Let me go a little further, but I hit enter and it went to submit by accident...
Illegally executed searches is a big cause of death of innocent people by police men. If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.
That is what (i think) the parent poster is trying to get across. And yes, this kind of illegal search happens every single day across this country.
I think his point is about how there are countless instances where pot smokers were murdered by cops who were on a mission from god to destroy all pot smokers. Knocking down doors without warrants and shooting a family of innocent bystanders because you think they have pot is not legal, and cops get away with it every year.
On top of all this, DirectTV is sending signals into MY house, and MY property. They will not even allow me to purchase the signals they are sending into MY property. If it isn't available for sale by whoever put it there, and its in my yard, then fuck whoever put it there. Their loss.
If you want to get into the law, my above post should clear up your misconceptions about copyright violation != theft.
"Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever."
So you are saying guilty until proven innocent?
Since when is human nature to steal? Or, when did the primary action of human nature become theft? I must have been sleeping.
Lastly, you can't be a theif for watching DirectTV, no matter how you obtained the signal. It is called copyright violations. You can't steal IP, only violate it.
Ever heard of competition? Thought not. Mac troll. I guess you have never heard of the compaq BIOS reverse engineering that started the whole x86 PC platform. (Yes, started it, because without out this reverse engineering, x86 would have never been remotely popular like it is today)
Ever heard of PNG,GIF,Animated PNG/GIF? these are formats for both images and video, that are 100% lossless, and better than a 2:1 compression ratio on most video and images (High resolution images with many colors are not great compression ratio but in the average case 2:1 is very very very very doable)
As for video, animated PNG is a PNG compression of the Diff's of the second frame to the first, third to the second, etc etc.. In the case of video, compression ratios are on the order of 100:1 and audio is usually around 2:1 for lossless (FLAC,shn)
Huffyuv is a codec that video editors use that is lossless and better than 2:1 in the average case
Text, for sure on the average case, is WAY WAY WAY over a 2:1 compression ratio (Ever heard of gzip,zip,bz2?). Especially considering they are zipping up code, and not written english, it is very very compressable because of so much redundancy.
I think someone forgot to do their compression homework before posting and insulting his parent (which he should respect, for he has insight)...
"As far as I knew, Premiere is still the most popular film editing app amongst Mac users, which would stand to reason that it is still making a lot of money."
Or, it would stand to reason that there aren't many people editing video on the mac (excluding home videos for iMovie)
This is the more likely case, considering pretty much anybody who would use premier to edit video would be using a PC because of its huge performance difference in video editing (specifically video editing with adobe premier/after effects). Simply put, it just takes less time to edit video on a PC than a mac using Premier, reguardless of the hard drive configuration.
Final Cut Pro is Apple's last chance to keep that last strand of the video editing marketshare on the Mac. Saying that Final Cut Pro is what Adobe is running from is just plain silly. There is no profit to be made in video editing applications on the Mac, because no professional worth his salt would use a Mac to edit video with premier.
Interisting point by point reply, yet not a single statement you made offered any evidence my argument is false, invalid, or unsound. Simply put, everything you said has no supporting evidence.
"+R media is not in fact more expensive than -R, and as economies of scale kick in it will become cheaper, even."
Actually, +R media is more expensive on the wholesale level. Yes it is the same price at retail (usually) only because retailers eat the extra cost it takes to sell them. Aside from this fact, my argument plainly said "Why use more expensive media (DVD+MRW)" which is a special media/drive combination that supports MR. This extra complexity adds to the cost of the media and the drive.
Your reply to my arguments about loss-less linking ("The +R solution is simply the better technology, no way around it. You may try to marginalise it but that's the fact.) is irrelevant. Los-Less linking takes more precision from the beam, and therefore more complex device. This raises cost. 32K (at its maximum) is certaintly a good price for the simplicity of the device. Saying that loss-less linking coming standard on DVD+R is just uplain "better" shows that you have no idea the technical limitations of such devices.
"This [96MB/32MB maximum multisession waste] is NOT negligable."
Yes it is. In fact, it is on the same order of magnitude as DVD+R waste (4MB). When you are talking about any type of storage media, 2% waste and.5% waste are practically the same thing.
"Not it hasn't. It's slowly on the way out"
Way to know the industry. and way to present evidence to your rants.
