I agree. I do not think breaking up Microsoft is the best solution, or even a viable one.
Breaking up MSFT along product lines (i.e., an OS company, an applications company, etc.) would likely just result in a lot of little monopolies. True, it might force the OS company to be more open about their APIs, but even that could be circumvented.
Breakup MSFT up into three identical but smaller MSFTs would likely cause no end of grief while not solving the actual problems anti-trust law was created to prevent -- in this case, high prices, low quality, unfair competition.
Forcing them to port their applications to other OSes would require choosing those OSes, and likely result in poor-quality ports. No, that is not what a free market is about.
Requiring them to open up their file formats and APIs might work. It would level the playing field quite a bit, I suppose. The problem is, even MSFT doesn't understand their APIs. Read their Windows documentation sometime; it is full of errors and ommisions. MSFT might also still be able to leverage their OS monopoly effectively with PC OEMs.
I think the best bet might be to force MSFT to GPL anything and everything that comes with the Windows disc (or the OEM kit, for OEMs).
It has a certain appeal to it. It prevents them from doing anything with their OS monopoly, as any attempt at product bundling would have to be open source. It cripples a keystone of their monopoly. It also lets them keep their Office cash cow, so they can continue to "innovate" in a less critical market segment.
Wow, 11 replies to my short post. I guess I hit a nerve.:-)
Well, I have to thank all the Mac zealots out there for educating me on PowerPC power consumption and heat output.
My turn.
My AMD K6-II running at 350 MHz never goes above 75 degrees or so. I know: I have a temperature monitor attached to it. The CPU is far from the primary source of heat in a computer.
The power supply, hard drive spindle motors, and pushing-the-limit graphics hardware are what generate the heat. My hard drives hover around 90 degrees, and that is with two fans blowing directly on them. My NVidida Riva TNT seems to idle at 110 degrees, and gets warmer under heavy use.
Please go on to tell me how the same PC hard drives and video chipset that Apple uses somehow runs cooler in the iMac?
As far as the floppy drive is concerned, yes, Apple has sold tons of iMacs without floppy drives. And the number one iMac accessory? You guessed it -- rewritable, removable storage.
Do not get me wrong -- I am not advocating the venerable 1.44MB floppy disk for modern use. However, I think Apple was wrong to ignore the huge installed base of existing Macs with 1.44 MB floppies. Furtheremore, I believe that providing a system without backup capablility is reckless. Apple should have picked something to take the place of the floppy drive.
I think the SuperDrive would have been a good choice -- backwards compatability and good sized storage at the same time. Alternatively, the Zip drive has a large installed base, and you can sacrifice backwards compatability. Heck, a combination CD+DVD+CD-RW wouldn't even need extra space.
...and no fan. That's right: No fan. So now iMac is not just the coolest personal computer out there. It's also the quietest. (http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html )
This makes me worry. The new iMac is a pretty cool design from a pure hardware standpoint. But leaving out the fan might be a bad idea. Half the home-market PCs these days have heat problems with at least one, often two, fans in them. Leaving it out entirely may lead to heat-related failures down the road.
And still no floppy drive. I mean, okay, I can see that a few people don't use it, and others need more then 1.44 MB. So bundle a SuperDrive on some models, then, and have a low-end unit without the floppy if you want. But having no removable, rewritable media is still a dumb idea, IMNSHO.
AMD is taking a big risk, here. Of course, the biggest risks pay off the best, but they can also fail spectacularly.
Consider: AMD has, in the past, made its money by doing what Intel does, but cheaper and better. While it did mean that AMD was always in Intel's shadow to some extent, it was a good market to be in. Being number two in the PC industry is a good place to be if you have significant market share, and AMD was doing well on that. It was also good for consumers to have a choice in their PC purchases.
Now AMD switches to an incompatible architecture. It may beat Intel's line in every way, but stuff written for Intel will not work on AMD. They may lock themselves out of a large market. DEC's Alpha CPU, for example, is a great design, but it sells a fraction of the units the K6 line does. We may also be back to having a single Intel-compatible OEM -- namely, Intel.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out, that is for sure.
32-bit numbers are limited in (AFAIK) two ways today:
You forgot the biggest limitatation of 32-bit machines: Address word size. 32-bit machines can address a maximum of four gigabytes of memory. A 64-bit machine can address four billion times that. It is not uncommon to want 8GB, 16GB, or even more memory in servers these days. And it will only grow larger as disks get bigger. A 2500 GB disk array wants a lot of cache.:-)
For one thing, those 21264 instructions are actually just 32-bits long IIRC ('tho they manipulate 64-bit data).
