These are all new motherboards, and most of them are on the high end of pricing.
Firewire is more expensive to implement, period. And the number of devices that can substantially benefit from the faster speed of Firewire are very few (basically digital video... high end digital audio as well, but that's so stratospheric as to be irrelevant in the consumer market).
People should skip that USB crap, and go to the source, where it is proven technology with years behind it
Sure, except that my printer, my scanner, and my camera already speak USB. I suppose I should just throw them out and buy new stuff.
Hrm... where are those cheap firewire ink jets? Or scanners? And, ya know, I just bought this Nikon 770 a year ago. I think it's still good.
People buy the interface that works with their components. Frankly, every PC shipped in the past 4 years has at least USB 1.0 on it. Relatively few have Firewire/IEEE1394. And since Firewire is more expensive to implement than USB, you can count on the vast majority of devices to continue implementing USB and ignoring Firewire.
Does Firewire have its place? Sure. But it's not on most consumer devices. Up until USB 2.0 it was the only choice for devices that needed high speed digital data ports (like video cameras), but USB 2.0 is still cheaper to implement.
Firewire isn't going to die off by any means - it's solidly entrenched in the video market, and HDTV is likely to make this even more true. But lay off the "USB sucks, Firewire r0x0rs" - USB does very well for a very broad selection of products and at a fraction of the cost.
As for the people whining about USB sucking CPU cycles - uh... and you're telling me that you max out a 1 GHz+ CPU constantly? Gimme a break.
Yes, and your data is also going to be "transmitted out to the world" over a null modem cable. And ethernet. And your monitor.
You ARE fully tempest shielded, right?
What a load of crap. If you're concerned about someone intercepting the data during transfer then it's up to you to encrypt it appropriately.
And, frankly, nobody could give a crap about your precious pr0n collection anyway. Far too many people are far too concerned about stuff that nobody else wants to see in the first place.
Re:How many other websites have been around this l
on
Slashdot Turns 5
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Frankly, a lot of sites have been around since 1997. Find some non-university/corporate sites that have been around for 10 years with (relatively) high hit counts and it's more meaningful.
Re:Why do no stories display the year?
on
Slashdot Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
Shame you can't just specify your own... I'd rather like "Sunday March 21, 2002 @10:00AM" but it's not an option.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2
It's an option in Windows too you know. I can't think of an OS where it wasn't an option, although I'm sure someone will dredge an esoteric example out of their hat and laugh.
Wireless has it's uses -- a lot of general computer users like it because they don't have to deal with the cord getting caught on stuff, pulling at the mouse, etc. Some people's computers are located far enough from the mouse pad/area that the cord isn't long enough for good movement (or isn't long enough, period).
And wireless mice are great for HTPC's - when your screen is 8 feet diagonal you can sit a wee bit further away and still see the pointer.
Wireless mice are disliked amongst gamers though - most claim that there's a slight bit of mouse lag added to both movements and button presses.
Yes he cooked them - on a stove by burning bits of his boat. When the Navy found him they had to scuttle the boat because it was too damaged to tow.
Frankly, I'd love to know what the previous poster would do in the guy's situation - you're on a sailboat with no mast, no motor, and a dead radio. There are no ships in your vicinity for 3.5 months (yes, this is easily possible). Are you going to row back to shore? I don't think so.
For the record - one other ship did pass within visual range, but he was unsuccessful in signaling them. The Navy ship was only the second one he saw.
No... in fact I don't have a real HT setup yet, for a variety of reasons.
But a 8' screen with a dolby digital setup can cost under $5000. It won't be top notch and I personally wouldn't settle for it, but it's not an utterly absurd price either.
We're not talking plasma screen here or anything - a used LCD projector can be had for $2-3k (maybe less), a screen is a couple hundred, and you can find cheapo receivers and speaker setups for under a grand.
For about $10k you can get a much better projector and a better sound setup. For about $15k you can get a way better projector (a very nice DLP or DILA setup), and an very good sound setup.
As with all things, it's merely a question of what you want to spend your money on.