If you read the article to your own link, there are many reasons why you make your claims... The only real problem that makes DVD-R technically inferior is that some of the bits are not protected by ECC parity bits.. Every other conclusion made by the article only promotes features in DVD+R(W) that are extra fluf having nothing to do with read/write quality on specific media and drives.
For instance, The article claims that because of the pre-pits used for media information sent to the drive, you must use a dual laser setup to be able to burn, but then the article slips in that many manufacturers nowadays are switching to single beam lasers. So it looks like they found a way to fix that problem. So after the first "pro" for DVD+R, he doesn't offer any REAL world disadvantage for DVD-R (Nobody cares what the paper-world advantage is if it is not translated to real world advantages) Not only this, but the claim that the pre-pit method reduces drive speed is a lie. In the real world, DVD-R is just as fast as DVD+R. Until there is proven technology in DVD+R that proves its superior burning speed, any point against the DVD-R pre-pit method is invalid.
Lets go onto "Pro" number 2 for DVD+R. (I'm skipping ECC bits because I admit that one) Defect management has not been implemented in any commodity DVD+R drive to date. All it is is fluff added to the specification and could also be added to the DVD-R specification in time. The claims that you can only get these features with DVD-R using software is true, but they are also true for DVD+R. There is nothing preventing DVD-R future specifications from including defect management on the hardware level (save patents, which are already a problem with DVD+R) Not only this, but since when was it better to implement such items in HARDWARE when it could just as easilly be implemented in software (especially considering you need special mastering software for either drive in the first place) Including hardware to do software's tasks just increases the cost of the drives and patent licensing for drive and media manufacturing. To quote from the article: "This makes DVD-RW not well suited for simple file storage or image burning, as it requires a complete file system to benefit from defect management." Duhh, this is what we have been doing in the CD-R arena since the begining! Why use more expensive media (DVD+MRW) and drives to accomplish something that software can accomplish for far, far cheaper and much more robust(if desired)?
Lets go onto "pro" number 3 for DVD+R... "Also a DVD+R(W) disc allows a drive to achieve better writing quality (independently of media quality), because it gives more information to a drive than a DVD-R(W). " This quote is backed up by nothing, and just shows how much less this reviewer truely understands. There is no evidence presented that DVD-R drives NEED that "more information" DVD+R drives provide to their drives. Not only this, but so far, it looks like current drive models are having NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER with the "limited" 7088 sector test area of the disk.
Now on to DVD+R "advantage number 4: Linking... Nothing in this article explains why using loss-less linking (used for things such as buffer-underrun protected recording) has any advantage over 32k wide linking. In fact, there is a very good and useful reason for this DVD-R method. Why on earth would you need perfect exact loss-less linking when your media is 4.7GB long and you are going to waste a measly 32k? Who cares? This variable sized linking used by DVD-R makes buffer-underrun technology simpler, and cheaper to manufacturer. It requires less precision by the drive, and therefore means drives can be manufactured for less money. Because the drive does not have to align gaps perfectly like the DVD+R specification requires, DVD-R drives do not have nearly as many problems with slicing level deviations as described in the article. (note that the article tries to make this as a negative for DVD-R. This is where the reviewer's poor engineering skills show through)
You think Sony is more innovative because they hold the patents on DVD+R and that is exactly why they invented teh DVD+R format. They already made DVD-R drives, and added DVD+R support so they would become the drive on the block to have. Silly isn't it?
Simple fact is that you should NEVER buy a Sony drive, or anything made by sony for that matter. The DVD+R/W format is the most ridiculous format on the planet, and anybody using it is feeding money into their pockets so they can invent more useless formats as alternatives to things that already exist. Then they sell it to dell to try to make it standard issue. Give me a break.
In the end, DVD-R/RW is the standard format, and the format of choice for most of the industry. Unless you buy only dell computers, you are likely to be using DVD-R/RW exclusively. DVD-R media is cheaper than DVD+R. DVD-R media is carried in every computer shop in town whilst DVD+R media is hard to find anywhere in more than a 3pack or single pack. Joe Schmoe knows what a DVD-R is, and they don't want to be confused with WTF a DVD+R is. When people buy a new Dell and find out they need to special order the DVD media for it, they tend to get fucking pissed.
Nice information, but irrelevant to the article at hand. Software compression can be done by anybody (gzip). This device uses physical compression of the pits on the written disk. It packs more pits onto the same sized media by making them closer together and smaller. The result is a CD-R that can hold 40% more data.