Question: What does instruction word size have to do with the quality of a processor? Address and data word size is the important part, AFAIK. "How much memory can you address?" and "How high can you count?" are the questions you are concerned with.
In fact, wouldn't a smaller instruction word size keep program size smaller?
Someone want to create user slashdot password slashdot?
The problem with shared public accounts is, invariably, some jerk decides to get cute and change the password to something else.:(
Re:Intel is behind this thing for sure
on
700 MHz Athlon
·
· Score: 1
Asus originally cancelled its k7 motherbaird after intel called them. THey decided to bite the bullet and and ship it
is this true? can anyone confirm what he said?
Tom's Hardware did a review of some Athlon motherboards when the chip first hit the market. He claimed that Asus had a nice Athlon motherboard design, but decided against production. Shortly afterwards, Asus announced they would produce it after all, citing "customer demand" or some such thing.
The conspiracy people claim that Intel was pressuring the motherboard makers to avoid the Athlon, and that Tom's Hardware caused enough complaining that Asus decided to risk it anyway. That is pure speculation, of course, but Intel has been caught in strong-arm tactics before...
Re:Are we approaching microwave frequencies?
on
700 MHz Athlon
·
· Score: 1
But what about all the geeks that keep their case open?
Oh, they all die. Everyone else is okay, though.
SMP can greatly boost multi-user performance
on
700 MHz Athlon
·
· Score: 2
For a single-user system, SMP does not make a whole lot of sense unless you are working with highly parallel algorithms, yes. If, however, you are deploying a multi-user machine, then SMP can give you a significant performance boost.
Say, for example, you are running a web server that does a lot of dynamic content generation. Assumming a decent webserver program, different user requests can be running on different CPUs simultaneously.
Another example would be a general-purpose multi-user workhorse, of the type commonly found in college machine rooms. You have 400 students logging in, reading mail, compiling, running, and debugging programs, running MatLab, whatever. That is where SMP really shines, as you have a lot of compute-intensive tasks happening at once.
Please note that your points are well-made and perfectly valid, but I wanted to make sure it was understood that SMP is not completely worthless, either.:-)
I find it somewhat ironic that you are talking about requirements for natural selection in a species currently extinct, and which will only be brought back into existence through artificial means.
Not that your point isn't valid. Just ironic.:-)
Re:AMD shoots itself in foot with pre-announcement
on
K8 Details
·
· Score: 2
A year and a half later AMD losses are at an all time high,
As already pointed out by someone else, the reason AMD had such a high loss this year is because they decided to build a brand-new fab with new technology to better compete with Intel. This is great move for their future, but they have to eat the cost right now.
Intel took high losses before they took over the world, too.
Now they announce the K8 when the K7 is barely ready for production.
This is pure FUD. The Athlon has been in production for a couple of months now.
Intel never makes the details of a processor public to the industry until it it ready for VOLUME production.
Ummmm, hello? Merced is so late it is starting to make Windows 2000 look good. Intel has been raving about IA-64's features since when the Pentium Pro was hot. Originally, the SEC designs of the PII and PIII were slated for Merced, but it fell so far behind they decided the Pentium was worth it.
Remember KNI? MMX? I seem to remember the popular trade press going on and on about how Intel's new instruction sets were going to blow everyone out of the water. Twice.
This is the reason Intel is more successful than AMD.
Ha! The reason Intel is more successful then AMD is quite simple. First, they were there first. Anyone who has been in this industry for more then a minute will tell you installed base is the second most important factor in the world. With market-share, you get market-share.
This enabled them to have lots of money to pay for the most important factor in the world: Marketing. Thanks to "Intel Inside" and silver-suited disco dancers, the average consumer thinks that AMD is to Intel as the Yugo was to Lexus. Joe Consumer walks into Wal-Mart to buy a computer, is all set to go for the cheaper model, when he finds out it doesn't have Intel inside. "Hey! I don't want any of this A-M-whatever stuff, I want good, quality Intel Inside!"
Finally, with Intel having a near monopoly on the processor market, they can lean hard on third-parties to try and restrict competition. They're more subtle about it then Microsoft, but we have seen it plenty of times.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you work for Intel or something? Given your handle I would expect a bias for DEC, maybe, but Intel?
Re:Buy Intel and Waste Your Money
on
K8 Details
·
· Score: 2
As of Oct 4 price cut Athlon 600s are going to be much cheaper than Intel 600s. Numerous reviews have showed that Athlon is 10 to 40 % faster than Intel's whimpy P3.
