1. Intel doesn't make any press release saying it does, and AMD's chip launches. Verifying that AMD was the first to deliver.
This is the scenario I believe will be played out if indeed Prescott even has 64-bit extensions and this isn't some story that really IS FUD mongering. It could very well be, afterall.
Intel has no reason to trumpet their technology, as with 3D Now!, Intel can (and probably will) make a comeback and make people say "3D What!?". SSE has mostly stolen whatever thunder AMD had, and as with that, Intel will likely steal the thunder from x86-64 if Intel believes it to be viable and worth pursuit.
Your logic seems flawed.
Based on the history of prior technological revolutions that AMD has pioneered, my logic is in fact far from flawed.
It makes perfect sense that Intel would bide their time and announce product as it becomes available, not months in advance to appear as someone coming late to a party (and if they announced it now, they'd be late to the party, without anything to show anyone). They'll wait until their first Prescott CPU's ship, or just before, to announce anything I predict. And this'll happen pretty soon since the road maps show a Prescott CPU shipping in November.
Yeah no kidding, that was the most misinformed comment I've ever seen. And of course, it got modded up as it deserved!
I read both, but Mike Magee is what made The Register what it was, nowadays when looking for CPU news I tend to follow The Inquirer more. Le Reg is still good for other stories, but ever since he left, their CPU-specific content has been hurting, heh.
Intel does have 64-bit today, it's called Itanium, and it has performance that blows away x86-based CPU's.
The problem of course, is the whole chicken and egg scenario. Not enough "must have" software is targetted towards it. Not until you can buy IA-64 editions of Photoshop, Office, and other "killer apps" will it become a must have in itself.
This type of problem has plagued every major technology platform, from Windows vs. MacOS, BeOS and Linux, to game platforms, and so on.
How exactly do you figure Intel announcing a home 23/64 chip would PUSH AMD's sales?
Because the Prescott CPU's won't be available at the same time as AMD's x86-64-based CPU's. Prescott will come a few months later-- meanwhile, an announcement from Intel of planned 64-bit extensions (whether or not compatible with x86-64) would simply fuel sales of AMD x86-64 CPU's.
Of course it's all a matter of opinion as to how the market would react to an announcement from Intel of 64-bit extensions to the existing x86 ISA being included with Prescott, but I believe it would give AMD fuel to market x86-64, using the "we were first to deliver it, and the pioneers to push forward with it" argument.
So, again, we're back to "the chip is vapor, they're just trying to keep a few people from going AMD in the meantime."
As I said in my original reply, this is irrelevant and I will not debate it. I said, quite clearly, that I'll debate the issue from the assumption that they do indeed have 64-bit extensions in Prescott, and that they're production usable. I could honestly care less either way, because I don't buy AMD (and x86-64 isn't going to sway me in the slightest because Itanium already runs circles around it, and Itanium has been here for years).
Right.. like a General going into battle that's a little short on troops, but has some killer special forces that will hopefully, with surprise, defeat your foes, Intel should just blow their chances away by "trumpeting" their approach and giving away any and all measure of surprise.
I'm not going to debate whether or not Prescott has 64-bit extensions, but assuming it does, and knowing that AMD thinks they have a sure thing, would YOU galavant about like a some idiot who arrived late at a party saying "look at me, look at me, I do 64-bit too!" or would you bide your time, then make the major announcement long after your opponents "shiny new thing(TM)" has had a chance to lose it's luster?
I would.
If Intel thinks they have something that will surprise people, there's NO sense making a big deal out of it and helping PUSH AMD's sales.
DVD burning is OS agnostic last time I checked, so what would testing on Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac prove other than hardware compatibility? (Which, in case you missed the point of the article, OS compatibility was not the topic, set-top and DVD-ROM compatibility was).
I didn't used to have a problem with CCTV until I went to a local Wal-Mart for the first time-- the parking lot was rigged with at least 50 cameras. I obviously can't verify that each one is real, but in this age of cheap hard drives and video recorders, and the fact that Wal-Mart is quite the profitable company, I doubt that they're all decoys.