While software compression is nice, it doesn't work on mpeg, mp3, etc files very well. This new method of hardware compression of the pits on the media does work with this type of file, or any type of file no matter how random the digits.
Yea, insted it is stashed into a bank account that can be instantly turned to cash within 24 hours. all 60 billion dollars of it. (yes, 60 billion)
This 10 billion dollar payout is negligable compared to what kind of cash microsoft has on hand right now. Especially considering in the past years, their on hand cash has exponentially risen and is now doubling every 6 months.
Now bill gates income has risen by $1billion (more than twice his normal sallary) and he doesn't even have to pay income tax on a SINGLE PENNY of it because of the Bush dividend tax cut.
How's that sound for a quality tax cut. Bill Gates is paying less percentage of income tax than the guy bagging groceries at the local store. I don't wanna hear a single republican tell me they are paying more in tax than me, because you aren't. And if you are, you are on the wrong side of the partyline.
"A character and a setting are VERY specific intellectual property or expressions. Although the fantasy and science fiction genres are HUGE, nearly every renowned work has immediately recognisable and distinguishable characters and settings. Middle Earth, Dune, Narnia, the Nautilus, Jedi, Discworld, Gandalf, Vimes, Paul Atreides - what makes you think that you can merely take the VAST amount of "development time" these authors spent on their creations and use it in a novel of your own?"
Well, If I did, I wouldn't be violating copyright. As your parent posted before you, that is a violation of TRADEMARK law, not COPYRIGHT law. You are the confused one. If I write a book with origional characters in it, and don't trademark the title of my book, the setting of my book, or the characters of my book, then I will have no right to sue anybody who uses those things in their own books. copyright only covers the specific work, not notions covered in the work.
have you ever heard of being bug compatible with another program? When you emulate an interface, you need to be not only copying what is considered "properly running interface", but you also must be emulating any errors of the interface. The reason is that you don't know what are errors and what is a desired effect. If you were to release a clone of a program, and you want the interface to be the same, then their interface bugs should show up in your code. If not by accident (not usualy) then intentionally (usually how it happens in a reverse engineering project).
You are correct in your recollection. The video card chips are more complex than general purpose CPUs. They are highly optimised CPUs with such things as SSE,Altivec,3DNow!, (but not by that name) only that is the whole chip (no general purpose calculations really). Their software runs on top of these chips and do the actual logic.
This is how both ATI and nVidia video cards actually work. And the reason why "hardware specs" would not yield 3D support without extensive development time and dedication in the open source world. This is also why nVidia keeps their software that runs on their chips so secret.
This isn't a link to a dual cpu version, but you might be interested in what people on pricewatch are charging for tower Opeteron servers with U320 SCSI and 3 year warranties. It's significantly less than apple's low end G5 tower (and these are relatively higher end machines)
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/95/5527-1.htm
BTW, why don't you show me a quad G5 for under $2000. The marketing information alone is gonna set you back a cool thousand, much less the pretty case, hard drives, motherboard, and all that neat stuff that comes in computer systems. Why don't we all just quit it with the mac zealot BS and start looking at reality. And that is the fact that apple hardware, no matter how well/not well it performs, has a price permium over any other type of PC. Period. Whether or not this is a bad thing has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
The new AMD Opteron PC is far more than just a PC. It is a workstation in its own right and outperforms the workstations built by Sun. The new AMD Opteron PC is both (much) faster and (much) cheaper than a Sun workstation.
Just look at the specs of the new AMD Opteron PC. 1.4,1.6,and 1.8 GHz and only $649 for a complete system [pricewatch.com]. It also does UNIX and Linux. AMD lucked out -- again. There will a surge of demand for this machine from engineers, moving beyond the traditional x86 core users (i. e. educational institutions, graphic artists, etc.). AMD will supplant both Sun and HP as the new workstation CPU company of Silicon Valley.
By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun.
The athlon XP's and second generation XP's use different voltage that was not available during the production of the TBIRD. the TBIRD is on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT die process than the athlon XP. They are NOT compatible.
From ASUS's website: http://www.asus.com/support/cpusupport/cpusupport. aspx
A7V supports up to 1400MHZ AMD Athlon T-Bird.