Not to mention the fact that the P5-III/600 and 650 lines seem to be having heat and power problems due to Intel rushing them out the door to compete with Athlon.
Okay, I know that a CPU cannot possibly be drawing that much power. I imagine this specification is due to the fact that AMD expects the Athlon to be in big, hefty machines, with lots of drives, memory, etc. Throw your average (i.e., total crap) PC case at that, and yes, you'll undervolt.
and midi/full towers tend be around 230-250W
Maybe the ones you buy.:-) Even my personal machine, a full tower, has a 300W PSU.
High power PSU's are pretty tricky to find as well.
great more point-and-click linux... i still disagree with it!
That is your right, and a fine thing to do. Nobody is going to force you or anybody else to use "point-and-click" Linux.
Linux is about choice. Some people want just a console. Others want a Windows95 look-alike. Others want Enlightenment with transparent terminal windows and motion video as a desktop background. One of the great things about Linux is that any or all of this is possible, at your choice.
I don't think we have to worry about crap programmers on Linux. Sure, crap programs can appear. They already do. But again, it is your choice to use them or not. Unlike certain other software monopolies I can think of, nobody is going to force you to use crap software.
Hell, gas doesn't even slow 'em down. When I was at UNH, they were rebuilding the school library. They tore into a gas pipe no less then three seperate times during the construction. Twice at the same spot, from what I understand. I was only present for one of 'em. It was kinda freaky to have the fire alarms for half the campus going off at once...
Re:In the end, it all comes down to OEM support
on
CNN Installs Linux
·
· Score: 2
RPM may handle dependencies, but that doesn't make things work. Install everything, and the boot goes well. Be selective, and things hang the boot for long periods.
Thereby implying that not all the dependencies were met, which takes us back to the point. Your argument is bogus for proper RPMs.
Yes, back in the days of Red Hat 4.0, sendmail, amd, or other things could hang at boot if they did not like what they saw. This was, in fact, caused by installing everything as often as not, because a service would be installed to do such-and-such, and fail trying to do it at boot. These were bugs, and they have been fixed.
Red Hat has worked out the bugs W.R.T. dependencies and boot scripts, and they finally realized that installing a service does not always mean it should be started at boot.
I have installed RHL 6.0 in full, selective, or minamalist configurations, and I have not had a single problem with hangs at boot. Your information is old.
The LDP needs coherent management.
They are well aware of this, and are taking steps to fix it.
Linux is good, but it could be great.
I am not saying things are perfect; far from it. As I say below, the problem is, you are blaming the wrong thing.
This is not a comparative issue.
Windows installation mostly handles adapters better.
If this is not a comparative issue, then why do you keep comparing Linux to Windows? If you want to take Linux on its own, then fine. If you want to compare it to Windows, that is fine, too. But do not compare it to Windows, and then dodge the reply.
Linux wears the black eye, or the distro does. Not the OEM. That's life; that's reality.
You are perfectly correct here. My point was that you were jumping up and down and pointing at Linux, when the problem lies with OEMs, not Linux itself. If you want to point fingers, point at your hardware vendor who is not supporting Linux. Linux is practically helpless without their support. I find it completely amazing that it has come as far as it has with practically no OEM support.
I never buy computers pre-assembled or installed... Windows is easier to install.
I heard you the first time when you talked about this. You are missing my point. OEMs make sure their stuff works with Windows. They do not do so for Linux.
Yes, if everything goes right, then Windows is easy. The same applies for Linux. The problem is that because few OEMs support Linux, everything goes right for Linux far less often then for Windows. Blaming Linux is not the answer.
Furthermore, when things go wrong with Windows, you are generally dead in the water. You get useless error messages like "Windows protection error" or "Cannot start Explorer -- Reinstall Windows". If Linux has a problem during install, I can usually fix the problem and move on. Windows prohibits that.
I have pre-checked the claims of the distros, and all of my components and peripherals are claimed to be supported.
Now there you may well have a legit complaint. I do not have data on how accurate distribution compatability lists are. I just know that I looked for good equipment that was praised as Linux friendly, and Linux worked perfectly.
FWIW: The principle of Occam's Razor states that the simplest explaination is usually the correct one, lacking other data. Granted, in this case, we lack an awful lot of data, but I think the principle still holds. Assuming that there must be an undiscovered branch of physics at work is a bit extreme, I think. You might as well say there are giants pushing on the probes, or dragons blowing them off course. (Read Issac Asimov's Nightfall for the reference.)