Generally you have a dedicated HTPC and don't try to use it for general computing tasks. Partially to reduce the chances of something getting screwed up on the HTPC, partially because it is a PITA to use as a regular PC (a lot of HTPC's don't have a monitor other than the primary theater display hooked up; using Quicken on a 8 foot diagonal screen is a bit absurd).
But just think about playing UT2k3 or Doom3 on that same 8 foot screen with full dolby digital surround.
The question is why would anyone like to have one machine controling everything
Because it's more efficient?
A well designed HTPC can replace a CD changer, a DVD player, a pre-amp, tuner, a TiVo, and a scaler/deinterlacer. And even if you buy the cheapest AV equipment and the most expensive computer equipment you'll come out ahead on the HTPC side.
Not to mention that you have all of that in one box the size of a desktop computer.
The biggest problem remains the interface -- you can do a lot with programmable remote controls, but it's still not as simple or reliable as components. Probably the biggest issue is the feedback component. A pre-amp may have a simple LCD saying "CD" or "Tuner", but HTPC's tend to use Windows interfaces which are more intrusive and nearly impossible to use without some kind of video output.
Of course, you gain a lot of flexibility - you can do anything with the HTPC you can do with a regular computer - but try explaining how to watch TV to a visiting relative (heck, my mom had enough problems with the TiVo when I was on my honeymoon).
As usual, the hardware side of things has been conquered first. Now work has to be done on the usability. And doing things like integrating a small LCD screen onto the system does a lot toward that goal.
Great job Mark -- just finished browsing the thread, and as an AVS member you should know how much hifi geeks will spend for cool equipment. If you were able to make a profit selling these at $2k then I bet they'd sell very well indeed.
As always the limiting factor is the interface. None of the HTPC's I've seen yet have the simplicity of design that most other AV electronics do. And while a HTPC can easily replace most of a home theater setup, trying to make it usable for anyone else seems an insurmountable challenge (and yes, I have a Pronto).
facts are that the Bombardier Beetle defies all evolutionist theories
Which part of the linked page was too difficult for you to read? It pretty much blasts your statement (above) to shreds.
You know, there's faith. But there's also blind stupidity. The former is just fine. You have crossed into the latter.
Re:Distributed.net no longer in the public eye
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 2
If you want to burn those unused cycles do it on something that matters
And brute forced cracking of an encryption algorithm, which everyone who cares knows is possible anyway, matters?
No thanks... I'd rather have my spare cycles go to something that will help cure cancer, Alzheimer's, or the like. (Yes, I know, d.net has "partnered" with UD on the cancer bit, but it's not a d.net project).
Frankly, I'd give the edge to SETI@home over d.net's projects. But that's just me. I do think that there's alien life out there, but I doubt it's trying to communicate in a fashion that we'll be able to find with SETI@home.
Regarding jzip - does it support file formats other than zip? Namely, tar and gzip files?
There's no indication on the website, none in the history, the readme in the source code docs just says "Support for other archive files" is in the todo list, and a quick grep of the source looks negative.
It's not unusual for a sub 1Ghz PC with good SCSI disks to handily outperform a 2Ghz+ machine with mere IDE
Doing what? And what kind of disk subsystem? Put in a single IDE drive and a single SCSI drive, both running at the same spindle speed, and I doubt there will be a measurable difference. Modern IDE is not as godawful bad as it used to be. And yes, I used to be a SCSI advocate, and I definitely agree that SCSI has it's place. But it's not on the desktop.
Nowadays with the increasing sophistication of consumer software (like the latest games), the same issues are recurring
Which is why there's absolutely no increase in framerate or other performance benchmarks as you increase CPU speed, right? Oh wait, there is...
If you're buying a system in the near future, drop 500-1000 Mhz in CPU speed and buy faster disks or more memory with the money you saved
Yes, that $30 will go far.
Looking at Newegg, the cheapest AMD Athlon processor I can buy is a 950 MHz Athlon. For another $13 I can buy an Athlon XP 1600 (1400 MHz). The most expensive Athlon XP available right now is a 2200 (1800 MHz) for $155. And an Athlon XP 2000 (1667 MHz) is $100. The reality is that CPU prices aren't as high as they used to be. In fact, you're likely to spend more on memory than you do on the CPU. Heck, the motherboards can be more expensive than the CPUs now.
