the input. I would think that an overhead panel + overhead machine wouldn't get better efficiency.