I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I am just doing my part as a/.'er: Adding fuel to the fire.:-)
In the end, it all comes down to OEM support
on
CNN Installs Linux
·
· Score: 5
Linux docs are, to be kind, less than wonderful.
I actually like them. I hate it when a manual for, say, a word processor, starts out by talking about the mouse and menus, like I have never used a computer before. What a waste of space that could be devoted to better covering the product I purchased.
They make too many assumptions about the background of the reader.
This is, perhaps, true. While I think manuals should avoid duplication of effort, I think they should also state what you are expected to know already, and point you in the right direction if you do not. Linux HOWTOs sometimes do this, but often do not. Point.
I have yet to find a good presentation of disk partitioning strategies, for example.
Linux does have a "Partition" mini-HOWTO, which does a good job of explaining it all, but it is not for the faint-of-heart. Most new users will need to read through it twice (at least).
Unfortunately, if you want to setup your own partitions (required to dual-boot), there is no magic bullet that will make your life easier. This is a fact of life, and there is nothing Linux can do about it.
Distros which use the RPM installation offer only one safe option: Install Everything.
Incorrect. One of the key design goals of RPM is dependency management. If package A depends on package B being installed, and you attempt to install just A, the installer will not move on unless you agree to install the dependencies.
Red Hat, in particular, has an installation process which is easily fouled by the user making an unexpected response.
I have never had this problem, but I have no doubt that you have. Installing an OS is generally rather a difficult process. Sometimes things go wrong which break the auto-install. Red Hat usually falls back to a menu at that point, at least. Windoze locks up the machine.
X server installation and setup is a very interesting source of problems.
I think that it is universally agreed that configuring X is about the least fun thing you can do on Linux, with the possible exception of writing your own sendmail.cf file.
Plug-N-Play monitors are starting to be supported, but the fact of the matter is, you pretty much need OEM support for video setup to be easy, be it Linux or Windoze.
For example: It took me about 10 seconds to get my Samsung SyncMaster 900p 19" monitor working under Linux. Why so quick? Because Samsung posted mode-lines for XFree86 on their website, bless 'em.
The difference between Linux and Windows at installation time is that Windows (mostly) does a better job of handling the routine setup issues.
I disagree completely. What Windoze has that Linux does not is OEM support. If every computer company under the sun committed to supporting Linux the way they do Microsoft, then your problems would be solved. Since they do not, however, you are limited to the small set of hardware which has been figured out by third-parties.
Documentation is my biggest issue. All the Linux users insist that it's anywhere from adequate to great, but those of us who didn't cut our teeth on *nix know it just ain't so.
I really have to disagree here, as well. Have you ever looked at what comes in the box of Windows9X for docs? A 60 page booklet that explains how to use the mouse! Please! Linux's documentation may suck, but Windows' is much worse!
It is not documentation, online help, auto-installers, or other stuff that makes Windows easy and/or Linux hard. It is OEM support:
OEMs generally install Windows for you.
If they do not do that, then they check their system configuration to make sure Windows installs cleanly before they ship it to you.
They provide device drivers for Windows to Microsoft, so Microsoft can include them on the Windows CD.
If the OEMs did all that for Linux, Linux would install much smoother. I know; I was careful to pick supported hardware when building my system, and Linux installed like a dream.
Windows98 will not boot at all. Despite weeks of hacking, it appears to be a fundamental conflict with the OS. Microsoft agrees.
They said a mid 2000 release date, which means its basically got to be working in 6 months (with extra time for QA/manuals/etc.).
First, Borland has been working on this for awhile, so we cannot assume they have only six months to pull it off.
Second, the VCL has already been ported to IBM's OS/400 platform, so Borland already has some knowledge of cross-platform VCL implementations.
Third, when was the last time a non-trivial software product shipped on time?;-)
They could also build a bigger VCL framework which encapsulates all the functions you would use in a program thus making those programs cross-platform.
AFAIK, they have already done pretty well in that department. If you are writting a generic (i.e., does not depend on goofy Microsoft services) program, your code can get away with pretty much just the VCL and Object Pascal. I/O, memory management, screen draw, can all be done within the framework of the VCL. The only major exception is getting the contents of a directory programmatically; you're still stuck with DOS/Windows FINDFIRST/FINDNEXT calls. Blech.:(
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I do not think breaking up Microsoft is the best solution, or even a viable one.
Breaking up MSFT along product lines (i.e., an OS company, an applications company, etc.) would likely just result in a lot of little monopolies. True, it might force the OS company to be more open about their APIs, but even that could be circumvented.