And the MHz does still matter. Virtually everything still winds up being CPU bound - pop in a faster CPU, everything gets faster. The same can't always be said for memory (512MB is sufficient for most purposes currently), and improving disk performance is freaking expensive (compare prices for 15k SCSI drives to 7.2k IDE drives. Don't forget to factor in the necessary SCSI card and equivalent storage space).
If you're a gamer then the best place to put money is the video card... they still scale based on CPU speed, but the difference between a $50 video card and a $150 one is far greater than a $50 CPU and $150 CPU.
Are there bottlenecks still? Sure. But despite the horrible, evil numbers that float around university EE/CompE courses it's not really that bad. If it were then we'd still be stuck back at a couple hundred MHz trying to change laws of physics to get the HD, memory, and network subsystems up to CPU speeds.
Oh, if you really want to think about just how wide the disparity between CPU speed and other systems are -- that 3 GHz P4 is actually running it's ALUs at 6 GHz. And yet it still manages to get enough data to show a marked improvement over a 2.4 GHz P4.
Oh, and SGI isn't the only proprietary code either. There's also a cross licensing agreement with S3 for the S3TC (S3 Texture Compression) algorithms that NVIDIA doesn't have the right to disclose.
This is certainly true for older hardware (pre GF4), and is again an artifact of the SGI cross-licensing with nVidia.
The GF4 chip is separate from the GF4 Quadro chip though - at least as far as pinouts go (it may be that the actual core is the same still, but fat lot of good that does if there aren't leads for the "professional" bits). The GF2/Q2 chips and cores were identical excepting a resistor, as you note.
There are also (allegedly, I certainly have not confirmed this) SGI-only features in the core. I can't imagine that these functions would be exposed at all in public drivers though, so I can't see that being an issue.
Well, I suppose we could go over the reasons for the billionth time on/., but there's no reason to believe that you'll listen this time either.
Oh well. Here it goes anyway.
The primary reason is that they cannot. They do not own all of the code that is in the drivers. There are extensive cross-licensing agreements between nVidia and SGI, dating back to the creation of nVidia from a bunch of ex-SGI engineers and the ensuing lawsuits. A good bit of the core code in nVidia drivers is essentially owned by SGI. nVidia cannot release that code. Period. End of story.
The secondary reason is that there is reason to believe that there are trade secrets in the drivers. Why do most people still favor nVidia over ATI? Because of the drivers. They work damn well most of the time, and the drivers you download today still support the original TNT. Additionally look at the GeForce4 and the Radeon 8500. On paper the Radeon 8500 was superior, and yet the GF4 beat it in benchmarks consistently. Why? The drivers. They were more mature, better written, and streamlined.
Don't like the situation? Fine, don't buy an nVidia card. What? Nobody else has 3d acceleration worth a crap? All the other drivers are just as unstable and slower too? Well, gee, maybe there's more proof that nVidia knows what the hell it's doing. Yes, it sucks if you're a *BSD fan or something else such that the binary-only drivers aren't usable, but, again, nobody made you buy nVidia.
Frankly, nVidia has spectacular Linux support. They release the Linux drivers within weeks of the Windows drivers and they're pretty damn stable (frankly, I suspect that if you have continual issues here that it's some other piece of hardware being marginal and pushed over the limit by running the card at full functionality). Oh yeah, and they're fully functional... don't forget that little bit.
It's really sad to see people whining for Linux support, getting pretty damn spectacular support, and then whining that it's not good enough. No wonder most manufacturers don't bother - damned if you do, damned if you don't. So why spend the time and money on a marginal market if you're just going to get roasted anyway?
EQ was designed to work with 4 MB Voodoo1 cards. For the better part of 2 years they restricted themselves to global textures that fit within those limitations. When the new engine was released they somehow divorced themselves from the original requirements on the box, but they're still using very little video memory.
Compare the textures in EQ to any modern game - UT2k3 is a good sample since it runs just fine on a 32MB card and it still has vastly improved textures.
