Wouldn't it be cool if affordable PC hardware came in a variety of form factors other than ATX? I think that there currently is a market for DIY rack mounts and DIY set-top boxes. Unfortunately it is hard to find MBs and expansion cards that are small enough.
The P4 has a die that is almost twice as large as that of the Athlon (217 mm2 vs 120), so it should cost at least twice as much to manufacture. This will cut into the profitability of the P4. Now that I think about it Intel must be making will be leaning heavily on their server and mobile chips for profit margin. The P4 will be a loss-leader used to screw AMD out of profits.
Actually Intel lost 4% of their market share, which is a lot of processors. You are right in that people don't necessarily listen to experts, but they do look at a price and a Mhz and if the Athlon system costs less than the Intel then bye bye Intel.
Wouldn't each additional IRQ also require an additional pin on the package? And most people don't even use all of the IRQs that they have. Intel would have to increase the cost of their sockets and their chip packages to add more hardware IRQs.
Because Intel is convinced that the problem with memory is bandwidth, and not latency. Hence Rambus, which has more bandwidth per pin at the cost of increased latency.
Building a new computer would be like playing with Legos (whoops, Lego building bricks), everything just snaps together. I have entertained this thought before, and it sure would make things easier. But the main problem is cost. Each bay interface would need to support the maximum possible bandwidth, which would be more expensive. And since each bay would need to accomodate the largest possible device the bays would take up more space than more specialized slots.
Dvorak is right, but comes to wrong conclusion
on
Calling Out TiVo
·
· Score: 1
Actually network TV is supported by commercials and the viewing public is abusing the system by cutting out the ads. And once everyone has enough bandwidth and computing horsepower then people will be swapping Divx-encoded commercial-free TV shows without paying NBC or the NBA or whoever else claims to be entitled to a payoff.
The obvious answer for the networks is to make it as difficult as possible to steal programming. The real answer is to just give up IP and find some other business model, because it's time for a showdown and no network is going to win against millions of dedicated, hardcore IP thieves!
Actually the viewer has quite a lot of control over television. If people don't watch a show then it gets moved to a less popular time slot, or disappears. And if you disagree with the economics of TV then you can simply stop watching, and then you will no longer be a product or a consumer.
The infrastructure of IP is built upon a solid foundation: a person should be rewarded for inventing or writing something that is original and cool. But implementing this good idea is a problem.
The simple fact is that people want to copy stuff without paying for it. This means that implementing IP requires constantly updated security that often infringes on individual rights. And this security is often ineffective because for every expert that is working on security there are thousands of people that want to crack it.
And if IP is worth something then it can be bought and sold, which perverts the original idea. In most cases it is not the creator that is rewarded for an idea. Corporations use their leverage to acquire ideas from individuals and resell them at a premium.
Have you ever actually been in a city? I visit San Francisco from time to time, and driving there is expensive and frustrating. Parking is scarce and everyone drives very poorly. Public transportation is much easier most of the time.
I also have the misfortune of driving a lot in the Silicon Valley. The traffic is horrible, but the public transportation is so bad that I don't have a choice. I for one would be happy to pay more taxes for an effective public transportation system. In fact only the tiny minority of folks that live in the middle of nowhere (such as yourself) would not benefit.
All a reporter has to do to show bias is to pick a subject to report on. Anyone who complains about the bias of the "liberal" mainstream media is ignoring the fact that EVERY source of news in the US that is funded by commercial advertising is biased in that they consistently underreport corporate misdeeds. If people think NPR has a liberal bias they should try a pirate radio station. Our local pirate station seems to be run by straight-up socialists, and it is a nice change of pace even if I disagree with a lot of their views.
Isn't there some corollary to Moore's law that states "No matter how fast the hardware is there are millions of software developers working to bring that hardware to its knees."
I know that I don't need a Ghz processor to run a word processor, but it sure helps when I am running a word processor, browser, MP3 player, regunkulator, etc.
And even in the unlikely event that processors stagnate there is still a lot of work to be done making multiprocessor systems efficient and commonly available. Apple has taken the first step, will anyone else step up to the plate?