And that's not counting the cameras IN the store...
As the AC has already said, you've provided no facts to back up your claim that the Macintosh is so prevalent in the professional video editing industry. On the merits, I'd say you were wrong entirely simply because the PC is about on par with a Mac as far as performance goes with video editing.
This is/., not Mac Zealot Central-- preach your "the Mac has big marketshare!" BS to people who'll buy it blindly.
Then you don't know anyone who really does this for a living. My ex-girlfriend is an Avid editor, my best friend is a film maker. Everyone I know in the industry is Mac-based, using either Avid or, more and more, FCP. Apple has something like 70% of this market, and if you work around New York you will almost never see a Wintel system. Premiere is used by home hobbyists or very small businesses who need to pop out a simple, cheap video once and a while.
Your comment suffers from the same issue as the previous posters comments-- you provide no actual data to back up your claims beyond hearsay. Please don't preach your feelings as gospel, because IMHO, I sincerely doubt Mac's claim 80% of the video editing/manipulation market.
But then, this wouldn't be a subject about the Macintosh (and Apple) unless things were overblown with little to no facts to back them up. =)
I'd like to think this has less to do with Harrison and more to do with the tripe he's given to act in. Sure, he could wait for those magical scripts to come along (and the Jack Ryan roles he performed were pretty good, IMHO), but at some point it's nice to have some money coming in. =)
I'm sure another Indiana Jones movie will be right up his alley, and I want to believe it's a role he likes performing.
Just to provide a URL so people can have something to point to (since I wasn't aware it was against credit cards rules to set minimum purchase prices)--
Agreed, and this is precisely what I'd do if I walked out of a shop with something purporting to be a USB 2.0 device. And I'd make sure to tell the store manager to shove his exchanges only policy up his ass.
Yeah, but would they be 100% compatible with NT's internal representation of how ACL's are supposed to work? Highly unlikely, so that would require Microsoft to still embrace and extend, and with the GPL involved, be forced to give out the changes that were necessary to make the open source FS work with an NT-based OS.
I wish I had mod points, because this is troll material through and through. Slashdot has ALWAYS posted stories like this, from the CSS encryption being cracked to NetBSD being booted up on a Dreamcast to the CPS-2 encryption used by Capcom being cracked (I'd provide links, but I don't think I need to for anyone who's read on Slashdot for any reasonable period of time). All posted stories here on Slashdot, all of them never resulted in/. being shut down. In fact, the only story that actually caused a ruckus was a story about those freaks at the L. Ron Hubbard foundation (or whatever it is), and it wasn't even the story-- some reader/poster posted the full text of a copyrighted book in a response to the article and/. ended up deleting the contents of the message.
This is news. GC discs, from all reasonable sources, were supposedly unreadable (do a Google search, especially on usenet, there have been a few threads over the years trying to even READ the discs). I'm sorry it's not your brand of news, so maybe you could just avoid reading this stuff and leave the rest of us who are concerned with security, hardware and gaming alone?
ICQ had more features (able to msg people offline) and AIM was and is relatively featureless.
Yeah, that's the thing that keeps me on ICQ (via Trillian however)-- the ability to send offline messages to friends and other people (usually URL's). I hate having to write an entire e-mail when a simple IM will suffice.
Are there any other IM protocols that support offline messaging, and if so, which ones? I'd think it'd be a cool feature for up and coming IM protocols to implement.
I doubt it's in print anymore, but I read "QBasic By Example" from Que (ISBN 1-56529-439-4). And I read it because I'd bought VBBS and wanted to mod the hell out of the hardcoded stuff. =) Of course, if I'd given it any thought, I'd have gotten "Turbo Pascal By Example" instead, since after about a year of QBasic (which was actually knowledge used in QuickBasic 4.5, which is what VBBS was compiled in), I moved on to Borland Pascal 7 and never looked back. The best parts of a Basic language with the advanced capabilities of a C/C++ based language. And I still use Delphi (what Borland renamed Pascal to) to this day.;) I did take the time to learn C and C++ though, this time with no books, just the online help. =)
Seriously though, QBasic By Example was a great way to get into programming for someone who had only written really basic crap such as--
10 PRINT "HI" 20 GOTO 10
It covered all the basics, variable declaration, arithmetic and string operations, built-in functions in Basic's RTL, how to perform loops and other branch-related operations, as well as file and disk access operations. I sincerely doubt it's in print, but if you can find it, and if you've never coded in your life and have access to QBasic, this might get you going. Just be sure to move off from QBasic after you've learned enough of it to write meaningful code-- switch to C++ or Delphi ASAP.