And I am sure that is why more video memory would be nice. Your video card has to have loaded into it every people and every combination of cloths etc.. that could possible be show on the screen at that given time
Do you know how incredibly small the textures are for those weapons, clothes, etc? In EQ we're talking a few K a piece. They're really quite crappy and it shows.
I don't think EQ even uses 32MB to it's fullest extent, much less even more memory. The reason EQ is slow is that it has always had one of the most crappy engines in 3D gaming. Yes, it has drastically different design goals than a FPS engine, but it's still shitty.
If you continue to break the law, you should go to jail
Ok. So you realize that merely reporting a security hole in a protocol to a company, with working source code, is a violation of the DMCA?
So, as a "security professional" you have now broken the law and should go to jail.
If we want to be sane about the situation then people trying to uphold themselves as being better than black hats need to get off their high horse. Realize that if you've found a security hole in a product then you're probably not the only one. And yes, you should dutifully report it to the company with enough data/code for them to verify your claim, and give them time to address it (which is a key issue - how long is long enough?).
But what happens when they don't fix it? Do you just decide that you've done your duty and ignore the fact that someone else out there either has or will discover the hole and exploit it? Or do you report it to a public independant organization like BugTraq? To whom do you owe loyalty? The company producing the product, or to the customers who are being left hanging in the breeze by the company?
I'll admit that I'm no hacker or security professional, but as a programmer I'd damn well want you to do the latter. It's called whistleblowing, and it's accepted as a viable method to right wrongs when other attempts to solve a problem have failed. This isn't a new concept, nor is it limited to the computer world. The only real difference is the speed at which companies are expected (and needed) to act.
because the redraw of the funky channel ID overlay
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The channel ID overlay can be drawn in a single frame (1/30th second).
The delay is because the digital signal requires additional decoding - and in order to see the picture at all you have to receive an I-frame which can take up to a full second if you just missed the last one (most systems do start displaying partial data, but that's why you see MPEG blocking artifacts until an I-frame is received).
They also grab info like the show name, channel name, etc. from sideband data -- none of which is available on analog cable.
If I am looking for a soccer game, or a cooking show, the funky menu systems are actually much slower
Or you could learn how to actually use new technology -- like menus. Instead of channel surfing by pressing chan up/down, you bring up the menu and see what's on now, what's on soon, and even descriptions of the shows if available.
This is an advantage.
Yes, there are times I find myself going back to channel surfing in the traditional sense, but I quickly remember just how stupid and painful it is to do so. Pull up a channel guide, find the channel or show I want, and go to it.
Of course, even more often I just hit the TiVo button and play something I've recorded in the past few months.
My sister, for example, lives in an area where she can get high speed Internet access (which, honestly, surprises me given where she lives). She chooses not to though because it's just not worth it.
She spends 10-14 hours per MONTH online. They don't have a separate phone line, and I suspect their ISP charges about $20/mo for access. Given that, I can't even argue that she should spend another $30/mo for high speed access - what's it going to save her? 5 to 10 minutes a month? Maybe as much as a half hour? It's too marginal.
If they had high speed internet would her family use the net more? Maybe, but I doubt it. Two young kids, 3 and 5 years old, pretty much preclude a ton of free time. And she's decided that she doesn't want them surfing yet.
When her kids get older and start needing the 'net for school use then I'm sure she'll get high speed access, but until then it is too expensive. Sure they could afford it, but why spend money you don't have to?
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot UD: Cancer Research which is what I run.
And, frankly, if you have so many spare cycles to run a distributed agent, you have the cycles to spare for USB. It's below the noise level.
You mean like the Asus A78VX, Abit AT7-MAX2, Aopen AX4BMAX, Gigabyte GA-8IEXP, Soyo SY-P4I Fire Dragon, or Asus P4B533-E?
These are all new motherboards, and most of them are on the high end of pricing.
Firewire is more expensive to implement, period. And the number of devices that can substantially benefit from the faster speed of Firewire are very few (basically digital video... high end digital audio as well, but that's so stratospheric as to be irrelevant in the consumer market).