Even if you have an ASUS A7V-133 (the second revision of the A7V) you still do not have support for the second generation athlonXP, but only the origional Athlon XP (provided you have a newer revision of the ASUS PCB, up to 2100+) If you haven't noticed, athlons are up to 3000+ nowadays. In fact, even the newest ASUS motherboard does not support every single Socket A Athlon. So this fact pretty much disproves any point you might have had. Motherboard manufactureres and chipset makers CANNOT predict what AMD's new signaling specifications are going to be for each new athlon model. They can only design to current specs and get lucky if their design works with future chips. This is why YOUR A7V (if that is in fact what it is) will not run Athlon XP CPU's EVER.
Either your an idiot, or you are a troll.
"The only physical changes to the Athlon packaging have been SlotA to SocketA, and the new organic substrate introduced with the Athlon XPs "
This is also FALSE. There are other physical differences. CORE voltages are different across the athlon line. And I'm not talking minor jumps like that between the xp 1600+ and 2100+. But major differences because of the CPU die process. Memory BUS interface pins are also completely different and use a different signaling interface to the northbridge between CPU models. This is not something that ANY SINGLE CHIPSET has support for across the Athlon lineup.
the pentium4 has a very deep pipeline. It is very hard to keep this pipeline full under normal circumstances. Most OS's are multitasking, and juggle many tasks on one CPU, causing large amounts of overhead for task switching in the scheduler. The fact that the CPU is hard to keep full and that the scheduler has to do lots of overhead work to give each task enough CPU time lays a path to a new idea: Hyperthreading...
The idea is to put a second frontend on the CPU. the backend is still the same old deep as hell pipeline. So now the scheduler of the OS has 2 frontends to send instructions to, effectively halving the number of processes it has to juggle on each CPU, thus halvng the overhead it uses to switch between processes for multitasking. All this stuff gets shoved down the same deep pipeline, but since it was full of bubbles to begin with, now it just has less bubbles, and is much fuller (and in reality, sometimes overfilled, ill get to this later)...
So if you are doing a buncha tasks on your computer all requiring a moderate amount of CPU, Hyperthreading is faster.
The times Hyperthreading is slower is when you have a single task that is designed for multiple CPUs and keeps the pipeline of each CPU without any extra tricks(ie. number crunching, little multitasking). In this case, an application that supports dual CPU's on a HT CPU would run the same speed as on a single non-HT cpu (slight overhead makes it slightly slower on HT). In this case, the HT cpu is feeding the pipeline too much inforamation that it can't process it all, so each frontend is only processing half the data that a full CPU could process if it were a real CPU.
So all in all, it just depends. Yes, you are going to get slower on HT cpu's if your SMP application is already good at keeping pipelines full to the brim. Insted, you should think of hyperthreading as something that helps yoru OS schedule tasks with no overhead in task switching. It would be really nice if you had >2 frontends to the P4. Say you had 64 frontends. The scheduler could just put each new task on your UNIX box on a new frontend, and the software would not have to save the CPU state and switch tasks, run for a fraction of a second, save CPU info, switch again, etc etc 64 times for 64 tasks thousands of times a second. Insted it would just run a task on each frontend and it all shoves into the deep backend and out it comes good as new with no OS scheduler overhead. Imagine that!
Of course, 64 frontends would be overboard. But you get the idea now don't you?
I dont give a shit what those links say. The literal meaning of "begs the question" is what he said, and what he ment. Whatever those links say have NOTHING to do with any of it.
Read your socketA motherboard manual. It will say which cpu's are supported. You still have to upgrade your motherboard to upgrade your AMD CPU. I hate it that I'm the one that broke the news to you, but its just as true as the intel platform, if not, then to a greater extent.
Not to mention the origional athlon was slotA, not socketA. Here, I will list off some timeframes for you:
Slot A Athlon Socket A Tbird Athlon 100MHz FSB (DDR200) Socket A Tbird Athlon 133MHz FSB (DDR266) Socket A XP Athlon 133MHz FSB (DDR266) origional XP Socket A XP Athlon 133MHz FSB (DDR266) 2nd Generation XP Socket A XP Athlon 166MHz FSB (DDR333)
All that stored in the capitol letter 'A'. Not a single cpu listed will work in a motherboard of the older generation [at full speed w/o hacks]. Wow what a concept. 6 CPU's to go along with 6 seperate socketA chipset generations that are not pin compatible with eachother. Maybe your wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really tho, But you can keep telling the /. morons that don't read the article that...