Back to the BBS history-- I learned Pascal because it made using Regenade's file structures easier to deal with, plus a friend of mine showed me what a better language it was. =) Unfortunately, Cott Lang never felt the need to open source or just in general release into the public domain the source for RG. Sure, it's been handed around twice now to two other authors, but there's no where near the development of competing legacy software, such as Synchronet (which is open source, or at least, the source is available, not sure under which license).
Actually it's funny because I've always found the exact opposite to be true-- I never use WinZIP (hate the thing, it's an abomination), and all the people I interact with either a) haven't heard of it or b) don't like it.
Anyways, as far as PKWare vs. WinZip, whatever, I could really care less. I just think it's stupid for people to come along and proclaim the innovator as being dead, when we should really be hoping WinZip will join AOL and go off and die. There's much better GUI ZIP tools that offer a LOT more than WinZip in the market... (WinRar anyone?)
I'm honestly curious of the history, because every article I've read has said that PKWare made the ZIP algorithm and file format what it is. In the obituary for the founder of PKWare I could have swore they mentioned that he invented the format and compression algorithms (or, at least, was the 'inventor' in the sense that he put the whole thing together in a usable format, aka, ZIP files).
Well, I think this should make your decision crystal clear-- Pioneer is coming out with a DVD+R and DVD+RW burner *this* month, the DVR-A06 (which, if OEM model numbering continues as it has, you'll be able to find cheaper as a DVR-106). It still does DVD-R and DVD-RW, so it's a dual-format burner like Sony's basically. But the point is, obviously Pioneer sees the writing on the wall, and despite the PR going along with this release, is giving in to the bigger names pushing the +RW camp.
Hopefully -R and -RW don't die an unneeded death at the hands of monopolies.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel has no reason to trumpet their technology, as with 3D Now!, Intel can (and probably will) make a comeback and make people say "3D What!?". SSE has mostly stolen whatever thunder AMD had, and as with that, Intel will likely steal the thunder from x86-64 if Intel believes it to be viable and worth pursuit.
Based on the history of prior technological revolutions that AMD has pioneered, my logic is in fact far from flawed.
It makes perfect sense that Intel would bide their time and announce product as it becomes available, not months in advance to appear as someone coming late to a party (and if they announced it now, they'd be late to the party, without anything to show anyone). They'll wait until their first Prescott CPU's ship, or just before, to announce anything I predict. And this'll happen pretty soon since the road maps show a Prescott CPU shipping in November.
Yeah no kidding, that was the most misinformed comment I've ever seen. And of course, it got modded up as it deserved!
I read both, but Mike Magee is what made The Register what it was, nowadays when looking for CPU news I tend to follow The Inquirer more. Le Reg is still good for other stories, but ever since he left, their CPU-specific content has been hurting, heh.
Intel does have 64-bit today, it's called Itanium, and it has performance that blows away x86-based CPU's.
The problem of course, is the whole chicken and egg scenario. Not enough "must have" software is targetted towards it. Not until you can buy IA-64 editions of Photoshop, Office, and other "killer apps" will it become a must have in itself.
This type of problem has plagued every major technology platform, from Windows vs. MacOS, BeOS and Linux, to game platforms, and so on.
Of course it's all a matter of opinion as to how the market would react to an announcement from Intel of 64-bit extensions to the existing x86 ISA being included with Prescott, but I believe it would give AMD fuel to market x86-64, using the "we were first to deliver it, and the pioneers to push forward with it" argument.