People should skip that USB crap, and go to the source, where it is proven technology with years behind it
Sure, except that my printer, my scanner, and my camera already speak USB. I suppose I should just throw them out and buy new stuff.
Hrm... where are those cheap firewire ink jets? Or scanners? And, ya know, I just bought this Nikon 770 a year ago. I think it's still good.
People buy the interface that works with their components. Frankly, every PC shipped in the past 4 years has at least USB 1.0 on it. Relatively few have Firewire/IEEE1394. And since Firewire is more expensive to implement than USB, you can count on the vast majority of devices to continue implementing USB and ignoring Firewire.
Does Firewire have its place? Sure. But it's not on most consumer devices. Up until USB 2.0 it was the only choice for devices that needed high speed digital data ports (like video cameras), but USB 2.0 is still cheaper to implement.
Firewire isn't going to die off by any means - it's solidly entrenched in the video market, and HDTV is likely to make this even more true. But lay off the "USB sucks, Firewire r0x0rs" - USB does very well for a very broad selection of products and at a fraction of the cost.
As for the people whining about USB sucking CPU cycles - uh... and you're telling me that you max out a 1 GHz+ CPU constantly? Gimme a break.
Yes, and your data is also going to be "transmitted out to the world" over a null modem cable. And ethernet. And your monitor.
You ARE fully tempest shielded, right?
What a load of crap. If you're concerned about someone intercepting the data during transfer then it's up to you to encrypt it appropriately.
And, frankly, nobody could give a crap about your precious pr0n collection anyway. Far too many people are far too concerned about stuff that nobody else wants to see in the first place.
Blue's News
/., but it's a pretty widely respected gaming news site.
It's not quite as popular as
As Blue's tagline says: "Established 1995. Over an eighth of a billion visitors since 1997."
AnandTech and Tom's Hardware are also up there.
Frankly, a lot of sites have been around since 1997. Find some non-university/corporate sites that have been around for 10 years with (relatively) high hit counts and it's more meaningful.
Shame you can't just specify your own... I'd rather like "Sunday March 21, 2002 @10:00AM" but it's not an option.
It's an option in Windows too you know. I can't think of an OS where it wasn't an option, although I'm sure someone will dredge an esoteric example out of their hat and laugh.
Wireless has it's uses -- a lot of general computer users like it because they don't have to deal with the cord getting caught on stuff, pulling at the mouse, etc. Some people's computers are located far enough from the mouse pad/area that the cord isn't long enough for good movement (or isn't long enough, period).
And wireless mice are great for HTPC's - when your screen is 8 feet diagonal you can sit a wee bit further away and still see the pointer.
Wireless mice are disliked amongst gamers though - most claim that there's a slight bit of mouse lag added to both movements and button presses.
Yes he cooked them - on a stove by burning bits of his boat. When the Navy found him they had to scuttle the boat because it was too damaged to tow.
Frankly, I'd love to know what the previous poster would do in the guy's situation - you're on a sailboat with no mast, no motor, and a dead radio. There are no ships in your vicinity for 3.5 months (yes, this is easily possible). Are you going to row back to shore? I don't think so.
For the record - one other ship did pass within visual range, but he was unsuccessful in signaling them. The Navy ship was only the second one he saw.
No... in fact I don't have a real HT setup yet, for a variety of reasons.
But a 8' screen with a dolby digital setup can cost under $5000. It won't be top notch and I personally wouldn't settle for it, but it's not an utterly absurd price either.
We're not talking plasma screen here or anything - a used LCD projector can be had for $2-3k (maybe less), a screen is a couple hundred, and you can find cheapo receivers and speaker setups for under a grand.
For about $10k you can get a much better projector and a better sound setup. For about $15k you can get a way better projector (a very nice DLP or DILA setup), and an very good sound setup.
As with all things, it's merely a question of what you want to spend your money on.
Generally you have a dedicated HTPC and don't try to use it for general computing tasks. Partially to reduce the chances of something getting screwed up on the HTPC, partially because it is a PITA to use as a regular PC (a lot of HTPC's don't have a monitor other than the primary theater display hooked up; using Quicken on a 8 foot diagonal screen is a bit absurd).