PS: I am aware that Linux is capable of using multiple processors, however dual processor MBs are still very expensive.
So USB is slower, requires CPU cycles, and varies in implementation from vendor to vendor... but is integrated into the motherboard. And USB 2.0 will be pretty much the same.
IEEE-1394 is superior in every way, but requires an expensive adapter. Are these feature sets starting to look familiar to folks? It's IDE vs. SCSI all over again. So it looks like USB X.0 will eventually rule the consumer landscape while Firewire stays expensive. Don't forget the first rule of Wintel boxen: cheaper ALWAYS wins.
The nice thing about a cheap desktop is that the ergonomics of a keyboard and 15" screen are so much more useful than any handheld. While I appreciate the geek factor of this device I don't want to pay lots of money for a device that still isn't comfortable enough to be a primary computing device.
No one will argue that a Palm is even in the same class as a PocketPC. However a Palm device can cost $200, and does the things that people want to do with an ergonomically challenged platform. And I doubt that PocketPC will really challenge Palm until they can get the price down.
I also have an unhealthy fascination with computer games, but I have a hard time getting my mid tower and 19" monitor onto a plane, or into a car, or on the crapper. I considered buying a Game Boy Color for a recent plane trip but I couldn't muster the courage to buy a "toy". So instead I have to play Dope Wars on my Palm:)
I think one of the most important accomplishments of the Playstation was to prove that you could market a console to an "older" crowd and be successful, and I hope that Nintendo gets the hint and caters toward older video game junkies with this new portable.
The only bands that make significant cash through album sales are top 40 artists like Britney Spears. Most real musicians support themselves by doing live shows on tour and by selling merchandise. I for one would not mind seeing top 40 wither away and let people choose music because they like it rather than having it shoved down their throats by their friends or the radio.
Imaging a world where musicians use recorded music as a teaser to attract folks to shows. Sure, the music industry would be smaller due to the lack of record sales but most of that revenue goes to A&R reps, label executives and other middle men who don't provide us with music anyway. And no one would complain about taping shows because there's no revenue to lose anyway.
I admit that some good bands would be hurt by this model, but it seems more realistic than escalating the IP wars indefinitely. How many days will it take for "audio stabilizer" boxes to come out ("We do NOT endorse the illegal copying of music, even though our product is designed for that one purpose"). Copy protection is just a way for gray market electronics firms to impose a tax on hardware.
Naturally he is interested in maximizing profit for Nintendo, and their business model has always been predicated on creating top tier exclusive game titles. How many people do you think bought an NES so they could play Zelda or Super Mario Brothers? I know I did. Once I bought that NES then I bought a number of other games, and Nintendo made a licensing profit on each of those games. And licensing is almost pure profit, because Nintendo doesn't have to develop or manufacture anything to make that money.
Broadband support? Networking with 2 TVs? How many households in the US (a land of way too many TVs and excellent network connectivity) have either of these situations? Not enough for any console makers to spend much money supporting these platforms.
I entirely agree with your analysis of the situation, there are obviously two self-interested sides on this issue. However the last thing we should do is sweep this under the table. There are billions of dollars at stake, and I still think that is a lot of money.
The essential problem is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand good software is incredibly expensive, and even crappy software costs a lot. A pirate can easily justify stealing by stating that they would never pay the going price for the software in question.
On the other hand if software was free then a lot of programmers would have to spend their time doing something else to keep eating and living under some sort of roof. This would reduce the supply of good software, and no one wants that.
I sincerely doubt that the IP industry will ever find a way to eliminate all piracy, so the only solution is to find a way to eliminate IP and keep programmers paid.
While I agree that it is worthwhile to see a really good movie in the theater and a decent movie on DVD or VHS rather than a smaller free download, what about the tons of marginal movies out there? Unfortunately the studios do make a lot of movies that folks wouldn't pay for if they didn't have to.
Imagine a movie that has lower quality standards then a straight-to-VHS or made-for-TV movie... Seems like it wouldn't be worth the download.