As I said in my original reply, this is irrelevant and I will not debate it. I said, quite clearly, that I'll debate the issue from the assumption that they do indeed have 64-bit extensions in Prescott, and that they're production usable. I could honestly care less either way, because I don't buy AMD (and x86-64 isn't going to sway me in the slightest because Itanium already runs circles around it, and Itanium has been here for years).
Right.. like a General going into battle that's a little short on troops, but has some killer special forces that will hopefully, with surprise, defeat your foes, Intel should just blow their chances away by "trumpeting" their approach and giving away any and all measure of surprise.
I'm not going to debate whether or not Prescott has 64-bit extensions, but assuming it does, and knowing that AMD thinks they have a sure thing, would YOU galavant about like a some idiot who arrived late at a party saying "look at me, look at me, I do 64-bit too!" or would you bide your time, then make the major announcement long after your opponents "shiny new thing(TM)" has had a chance to lose it's luster?
I would.
If Intel thinks they have something that will surprise people, there's NO sense making a big deal out of it and helping PUSH AMD's sales.
DVD burning is OS agnostic last time I checked, so what would testing on Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac prove other than hardware compatibility? (Which, in case you missed the point of the article, OS compatibility was not the topic, set-top and DVD-ROM compatibility was).
I didn't used to have a problem with CCTV until I went to a local Wal-Mart for the first time-- the parking lot was rigged with at least 50 cameras. I obviously can't verify that each one is real, but in this age of cheap hard drives and video recorders, and the fact that Wal-Mart is quite the profitable company, I doubt that they're all decoys.
And that's not counting the cameras IN the store...
As the AC has already said, you've provided no facts to back up your claim that the Macintosh is so prevalent in the professional video editing industry. On the merits, I'd say you were wrong entirely simply because the PC is about on par with a Mac as far as performance goes with video editing.
/., not Mac Zealot Central-- preach your "the Mac has big marketshare!" BS to people who'll buy it blindly.
This is
Your comment suffers from the same issue as the previous posters comments-- you provide no actual data to back up your claims beyond hearsay. Please don't preach your feelings as gospel, because IMHO, I sincerely doubt Mac's claim 80% of the video editing/manipulation market.
But then, this wouldn't be a subject about the Macintosh (and Apple) unless things were overblown with little to no facts to back them up. =)
I'd like to think this has less to do with Harrison and more to do with the tripe he's given to act in. Sure, he could wait for those magical scripts to come along (and the Jack Ryan roles he performed were pretty good, IMHO), but at some point it's nice to have some money coming in. =)
I'm sure another Indiana Jones movie will be right up his alley, and I want to believe it's a role he likes performing.
Or you could skip the neowin link and go directly to Microsoft's support article--
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327194
I just visualized that... and it wasn't pretty.
And here's one for Master Card--
http://global.mastercard.com/hk/faq.html#c_cust_se rv
Same as the Visa, be sure to let it load, or just do a text search for "minimum".
Just to provide a URL so people can have something to point to (since I wasn't aware it was against credit cards rules to set minimum purchase prices)--
http://www.corporate.visa.com/footer/faqs.shtml#7
Make sure to let it scroll down automatically, or click on the FAQ entry for minimum purchase to use a Visa card.
Agreed, and this is precisely what I'd do if I walked out of a shop with something purporting to be a USB 2.0 device. And I'd make sure to tell the store manager to shove his exchanges only policy up his ass.
Yeah, but would they be 100% compatible with NT's internal representation of how ACL's are supposed to work? Highly unlikely, so that would require Microsoft to still embrace and extend, and with the GPL involved, be forced to give out the changes that were necessary to make the open source FS work with an NT-based OS.
So CNN, by posting an article on the Lacy Peterson murder on their front page, is condoning murder?
You have some screwed up logic.