Breakup MSFT up into three identical but smaller MSFTs would likely cause no end of grief while not solving the actual problems anti-trust law was created to prevent -- in this case, high prices, low quality, unfair competition.
Forcing them to port their applications to other OSes would require choosing those OSes, and likely result in poor-quality ports. No, that is not what a free market is about.
Requiring them to open up their file formats and APIs might work. It would level the playing field quite a bit, I suppose. The problem is, even MSFT doesn't understand their APIs. Read their Windows documentation sometime; it is full of errors and ommisions. MSFT might also still be able to leverage their OS monopoly effectively with PC OEMs.
I think the best bet might be to force MSFT to GPL anything and everything that comes with the Windows disc (or the OEM kit, for OEMs).
It has a certain appeal to it. It prevents them from doing anything with their OS monopoly, as any attempt at product bundling would have to be open source. It cripples a keystone of their monopoly. It also lets them keep their Office cash cow, so they can continue to "innovate" in a less critical market segment.
Please read my reply at #274.
Wow, 11 replies to my short post. I guess I hit a nerve. :-)
Well, I have to thank all the Mac zealots out there for educating me on PowerPC power consumption and heat output.
My turn.
My AMD K6-II running at 350 MHz never goes above 75 degrees or so. I know: I have a temperature monitor attached to it. The CPU is far from the primary source of heat in a computer.
The power supply, hard drive spindle motors, and pushing-the-limit graphics hardware are what generate the heat. My hard drives hover around 90 degrees, and that is with two fans blowing directly on them. My NVidida Riva TNT seems to idle at 110 degrees, and gets warmer under heavy use.
Please go on to tell me how the same PC hard drives and video chipset that Apple uses somehow runs cooler in the iMac?
As far as the floppy drive is concerned, yes, Apple has sold tons of iMacs without floppy drives. And the number one iMac accessory? You guessed it -- rewritable, removable storage.
Do not get me wrong -- I am not advocating the venerable 1.44MB floppy disk for modern use. However, I think Apple was wrong to ignore the huge installed base of existing Macs with 1.44 MB floppies. Furtheremore, I believe that providing a system without backup capablility is reckless. Apple should have picked something to take the place of the floppy drive.
I think the SuperDrive would have been a good choice -- backwards compatability and good sized storage at the same time. Alternatively, the Zip drive has a large installed base, and you can sacrifice backwards compatability. Heck, a combination CD+DVD+CD-RW wouldn't even need extra space.
Hi there,
Did you try reading my post at all?
I was not talking about data word size -- I am well aware of the benifits of 64-bit native arithmetic.
I was not talking about address word size -- I am well aware of the limitations of a 32-bit address space.
I was talking about instruction word size. That is, the size of the word each individual operation is stored in.
...and no fan. That's right: No fan. So now iMac is not just the coolest personal computer out there. It's also the quietest. (http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html )
:)
This makes me worry. The new iMac is a pretty cool design from a pure hardware standpoint. But leaving out the fan might be a bad idea. Half the home-market PCs these days have heat problems with at least one, often two, fans in them. Leaving it out entirely may lead to heat-related failures down the road.
And still no floppy drive. I mean, okay, I can see that a few people don't use it, and others need more then 1.44 MB. So bundle a SuperDrive on some models, then, and have a low-end unit without the floppy if you want. But having no removable, rewritable media is still a dumb idea, IMNSHO.
What next, no keyboard?
AMD is taking a big risk, here. Of course, the biggest risks pay off the best, but they can also fail spectacularly.
;-)
Consider: AMD has, in the past, made its money by doing what Intel does, but cheaper and better. While it did mean that AMD was always in Intel's shadow to some extent, it was a good market to be in. Being number two in the PC industry is a good place to be if you have significant market share, and AMD was doing well on that. It was also good for consumers to have a choice in their PC purchases.
Now AMD switches to an incompatible architecture. It may beat Intel's line in every way, but stuff written for Intel will not work on AMD. They may lock themselves out of a large market. DEC's Alpha CPU, for example, is a great design, but it sells a fraction of the units the K6 line does. We may also be back to having a single Intel-compatible OEM -- namely, Intel.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out, that is for sure.
Just my 1/4 of a byte.
32-bit numbers are limited in (AFAIK) two ways today:
:-)
You forgot the biggest limitatation of 32-bit machines: Address word size. 32-bit machines can address a maximum of four gigabytes of memory. A 64-bit machine can address four billion times that. It is not uncommon to want 8GB, 16GB, or even more memory in servers these days. And it will only grow larger as disks get bigger. A 2500 GB disk array wants a lot of cache.
