So I'm not the only one who read the writeup and thought, "Hey, Cnet is changing their name!"
I'm just amazed at the volume of breaking/headline news stories they've been running lately related to Longhorn. IMO the last "newsworthy" story about Longhorn was when it was revealed it would be released at the end of '06.
Then you have a low maintance, working computer for atleast a couple of years.
If everything goes well, yes.
And only a couple days worth of time?
I could kill a day just trying to pick out optical drives (figure out what I want, find the cheapsest place I trust, try to decide it that's really what I want, place the order, check hourly to see if its shipped, then hit tracking site for shipping company every hour to see where my drives are, sepnd time looking out window for delivery truck...).
And don't forget to include the cost of pizza, coffee and Mt. Dew consumed during the process. That could pay for a Mac Mini right there.
Of course you have to look at what is said to "suck" about it.
When running on a Mac, if it doesn't look like a Mac app and act like a Mac app, it sucks. But with the same look/feel/action on any other system it would fit right in.
I'm notot saying the interface is the only problem, that just seems to be what you hear the most about.
1499 is a lot for a "low end" computer in my mind.
Yes it is. Fortunately Apple sells its low end computer for $500.
Now if you're looking at the "lowest" of the high end systems, you'll pay $1500.
ati 9600 doesn't hold anything to a 6800 ultra
At what? I've seen this said a lot, but I don't see a real advantage. What types of apps on the Mac would actually see an improvement with the 6800 ultra (other than games)? I may be wrong, but the bulk of apps being run today (again excluding games) wouldn't even challenge the 9600, would they?
I wonder too if it doesn't have something to do with compatibility with things like Quartz Extreme, Core Video and the like, that use GPU acceleration. My info is probably dated, but many of the faster GPUs use shortcuts that might not be compatible with such use.
IMO the Mac Faithful see it as it is. Its a nice speed bump, nothing else.
And it still isn't as fast as we were expecting by this time.
I haven't seen anyone get very excited about it. About the most excitement I've seen is some people happy about the dual-layer DVD burning built-in now.
There's nothing preventing Napster from selling music that works on an iPod. All they have to do is use an industry standard format like AAC or mp3 (or AIFF). iPods play all those just fine.
What's sad to me is that this kind of spin can be seen in just about every poll/survey you'll see in the mainstream media. The numbers and wording are often spun in a way to imply a conclusion that has nothing to do with the real question at hand.
There was one recently that in a survey of over 600 kids, the ones who played video games were responsible for two-thirds of the violent acts recorded for the group.
How horrible! Ban video games, now!
Of course nowhere can it be found what percentage of those sruveyed played video games. If over two-thirds played video games, its just possible we should be forcing kids to play more video games.
Right. I got Panther to do this with a little tweaking, and from what I read, Tiger may be doing something similar. Talk about innovation...
I'm just trying to imagine what happens when someone opens up a big folder full of.pdf's or something. Computer grinds to a halt and GUI becomes unresponsive while the OS tries to create icons for all the files. Its bad enough with just a single file sometimes in column mode in OS X with some multimedia files.
Speaking of which... Wonder what they do for things like audio files and files the OS doesn't immediately recognize.
Funny, my Powerbook G4 has been doing this for years.
Not exactly, IIRC and you haven't changed the default settings, it will start up with the window at normal (1X) size. I'm trying to decide if MS is going to have it run "full screen" as in no menubar or anything visible. I hope they are, because the thought of thousands of Windows users having to unplug their computer because they can't figure out how to stop the movie blasting full volume with no controls visible....
Not to mention the poor schmuck who slips in a porn DVD thinking he'll watch it later when nobody's around...
The only practical way to do so is to alter the birth rate.
But as you mention, its not birth rate alone, but also surviving to reproduce. The wealthier, better educated people who are having fewer children, have children who will very likely live to have children of their own. In some poorer countries with a higher birth rate, a much lower percentage live to have children of their own.
IIRC there was a study many years ago showing that its actually the higher survival rate of the "wealthier" children that is adding more to population than the higher birth rate of "poorer" children.
Theoretically. From a practical standpoint, its real hard (no pun intented).
wealth appears to result in people having fewer children
But based on one study I read years ago, this is more than offset by the fact that the children of wealthy people have a greater rate of survival to reproductive age and a longer adult life expectancy.
Interesting issues, but I disagree with you on some points.