But just think about playing UT2k3 or Doom3 on that same 8 foot screen with full dolby digital surround.
The question is why would anyone like to have one machine controling everything
Because it's more efficient?
A well designed HTPC can replace a CD changer, a DVD player, a pre-amp, tuner, a TiVo, and a scaler/deinterlacer. And even if you buy the cheapest AV equipment and the most expensive computer equipment you'll come out ahead on the HTPC side.
Not to mention that you have all of that in one box the size of a desktop computer.
The biggest problem remains the interface -- you can do a lot with programmable remote controls, but it's still not as simple or reliable as components. Probably the biggest issue is the feedback component. A pre-amp may have a simple LCD saying "CD" or "Tuner", but HTPC's tend to use Windows interfaces which are more intrusive and nearly impossible to use without some kind of video output.
Of course, you gain a lot of flexibility - you can do anything with the HTPC you can do with a regular computer - but try explaining how to watch TV to a visiting relative (heck, my mom had enough problems with the TiVo when I was on my honeymoon).
As usual, the hardware side of things has been conquered first. Now work has to be done on the usability. And doing things like integrating a small LCD screen onto the system does a lot toward that goal.
Great job Mark -- just finished browsing the thread, and as an AVS member you should know how much hifi geeks will spend for cool equipment. If you were able to make a profit selling these at $2k then I bet they'd sell very well indeed.
As always the limiting factor is the interface. None of the HTPC's I've seen yet have the simplicity of design that most other AV electronics do. And while a HTPC can easily replace most of a home theater setup, trying to make it usable for anyone else seems an insurmountable challenge (and yes, I have a Pronto).
facts are that the Bombardier Beetle defies all evolutionist theories
Which part of the linked page was too difficult for you to read? It pretty much blasts your statement (above) to shreds.
You know, there's faith. But there's also blind stupidity. The former is just fine. You have crossed into the latter.
If you want to burn those unused cycles do it on something that matters
And brute forced cracking of an encryption algorithm, which everyone who cares knows is possible anyway, matters?
No thanks... I'd rather have my spare cycles go to something that will help cure cancer, Alzheimer's, or the like. (Yes, I know, d.net has "partnered" with UD on the cancer bit, but it's not a d.net project).
Frankly, I'd give the edge to SETI@home over d.net's projects. But that's just me. I do think that there's alien life out there, but I doubt it's trying to communicate in a fashion that we'll be able to find with SETI@home.
Regarding jzip - does it support file formats other than zip? Namely, tar and gzip files?
There's no indication on the website, none in the history, the readme in the source code docs just says "Support for other archive files" is in the todo list, and a quick grep of the source looks negative.
It's not unusual for a sub 1Ghz PC with good SCSI disks to handily outperform a 2Ghz+ machine with mere IDE
Doing what? And what kind of disk subsystem? Put in a single IDE drive and a single SCSI drive, both running at the same spindle speed, and I doubt there will be a measurable difference. Modern IDE is not as godawful bad as it used to be. And yes, I used to be a SCSI advocate, and I definitely agree that SCSI has it's place. But it's not on the desktop.
Nowadays with the increasing sophistication of consumer software (like the latest games), the same issues are recurring
Which is why there's absolutely no increase in framerate or other performance benchmarks as you increase CPU speed, right? Oh wait, there is...
If you're buying a system in the near future, drop 500-1000 Mhz in CPU speed and buy faster disks or more memory with the money you saved
Yes, that $30 will go far.
Looking at Newegg, the cheapest AMD Athlon processor I can buy is a 950 MHz Athlon. For another $13 I can buy an Athlon XP 1600 (1400 MHz). The most expensive Athlon XP available right now is a 2200 (1800 MHz) for $155. And an Athlon XP 2000 (1667 MHz) is $100. The reality is that CPU prices aren't as high as they used to be. In fact, you're likely to spend more on memory than you do on the CPU. Heck, the motherboards can be more expensive than the CPUs now.