For one thing, those 21264 instructions are actually just 32-bits long IIRC ('tho they manipulate 64-bit data).
Question: What does instruction word size have to do with the quality of a processor? Address and data word size is the important part, AFAIK. "How much memory can you address?" and "How high can you count?" are the questions you are concerned with.
In fact, wouldn't a smaller instruction word size keep program size smaller?
Someone want to create user slashdot password slashdot?
:(
The problem with shared public accounts is, invariably, some jerk decides to get cute and change the password to something else.
Asus originally cancelled its k7 motherbaird after intel called them. THey decided to bite the bullet and and ship it
is this true? can anyone confirm what he said?
Tom's Hardware did a review of some Athlon motherboards when the chip first hit the market. He claimed that Asus had a nice Athlon motherboard design, but decided against production. Shortly afterwards, Asus announced they would produce it after all, citing "customer demand" or some such thing.
The conspiracy people claim that Intel was pressuring the motherboard makers to avoid the Athlon, and that Tom's Hardware caused enough complaining that Asus decided to risk it anyway. That is pure speculation, of course, but Intel has been caught in strong-arm tactics before...
But what about all the geeks that keep their case open?
Oh, they all die. Everyone else is okay, though.
For a single-user system, SMP does not make a whole lot of sense unless you are working with highly parallel algorithms, yes. If, however, you are deploying a multi-user machine, then SMP can give you a significant performance boost.
:-)
Say, for example, you are running a web server that does a lot of dynamic content generation. Assumming a decent webserver program, different user requests can be running on different CPUs simultaneously.
Another example would be a general-purpose multi-user workhorse, of the type commonly found in college machine rooms. You have 400 students logging in, reading mail, compiling, running, and debugging programs, running MatLab, whatever. That is where SMP really shines, as you have a lot of compute-intensive tasks happening at once.
Please note that your points are well-made and perfectly valid, but I wanted to make sure it was understood that SMP is not completely worthless, either.
I find it somewhat ironic that you are talking about requirements for natural selection in a species currently extinct, and which will only be brought back into existence through artificial means.
:-)
Not that your point isn't valid. Just ironic.
A year and a half later AMD losses are at an all time high,
As already pointed out by someone else, the reason AMD had such a high loss this year is because they decided to build a brand-new fab with new technology to better compete with Intel. This is great move for their future, but they have to eat the cost right now.
Intel took high losses before they took over the world, too.
Now they announce the K8 when the K7 is barely ready for production.
This is pure FUD. The Athlon has been in production for a couple of months now.
Intel never makes the details of a processor public to the industry until it it ready for VOLUME production.
Ummmm, hello? Merced is so late it is starting to make Windows 2000 look good. Intel has been raving about IA-64's features since when the Pentium Pro was hot. Originally, the SEC designs of the PII and PIII were slated for Merced, but it fell so far behind they decided the Pentium was worth it.
Remember KNI? MMX? I seem to remember the popular trade press going on and on about how Intel's new instruction sets were going to blow everyone out of the water. Twice.
This is the reason Intel is more successful than AMD.
Ha! The reason Intel is more successful then AMD is quite simple. First, they were there first. Anyone who has been in this industry for more then a minute will tell you installed base is the second most important factor in the world. With market-share, you get market-share.
This enabled them to have lots of money to pay for the most important factor in the world: Marketing. Thanks to "Intel Inside" and silver-suited disco dancers, the average consumer thinks that AMD is to Intel as the Yugo was to Lexus. Joe Consumer walks into Wal-Mart to buy a computer, is all set to go for the cheaper model, when he finds out it doesn't have Intel inside. "Hey! I don't want any of this A-M-whatever stuff, I want good, quality Intel Inside!"
Finally, with Intel having a near monopoly on the processor market, they can lean hard on third-parties to try and restrict competition. They're more subtle about it then Microsoft, but we have seen it plenty of times.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you work for Intel or something? Given your handle I would expect a bias for DEC, maybe, but Intel?
As of Oct 4 price cut Athlon 600s are going to be much cheaper than Intel 600s. Numerous reviews have showed that Athlon is 10 to 40 % faster than Intel's whimpy P3.
Not to mention the fact that the P5-III/600 and 650 lines seem to be having heat and power problems due to Intel rushing them out the door to compete with Athlon.
Reminds me of an old FidoNet tagline...