First, there's really nothing new about multiple cores IMO. Instead of "core" try the term "execution unit". CPUs used to have a single execution unit. Then something like an Integer Unit was added. Remember the days of math coprocessors? They soon got moved into the CPU by adding more, and more specialized, Integer Units and a Floating Point Execution Unit. Now you have CPUs that have multiple execution units, to the point of having multiple Integer and Floating Point Units, and even SIMD units.
So then, isn't multi-core simply an easy way of doubling the number of execution units in the CPU and using the OS to handle some of the scheduling?
I'm also not sure I agree with you on parallelism. Seems to me we've had to do a lot of work to make very parallel processes linear. For example, I want to add the numbers in column A, to the numbers in column B, and multiply them by x. We start with the first pair of numbers, add and multiply. Get the next pair, add and multiply.... Most of the stuff your computer does could be done in parallel, problem is its very hard to write general purpose software or create a general purpose CPU that can really take advantage of that parallelism.
And whenever I see someone say something like, "Its good for high performance scientific computing", that means its good for general purpose computing too. Remember most scientific computing involves repeatedly doing simple operations on arrays of data (both large and small) -almost exactly like the type of stuff your computer does for every frame it displays on your monitor. In fact, some scientific apps have even been written to use the GPU on some video cards as a digital signal processor, because that's essentially what GPUs are/do.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't have read your comment right after taking the Butter poll.
Butter overflow?
Took me a couple rereads to get it right.
Hmmm.
...and they all obey?
Just trying to imagine how the US military would decide to do something like this.
Are you thinking the president doesn't want to step down so he orders the military to keep him in power...
Or is there some other person or group you think could actually command even a single branch of the military to take over the country?
I guess my imagination is simply lacking in this arena.
The net has always been full of crap.
Been true since UseNet was new.
Read the good ones.
Good advice then and now.
Remember, you can't spell propoganda without NDA.
/. all the time.
Pffft! I see people do it on
So I'm not the only one who read the writeup and thought, "Hey, Cnet is changing their name!"
I'm just amazed at the volume of breaking/headline news stories they've been running lately related to Longhorn. IMO the last "newsworthy" story about Longhorn was when it was revealed it would be released at the end of '06.
Maybe everybody should just do the Microsoft and either use the year or no number at all.
Next up, MS will drop the "beta" monicker from it first releases.
Then you have a low maintance, working computer for atleast a couple of years.
If everything goes well, yes.
And only a couple days worth of time?
I could kill a day just trying to pick out optical drives (figure out what I want, find the cheapsest place I trust, try to decide it that's really what I want, place the order, check hourly to see if its shipped, then hit tracking site for shipping company every hour to see where my drives are, sepnd time looking out window for delivery truck...).
And don't forget to include the cost of pizza, coffee and Mt. Dew consumed during the process. That could pay for a Mac Mini right there.
Of course you have to look at what is said to "suck" about it.
When running on a Mac, if it doesn't look like a Mac app and act like a Mac app, it sucks. But with the same look/feel/action on any other system it would fit right in.
I'm notot saying the interface is the only problem, that just seems to be what you hear the most about.
Sounds like we just need a reeealy long straw and let Mars suck some of the atmoshpere out of Venus.
Then we have two habitable planets!
1499 is a lot for a "low end" computer in my mind.
Yes it is. Fortunately Apple sells its low end computer for $500.
Now if you're looking at the "lowest" of the high end systems, you'll pay $1500.
ati 9600 doesn't hold anything to a 6800 ultra
At what? I've seen this said a lot, but I don't see a real advantage. What types of apps on the Mac would actually see an improvement with the 6800 ultra (other than games)? I may be wrong, but the bulk of apps being run today (again excluding games) wouldn't even challenge the 9600, would they?
I wonder too if it doesn't have something to do with compatibility with things like Quartz Extreme, Core Video and the like, that use GPU acceleration. My info is probably dated, but many of the faster GPUs use shortcuts that might not be compatible with such use.
Just curious.
- The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??
A BTO option?
Let me change that around a little. Why would I want an X800? Will it make my web brwoser faster or speed up my data analysis?
Its not the lack of dual-core that's got me disappointed. Its the lack of 3 GHz almost a year after we were supposed to have it.
Compared to that dual-core vs. dual-processor is nothing, IMO.
IMO the Mac Faithful see it as it is. Its a nice speed bump, nothing else.
And it still isn't as fast as we were expecting by this time.
I haven't seen anyone get very excited about it. About the most excitement I've seen is some people happy about the dual-layer DVD burning built-in now.
If you're basing it on the Real-hating comments, I'd go with (-1) Redundant.
Isn't that a little backwards?