I wish I had mod points, because this is troll material through and through. Slashdot has ALWAYS posted stories like this, from the CSS encryption being cracked to NetBSD being booted up on a Dreamcast to the CPS-2 encryption used by Capcom being cracked (I'd provide links, but I don't think I need to for anyone who's read on Slashdot for any reasonable period of time). All posted stories here on Slashdot, all of them never resulted in /. being shut down. In fact, the only story that actually caused a ruckus was a story about those freaks at the L. Ron Hubbard foundation (or whatever it is), and it wasn't even the story-- some reader/poster posted the full text of a copyrighted book in a response to the article and /. ended up deleting the contents of the message.
This is news. GC discs, from all reasonable sources, were supposedly unreadable (do a Google search, especially on usenet, there have been a few threads over the years trying to even READ the discs). I'm sorry it's not your brand of news, so maybe you could just avoid reading this stuff and leave the rest of us who are concerned with security, hardware and gaming alone?
Yeah, that's the thing that keeps me on ICQ (via Trillian however)-- the ability to send offline messages to friends and other people (usually URL's). I hate having to write an entire e-mail when a simple IM will suffice.
Are there any other IM protocols that support offline messaging, and if so, which ones? I'd think it'd be a cool feature for up and coming IM protocols to implement.
I doubt it's in print anymore, but I read "QBasic By Example" from Que (ISBN 1-56529-439-4). And I read it because I'd bought VBBS and wanted to mod the hell out of the hardcoded stuff. =) Of course, if I'd given it any thought, I'd have gotten "Turbo Pascal By Example" instead, since after about a year of QBasic (which was actually knowledge used in QuickBasic 4.5, which is what VBBS was compiled in), I moved on to Borland Pascal 7 and never looked back. The best parts of a Basic language with the advanced capabilities of a C/C++ based language. And I still use Delphi (what Borland renamed Pascal to) to this day. ;) I did take the time to learn C and C++ though, this time with no books, just the online help. =)
Seriously though, QBasic By Example was a great way to get into programming for someone who had only written really basic crap such as--
It covered all the basics, variable declaration, arithmetic and string operations, built-in functions in Basic's RTL, how to perform loops and other branch-related operations, as well as file and disk access operations. I sincerely doubt it's in print, but if you can find it, and if you've never coded in your life and have access to QBasic, this might get you going. Just be sure to move off from QBasic after you've learned enough of it to write meaningful code-- switch to C++ or Delphi ASAP.
Back to the BBS history-- I learned Pascal because it made using Regenade's file structures easier to deal with, plus a friend of mine showed me what a better language it was. =) Unfortunately, Cott Lang never felt the need to open source or just in general release into the public domain the source for RG. Sure, it's been handed around twice now to two other authors, but there's no where near the development of competing legacy software, such as Synchronet (which is open source, or at least, the source is available, not sure under which license).
Actually it's funny because I've always found the exact opposite to be true-- I never use WinZIP (hate the thing, it's an abomination), and all the people I interact with either a) haven't heard of it or b) don't like it.
Anyways, as far as PKWare vs. WinZip, whatever, I could really care less. I just think it's stupid for people to come along and proclaim the innovator as being dead, when we should really be hoping WinZip will join AOL and go off and die. There's much better GUI ZIP tools that offer a LOT more than WinZip in the market... (WinRar anyone?)
I'm honestly curious of the history, because every article I've read has said that PKWare made the ZIP algorithm and file format what it is. In the obituary for the founder of PKWare I could have swore they mentioned that he invented the format and compression algorithms (or, at least, was the 'inventor' in the sense that he put the whole thing together in a usable format, aka, ZIP files).
Goodbye WinZip.
Well, I think this should make your decision crystal clear-- Pioneer is coming out with a DVD+R and DVD+RW burner *this* month, the DVR-A06 (which, if OEM model numbering continues as it has, you'll be able to find cheaper as a DVR-106). It still does DVD-R and DVD-RW, so it's a dual-format burner like Sony's basically. But the point is, obviously Pioneer sees the writing on the wall, and despite the PR going along with this release, is giving in to the bigger names pushing the +RW camp.
Hopefully -R and -RW don't die an unneeded death at the hands of monopolies.
LOL, shhh n00b, I like how you back up all these claims with some facts.. oh right, facts don't matter when YOU'RE the one spreading FUD. Dumbass.