Pentium = (P)arts (E)xist (N)ow (T)hough (I)nvariably (U)ndergo (M)eltdown
The Athlon needs a minimum of a 300W peak PSU
:-) Even my personal machine, a full tower, has a 300W PSU.
Okay, I know that a CPU cannot possibly be drawing that much power. I imagine this specification is due to the fact that AMD expects the Athlon to be in big, hefty machines, with lots of drives, memory, etc. Throw your average (i.e., total crap) PC case at that, and yes, you'll undervolt.
and midi/full towers tend be around 230-250W
Maybe the ones you buy.
High power PSU's are pretty tricky to find as well.
PC Power & Cooling
A/Open (I have the HX-08 case)
great more point-and-click linux... i still disagree with it!
That is your right, and a fine thing to do. Nobody is going to force you or anybody else to use "point-and-click" Linux.
Linux is about choice. Some people want just a console. Others want a Windows95 look-alike. Others want Enlightenment with transparent terminal windows and motion video as a desktop background. One of the great things about Linux is that any or all of this is possible, at your choice.
I don't think we have to worry about crap programmers on Linux. Sure, crap programs can appear. They already do. But again, it is your choice to use them or not. Unlike certain other software monopolies I can think of, nobody is going to force you to use crap software.
Hell, gas doesn't even slow 'em down. When I was at UNH, they were rebuilding the school library. They tore into a gas pipe no less then three seperate times during the construction. Twice at the same spot, from what I understand. I was only present for one of 'em. It was kinda freaky to have the fire alarms for half the campus going off at once...
RPM may handle dependencies, but that doesn't make things work. Install everything, and the boot goes well. Be selective, and things hang the boot for long periods.
Thereby implying that not all the dependencies were met, which takes us back to the point. Your argument is bogus for proper RPMs.
Yes, back in the days of Red Hat 4.0, sendmail, amd, or other things could hang at boot if they did not like what they saw. This was, in fact, caused by installing everything as often as not, because a service would be installed to do such-and-such, and fail trying to do it at boot. These were bugs, and they have been fixed.
Red Hat has worked out the bugs W.R.T. dependencies and boot scripts, and they finally realized that installing a service does not always mean it should be started at boot.
I have installed RHL 6.0 in full, selective, or minamalist configurations, and I have not had a single problem with hangs at boot. Your information is old.
The LDP needs coherent management.
They are well aware of this, and are taking steps to fix it.
Linux is good, but it could be great.
I am not saying things are perfect; far from it. As I say below, the problem is, you are blaming the wrong thing.
This is not a comparative issue.
Windows installation mostly handles adapters better.
If this is not a comparative issue, then why do you keep comparing Linux to Windows? If you want to take Linux on its own, then fine. If you want to compare it to Windows, that is fine, too. But do not compare it to Windows, and then dodge the reply.
Linux wears the black eye, or the distro does. Not the OEM. That's life; that's reality.
You are perfectly correct here. My point was that you were jumping up and down and pointing at Linux, when the problem lies with OEMs, not Linux itself. If you want to point fingers, point at your hardware vendor who is not supporting Linux. Linux is practically helpless without their support. I find it completely amazing that it has come as far as it has with practically no OEM support.
I never buy computers pre-assembled or installed... Windows is easier to install.
I heard you the first time when you talked about this. You are missing my point. OEMs make sure their stuff works with Windows. They do not do so for Linux.
Yes, if everything goes right, then Windows is easy. The same applies for Linux. The problem is that because few OEMs support Linux, everything goes right for Linux far less often then for Windows. Blaming Linux is not the answer.
Furthermore, when things go wrong with Windows, you are generally dead in the water. You get useless error messages like "Windows protection error" or "Cannot start Explorer -- Reinstall Windows". If Linux has a problem during install, I can usually fix the problem and move on. Windows prohibits that.
I have pre-checked the claims of the distros, and all of my components and peripherals are claimed to be supported.
Now there you may well have a legit complaint. I do not have data on how accurate distribution compatability lists are. I just know that I looked for good equipment that was praised as Linux friendly, and Linux worked perfectly.
FWIW: The principle of Occam's Razor states that the simplest explaination is usually the correct one, lacking other data. Granted, in this case, we lack an awful lot of data, but I think the principle still holds. Assuming that there must be an undiscovered branch of physics at work is a bit extreme, I think. You might as well say there are giants pushing on the probes, or dragons blowing them off course. (Read Issac Asimov's Nightfall for the reference.)
/.'er: Adding fuel to the fire. :-)
I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I am just doing my part as a
Sounds like a neat thing.