And the MHz does still matter. Virtually everything still winds up being CPU bound - pop in a faster CPU, everything gets faster. The same can't always be said for memory (512MB is sufficient for most purposes currently), and improving disk performance is freaking expensive (compare prices for 15k SCSI drives to 7.2k IDE drives. Don't forget to factor in the necessary SCSI card and equivalent storage space).
If you're a gamer then the best place to put money is the video card... they still scale based on CPU speed, but the difference between a $50 video card and a $150 one is far greater than a $50 CPU and $150 CPU.
Are there bottlenecks still? Sure. But despite the horrible, evil numbers that float around university EE/CompE courses it's not really that bad. If it were then we'd still be stuck back at a couple hundred MHz trying to change laws of physics to get the HD, memory, and network subsystems up to CPU speeds.
Oh, if you really want to think about just how wide the disparity between CPU speed and other systems are -- that 3 GHz P4 is actually running it's ALUs at 6 GHz. And yet it still manages to get enough data to show a marked improvement over a 2.4 GHz P4.
Funny, you've been asked twice now and declined to provide links.
Here's mine:
FreeBSD Driver Initative
Announcement of collaboration between NVIDIA, SGI, and VA Linux
NVIDIA press release
And another release
Tom's Hardware discussion
Oh, and SGI isn't the only proprietary code either. There's also a cross licensing agreement with S3 for the S3TC (S3 Texture Compression) algorithms that NVIDIA doesn't have the right to disclose.
NVIDIA and SGI drop lawsuits
This is certainly true for older hardware (pre GF4), and is again an artifact of the SGI cross-licensing with nVidia.
The GF4 chip is separate from the GF4 Quadro chip though - at least as far as pinouts go (it may be that the actual core is the same still, but fat lot of good that does if there aren't leads for the "professional" bits). The GF2/Q2 chips and cores were identical excepting a resistor, as you note.
There are also (allegedly, I certainly have not confirmed this) SGI-only features in the core. I can't imagine that these functions would be exposed at all in public drivers though, so I can't see that being an issue.
Well, I suppose we could go over the reasons for the billionth time on /., but there's no reason to believe that you'll listen this time either.
Oh well. Here it goes anyway.
The primary reason is that they cannot. They do not own all of the code that is in the drivers. There are extensive cross-licensing agreements between nVidia and SGI, dating back to the creation of nVidia from a bunch of ex-SGI engineers and the ensuing lawsuits. A good bit of the core code in nVidia drivers is essentially owned by SGI. nVidia cannot release that code. Period. End of story.
The secondary reason is that there is reason to believe that there are trade secrets in the drivers. Why do most people still favor nVidia over ATI? Because of the drivers. They work damn well most of the time, and the drivers you download today still support the original TNT. Additionally look at the GeForce4 and the Radeon 8500. On paper the Radeon 8500 was superior, and yet the GF4 beat it in benchmarks consistently. Why? The drivers. They were more mature, better written, and streamlined.
Don't like the situation? Fine, don't buy an nVidia card. What? Nobody else has 3d acceleration worth a crap? All the other drivers are just as unstable and slower too? Well, gee, maybe there's more proof that nVidia knows what the hell it's doing. Yes, it sucks if you're a *BSD fan or something else such that the binary-only drivers aren't usable, but, again, nobody made you buy nVidia.
Frankly, nVidia has spectacular Linux support. They release the Linux drivers within weeks of the Windows drivers and they're pretty damn stable (frankly, I suspect that if you have continual issues here that it's some other piece of hardware being marginal and pushed over the limit by running the card at full functionality). Oh yeah, and they're fully functional... don't forget that little bit.
It's really sad to see people whining for Linux support, getting pretty damn spectacular support, and then whining that it's not good enough. No wonder most manufacturers don't bother - damned if you do, damned if you don't. So why spend the time and money on a marginal market if you're just going to get roasted anyway?
For instance, take a game like EQ (everquest)
No. Don't.
EQ was designed to work with 4 MB Voodoo1 cards. For the better part of 2 years they restricted themselves to global textures that fit within those limitations. When the new engine was released they somehow divorced themselves from the original requirements on the box, but they're still using very little video memory.