There's nothing preventing Napster from selling music that works on an iPod. All they have to do is use an industry standard format like AAC or mp3 (or AIFF). iPods play all those just fine.
I just figured it was hybrid between the words "divisive" and "deceive".
If the president of the USA can do it, anyone can!
What's sad to me is that this kind of spin can be seen in just about every poll/survey you'll see in the mainstream media. The numbers and wording are often spun in a way to imply a conclusion that has nothing to do with the real question at hand.
There was one recently that in a survey of over 600 kids, the ones who played video games were responsible for two-thirds of the violent acts recorded for the group.
How horrible! Ban video games, now!
Of course nowhere can it be found what percentage of those sruveyed played video games. If over two-thirds played video games, its just possible we should be forcing kids to play more video games.
Right. I got Panther to do this with a little tweaking, and from what I read, Tiger may be doing something similar. Talk about innovation...
.pdf's or something. Computer grinds to a halt and GUI becomes unresponsive while the OS tries to create icons for all the files. Its bad enough with just a single file sometimes in column mode in OS X with some multimedia files.
I'm just trying to imagine what happens when someone opens up a big folder full of
Speaking of which... Wonder what they do for things like audio files and files the OS doesn't immediately recognize.
Funny, my Powerbook G4 has been doing this for years.
Not exactly, IIRC and you haven't changed the default settings, it will start up with the window at normal (1X) size. I'm trying to decide if MS is going to have it run "full screen" as in no menubar or anything visible. I hope they are, because the thought of thousands of Windows users having to unplug their computer because they can't figure out how to stop the movie blasting full volume with no controls visible....
Not to mention the poor schmuck who slips in a porn DVD thinking he'll watch it later when nobody's around...
Ultimately, if half of all adults are sterilized, the reproduction rate will be immediately cut in half.
Or it may be cut even more dramatically, depending on which half of the population (i.e. male) you eliminate.
After all, some see that pesky Y chromosome as an undesirable trait.
The only practical way to do so is to alter the birth rate.
But as you mention, its not birth rate alone, but also surviving to reproduce. The wealthier, better educated people who are having fewer children, have children who will very likely live to have children of their own. In some poorer countries with a higher birth rate, a much lower percentage live to have children of their own.
IIRC there was a study many years ago showing that its actually the higher survival rate of the "wealthier" children that is adding more to population than the higher birth rate of "poorer" children.
Just an added wrinkle.
It's really not that hard,
Theoretically. From a practical standpoint, its real hard (no pun intented).
wealth appears to result in people having fewer children
But based on one study I read years ago, this is more than offset by the fact that the children of wealthy people have a greater rate of survival to reproductive age and a longer adult life expectancy.
But we all know that if Intel doesn't buy their copy, they'll take it back to the library. Its not like they're reall thieves or anything.
On another note, I wonder how much time you can get for stealing something worth $10k? We're not talking petty theft any more.
If Intel wants some good press, it might be good gesture for them to buy an extra copy and donate it to the U of I.
Of course I'm not sure that issue wasn't bound with several others that were taken along with it.
IMO the "mature, cheap, quick" way would be to call a reputable rare book dealer and ask them to procure a copy for you.
But that doesn't get you noticed.
Interesting issues, but I disagree with you on some points.
First, there's really nothing new about multiple cores IMO. Instead of "core" try the term "execution unit". CPUs used to have a single execution unit. Then something like an Integer Unit was added. Remember the days of math coprocessors? They soon got moved into the CPU by adding more, and more specialized, Integer Units and a Floating Point Execution Unit. Now you have CPUs that have multiple execution units, to the point of having multiple Integer and Floating Point Units, and even SIMD units.
So then, isn't multi-core simply an easy way of doubling the number of execution units in the CPU and using the OS to handle some of the scheduling?
I'm also not sure I agree with you on parallelism. Seems to me we've had to do a lot of work to make very parallel processes linear. For example, I want to add the numbers in column A, to the numbers in column B, and multiply them by x. We start with the first pair of numbers, add and multiply. Get the next pair, add and multiply.... Most of the stuff your computer does could be done in parallel, problem is its very hard to write general purpose software or create a general purpose CPU that can really take advantage of that parallelism.
And whenever I see someone say something like, "Its good for high performance scientific computing", that means its good for general purpose computing too. Remember most scientific computing involves repeatedly doing simple operations on arrays of data (both large and small) -almost exactly like the type of stuff your computer does for every frame it displays on your monitor. In fact, some scientific apps have even been written to use the GPU on some video cards as a digital signal processor, because that's essentially what GPUs are/do.