I have seen comments from a number of people (that apparently didn't read the article) basically stating "English is already the world standard language, why not make it official?"
Now look at programming. Supporters of C might say the same thing - "C is the most common language, why can't everyone else use it?" Or Java - "Java is the easiest language to use, let's make everyone learn it." Even Pascal - "Your bank is probably using it, why shouldn't everyone else?"
The reality is that everyone has their favorite language and uses anything else out of necessity. I prefer Java, but I will use HTML or csh or whatever to get the job done. People feel the same way about their spoken language. They only use second or foreign languages when they have to, and as the rest of the world catches up to the economic and journalistic prosperity of the US people will demand services in their own language, and why shouldn't they?
Now if only someone would come up with a computer language that can do everything:)
Did you actually read the article? Apparently less people than you think speak English, and the thrust of the article is that English won't be the global language, or at least not the version currently spoken.
What motivation will people who already do business in English have to spend months learning Chinese? Look at where Japanese is. Japan has a huge economy that depends on world trade, but the usage of their language has lagged because Japanese cultural prejudice against anything non-Japanese prevents serious market penetration by foreign companies.
China has always been very protective of their domestic industries, and I find it unlikely that they will become the dominant business language unless they open up more.
And even if they do start to get out more I don't think they will become the dominant business language because, like the article says, people want to do business in their own language or one like it. While Chinese will probably compete with Hindi to dominate the Asian marketplace it won't seriously compete with the dominant languages of other regions.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be cool if affordable PC hardware came in a variety of form factors other than ATX? I think that there currently is a market for DIY rack mounts and DIY set-top boxes. Unfortunately it is hard to find MBs and expansion cards that are small enough.
The P4 has a die that is almost twice as large as that of the Athlon (217 mm2 vs 120), so it should cost at least twice as much to manufacture. This will cut into the profitability of the P4. Now that I think about it Intel must be making will be leaning heavily on their server and mobile chips for profit margin. The P4 will be a loss-leader used to screw AMD out of profits.
Actually Intel lost 4% of their market share, which is a lot of processors. You are right in that people don't necessarily listen to experts, but they do look at a price and a Mhz and if the Athlon system costs less than the Intel then bye bye Intel.
Wouldn't each additional IRQ also require an additional pin on the package? And most people don't even use all of the IRQs that they have. Intel would have to increase the cost of their sockets and their chip packages to add more hardware IRQs.
Because Intel is convinced that the problem with memory is bandwidth, and not latency. Hence Rambus, which has more bandwidth per pin at the cost of increased latency.
Building a new computer would be like playing with Legos (whoops, Lego building bricks), everything just snaps together. I have entertained this thought before, and it sure would make things easier. But the main problem is cost. Each bay interface would need to support the maximum possible bandwidth, which would be more expensive. And since each bay would need to accomodate the largest possible device the bays would take up more space than more specialized slots.
The obvious answer for the networks is to make it as difficult as possible to steal programming. The real answer is to just give up IP and find some other business model, because it's time for a showdown and no network is going to win against millions of dedicated, hardcore IP thieves!
Actually the viewer has quite a lot of control over television. If people don't watch a show then it gets moved to a less popular time slot, or disappears. And if you disagree with the economics of TV then you can simply stop watching, and then you will no longer be a product or a consumer.
The simple fact is that people want to copy stuff without paying for it. This means that implementing IP requires constantly updated security that often infringes on individual rights. And this security is often ineffective because for every expert that is working on security there are thousands of people that want to crack it.
And if IP is worth something then it can be bought and sold, which perverts the original idea. In most cases it is not the creator that is rewarded for an idea. Corporations use their leverage to acquire ideas from individuals and resell them at a premium.
I also have the misfortune of driving a lot in the Silicon Valley. The traffic is horrible, but the public transportation is so bad that I don't have a choice. I for one would be happy to pay more taxes for an effective public transportation system. In fact only the tiny minority of folks that live in the middle of nowhere (such as yourself) would not benefit.