:-(
Too bad it is only available for Windoze.
Anyone know a way to get it working for Linux?
I actually like them. I hate it when a manual for, say, a word processor, starts out by talking about the mouse and menus, like I have never used a computer before. What a waste of space that could be devoted to better covering the product I purchased.
They make too many assumptions about the background of the reader.
This is, perhaps, true. While I think manuals should avoid duplication of effort, I think they should also state what you are expected to know already, and point you in the right direction if you do not. Linux HOWTOs sometimes do this, but often do not. Point.
I have yet to find a good presentation of disk partitioning strategies, for example.
Linux does have a "Partition" mini-HOWTO, which does a good job of explaining it all, but it is not for the faint-of-heart. Most new users will need to read through it twice (at least).
Unfortunately, if you want to setup your own partitions (required to dual-boot), there is no magic bullet that will make your life easier. This is a fact of life, and there is nothing Linux can do about it.
Distros which use the RPM installation offer only one safe option: Install Everything.
Incorrect. One of the key design goals of RPM is dependency management. If package A depends on package B being installed, and you attempt to install just A, the installer will not move on unless you agree to install the dependencies.
Red Hat, in particular, has an installation process which is easily fouled by the user making an unexpected response.
I have never had this problem, but I have no doubt that you have. Installing an OS is generally rather a difficult process. Sometimes things go wrong which break the auto-install. Red Hat usually falls back to a menu at that point, at least. Windoze locks up the machine.
X server installation and setup is a very interesting source of problems.
I think that it is universally agreed that configuring X is about the least fun thing you can do on Linux, with the possible exception of writing your own sendmail.cf file.
Plug-N-Play monitors are starting to be supported, but the fact of the matter is, you pretty much need OEM support for video setup to be easy, be it Linux or Windoze.
For example: It took me about 10 seconds to get my Samsung SyncMaster 900p 19" monitor working under Linux. Why so quick? Because Samsung posted mode-lines for XFree86 on their website, bless 'em.
The difference between Linux and Windows at installation time is that Windows (mostly) does a better job of handling the routine setup issues.
I disagree completely. What Windoze has that Linux does not is OEM support. If every computer company under the sun committed to supporting Linux the way they do Microsoft, then your problems would be solved. Since they do not, however, you are limited to the small set of hardware which has been figured out by third-parties.
Documentation is my biggest issue. All the Linux users insist that it's anywhere from adequate to great, but those of us who didn't cut our teeth on *nix know it just ain't so.
I really have to disagree here, as well. Have you ever looked at what comes in the box of Windows9X for docs? A 60 page booklet that explains how to use the mouse! Please! Linux's documentation may suck, but Windows' is much worse!
It is not documentation, online help, auto-installers, or other stuff that makes Windows easy and/or Linux hard. It is OEM support:
If the OEMs did all that for Linux, Linux would install much smoother. I know; I was careful to pick supported hardware when building my system, and Linux installed like a dream.
Windows98 will not boot at all. Despite weeks of hacking, it appears to be a fundamental conflict with the OS. Microsoft agrees.
In the end, it all comes down to OEM support.
I see that got moderated as informative - it was a JOKE, not really happening.
:-)
I feel it worth pointing out that humor can be very informative indeed.
Okay, this post is partly off-topic for this sub-thread, but I wanted to get it in near the top of the discussion when sorting by Score.
Linux Today has more information about this, including:
This is not a port of Delphi or C++Builder, but rather, a completely new product.
Read the details about "Kylix" at Linux Today!
(I would post a complete copy, but that would be stealing from LT. Don't wanna do that.)
They said a mid 2000 release date, which means its basically got to be working in 6 months (with extra time for QA/manuals/etc.).
;-)
:(
First, Borland has been working on this for awhile, so we cannot assume they have only six months to pull it off.
Second, the VCL has already been ported to IBM's OS/400 platform, so Borland already has some knowledge of cross-platform VCL implementations.
Third, when was the last time a non-trivial software product shipped on time?
They could also build a bigger VCL framework which encapsulates all the functions you would use in a program thus making those programs cross-platform.
AFAIK, they have already done pretty well in that department. If you are writting a generic (i.e., does not depend on goofy Microsoft services) program, your code can get away with pretty much just the VCL and Object Pascal. I/O, memory management, screen draw, can all be done within the framework of the VCL. The only major exception is getting the contents of a directory programmatically; you're still stuck with DOS/Windows FINDFIRST/FINDNEXT calls. Blech.