Compare the textures in EQ to any modern game - UT2k3 is a good sample since it runs just fine on a 32MB card and it still has vastly improved textures.
And I am sure that is why more video memory would be nice. Your video card has to have loaded into it every people and every combination of cloths etc.. that could possible be show on the screen at that given time
Do you know how incredibly small the textures are for those weapons, clothes, etc? In EQ we're talking a few K a piece. They're really quite crappy and it shows.
I don't think EQ even uses 32MB to it's fullest extent, much less even more memory. The reason EQ is slow is that it has always had one of the most crappy engines in 3D gaming. Yes, it has drastically different design goals than a FPS engine, but it's still shitty.
If it's not right then it has to be wrong
Yes, and if it's not in light then it must be in darkness, right?
I won't even go into the myriad of ideas or situations that exist in the grey area between right and wrong.
If you "traipse" into my computer you will go to jail. Pretty simple.
Ok, so what if I find a backdoor onto my own computer? Should I report it to the company? If I do and they do nothing to fix it what then?
This shouldn't be hard for you to answer. After all, by your own statement there's one right answer and everything else is wrong.
If you continue to break the law, you should go to jail
Ok. So you realize that merely reporting a security hole in a protocol to a company, with working source code, is a violation of the DMCA?
So, as a "security professional" you have now broken the law and should go to jail.
If we want to be sane about the situation then people trying to uphold themselves as being better than black hats need to get off their high horse. Realize that if you've found a security hole in a product then you're probably not the only one. And yes, you should dutifully report it to the company with enough data/code for them to verify your claim, and give them time to address it (which is a key issue - how long is long enough?).
But what happens when they don't fix it? Do you just decide that you've done your duty and ignore the fact that someone else out there either has or will discover the hole and exploit it? Or do you report it to a public independant organization like BugTraq? To whom do you owe loyalty? The company producing the product, or to the customers who are being left hanging in the breeze by the company?
I'll admit that I'm no hacker or security professional, but as a programmer I'd damn well want you to do the latter. It's called whistleblowing, and it's accepted as a viable method to right wrongs when other attempts to solve a problem have failed. This isn't a new concept, nor is it limited to the computer world. The only real difference is the speed at which companies are expected (and needed) to act.
because the redraw of the funky channel ID overlay
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The channel ID overlay can be drawn in a single frame (1/30th second).
The delay is because the digital signal requires additional decoding - and in order to see the picture at all you have to receive an I-frame which can take up to a full second if you just missed the last one (most systems do start displaying partial data, but that's why you see MPEG blocking artifacts until an I-frame is received).
They also grab info like the show name, channel name, etc. from sideband data -- none of which is available on analog cable.
If I am looking for a soccer game, or a cooking show, the funky menu systems are actually much slower
Or you could learn how to actually use new technology -- like menus. Instead of channel surfing by pressing chan up/down, you bring up the menu and see what's on now, what's on soon, and even descriptions of the shows if available.
This is an advantage.
Yes, there are times I find myself going back to channel surfing in the traditional sense, but I quickly remember just how stupid and painful it is to do so. Pull up a channel guide, find the channel or show I want, and go to it.
Of course, even more often I just hit the TiVo button and play something I've recorded in the past few months.
Uh... I don't think you get it.
My sister, for example, lives in an area where she can get high speed Internet access (which, honestly, surprises me given where she lives). She chooses not to though because it's just not worth it.
She spends 10-14 hours per MONTH online. They don't have a separate phone line, and I suspect their ISP charges about $20/mo for access. Given that, I can't even argue that she should spend another $30/mo for high speed access - what's it going to save her? 5 to 10 minutes a month? Maybe as much as a half hour? It's too marginal.
If they had high speed internet would her family use the net more? Maybe, but I doubt it. Two young kids, 3 and 5 years old, pretty much preclude a ton of free time. And she's decided that she doesn't want them surfing yet.
When her kids get older and start needing the 'net for school use then I'm sure she'll get high speed access, but until then it is too expensive. Sure they could afford it, but why spend money you don't have to?