I know that I don't need a Ghz processor to run a word processor, but it sure helps when I am running a word processor, browser, MP3 player, regunkulator, etc.
And even in the unlikely event that processors stagnate there is still a lot of work to be done making multiprocessor systems efficient and commonly available. Apple has taken the first step, will anyone else step up to the plate?
PS: I am aware that Linux is capable of using multiple processors, however dual processor MBs are still very expensive.
IEEE-1394 is superior in every way, but requires an expensive adapter. Are these feature sets starting to look familiar to folks? It's IDE vs. SCSI all over again. So it looks like USB X.0 will eventually rule the consumer landscape while Firewire stays expensive. Don't forget the first rule of Wintel boxen: cheaper ALWAYS wins.
I guess ZDNet is not above above a troll or two to generate hits :)
No one will argue that a Palm is even in the same class as a PocketPC. However a Palm device can cost $200, and does the things that people want to do with an ergonomically challenged platform. And I doubt that PocketPC will really challenge Palm until they can get the price down.
I think one of the most important accomplishments of the Playstation was to prove that you could market a console to an "older" crowd and be successful, and I hope that Nintendo gets the hint and caters toward older video game junkies with this new portable.
Imaging a world where musicians use recorded music as a teaser to attract folks to shows. Sure, the music industry would be smaller due to the lack of record sales but most of that revenue goes to A&R reps, label executives and other middle men who don't provide us with music anyway. And no one would complain about taping shows because there's no revenue to lose anyway.
I admit that some good bands would be hurt by this model, but it seems more realistic than escalating the IP wars indefinitely. How many days will it take for "audio stabilizer" boxes to come out ("We do NOT endorse the illegal copying of music, even though our product is designed for that one purpose"). Copy protection is just a way for gray market electronics firms to impose a tax on hardware.
Broadband support? Networking with 2 TVs? How many households in the US (a land of way too many TVs and excellent network connectivity) have either of these situations? Not enough for any console makers to spend much money supporting these platforms.
The essential problem is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand good software is incredibly expensive, and even crappy software costs a lot. A pirate can easily justify stealing by stating that they would never pay the going price for the software in question.
On the other hand if software was free then a lot of programmers would have to spend their time doing something else to keep eating and living under some sort of roof. This would reduce the supply of good software, and no one wants that.
I sincerely doubt that the IP industry will ever find a way to eliminate all piracy, so the only solution is to find a way to eliminate IP and keep programmers paid.
While I agree that it is worthwhile to see a really good movie in the theater and a decent movie on DVD or VHS rather than a smaller free download, what about the tons of marginal movies out there? Unfortunately the studios do make a lot of movies that folks wouldn't pay for if they didn't have to.
Imagine a movie that has lower quality standards then a straight-to-VHS or made-for-TV movie... Seems like it wouldn't be worth the download.
The worst scam is that /. provides links to "useful information" that are in reality 404. End the /. conspiracy!
Now look at programming. Supporters of C might say the same thing - "C is the most common language, why can't everyone else use it?" Or Java - "Java is the easiest language to use, let's make everyone learn it." Even Pascal - "Your bank is probably using it, why shouldn't everyone else?"
The reality is that everyone has their favorite language and uses anything else out of necessity. I prefer Java, but I will use HTML or csh or whatever to get the job done. People feel the same way about their spoken language. They only use second or foreign languages when they have to, and as the rest of the world catches up to the economic and journalistic prosperity of the US people will demand services in their own language, and why shouldn't they? Now if only someone would come up with a computer language that can do everything :)
Did you actually read the article? Apparently less people than you think speak English, and the thrust of the article is that English won't be the global language, or at least not the version currently spoken.
China has always been very protective of their domestic industries, and I find it unlikely that they will become the dominant business language unless they open up more.
And even if they do start to get out more I don't think they will become the dominant business language because, like the article says, people want to do business in their own language or one like it. While Chinese will probably compete with Hindi to dominate the Asian marketplace it won't seriously compete with the dominant languages of other regions.