Let me go a little further, but I hit enter and it went to submit by accident...
Illegally executed searches is a big cause of death of innocent people by police men. If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.
That is what (i think) the parent poster is trying to get across. And yes, this kind of illegal search happens every single day across this country.
I think his point is about how there are countless instances where pot smokers were murdered by cops who were on a mission from god to destroy all pot smokers. Knocking down doors without warrants and shooting a family of innocent bystanders because you think they have pot is not legal, and cops get away with it every year.
On top of all this, DirectTV is sending signals into MY house, and MY property. They will not even allow me to purchase the signals they are sending into MY property. If it isn't available for sale by whoever put it there, and its in my yard, then fuck whoever put it there. Their loss.
If you want to get into the law, my above post should clear up your misconceptions about copyright violation != theft.
"Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever."
So you are saying guilty until proven innocent?
Since when is human nature to steal? Or, when did the primary action of human nature become theft? I must have been sleeping.
Lastly, you can't be a theif for watching DirectTV, no matter how you obtained the signal. It is called copyright violations. You can't steal IP, only violate it.
Ever heard of competition? Thought not. Mac troll.
I guess you have never heard of the compaq BIOS reverse engineering that started the whole x86 PC platform. (Yes, started it, because without out this reverse engineering, x86 would have never been remotely popular like it is today)
Ever heard of PNG,GIF,Animated PNG/GIF? these are formats for both images and video, that are 100% lossless, and better than a 2:1 compression ratio on most video and images (High resolution images with many colors are not great compression ratio but in the average case 2:1 is very very very very doable)
As for video, animated PNG is a PNG compression of the Diff's of the second frame to the first, third to the second, etc etc.. In the case of video, compression ratios are on the order of 100:1 and audio is usually around 2:1 for lossless (FLAC,shn)
Huffyuv is a codec that video editors use that is lossless and better than 2:1 in the average case
Text, for sure on the average case, is WAY WAY WAY over a 2:1 compression ratio (Ever heard of gzip,zip,bz2?). Especially considering they are zipping up code, and not written english, it is very very compressable because of so much redundancy.
I think someone forgot to do their compression homework before posting and insulting his parent (which he should respect, for he has insight)...
"As far as I knew, Premiere is still the most popular film editing app amongst Mac users, which would stand to reason that it is still making a lot of money."
Or, it would stand to reason that there aren't many people editing video on the mac (excluding home videos for iMovie)
This is the more likely case, considering pretty much anybody who would use premier to edit video would be using a PC because of its huge performance difference in video editing (specifically video editing with adobe premier/after effects). Simply put, it just takes less time to edit video on a PC than a mac using Premier, reguardless of the hard drive configuration.
Final Cut Pro is Apple's last chance to keep that last strand of the video editing marketshare on the Mac. Saying that Final Cut Pro is what Adobe is running from is just plain silly. There is no profit to be made in video editing applications on the Mac, because no professional worth his salt would use a Mac to edit video with premier.
Interisting point by point reply, yet not a single statement you made offered any evidence my argument is false, invalid, or unsound. Simply put, everything you said has no supporting evidence.
.5% waste are practically the same thing.
"+R media is not in fact more expensive than -R, and as economies of scale kick in it will become cheaper, even."
Actually, +R media is more expensive on the wholesale level. Yes it is the same price at retail (usually) only because retailers eat the extra cost it takes to sell them. Aside from this fact, my argument plainly said "Why use more expensive media (DVD+MRW)" which is a special media/drive combination that supports MR. This extra complexity adds to the cost of the media and the drive.
Your reply to my arguments about loss-less linking ("The +R solution is simply the better technology, no way around it. You may try to marginalise it but that's the fact.) is irrelevant. Los-Less linking takes more precision from the beam, and therefore more complex device. This raises cost. 32K (at its maximum) is certaintly a good price for the simplicity of the device. Saying that loss-less linking coming standard on DVD+R is just uplain "better" shows that you have no idea the technical limitations of such devices.
"This [96MB/32MB maximum multisession waste] is NOT negligable."
Yes it is. In fact, it is on the same order of magnitude as DVD+R waste (4MB). When you are talking about any type of storage media, 2% waste and
"Not it hasn't. It's slowly on the way out"
Way to know the industry. and way to present evidence to your rants.
If you read the article to your own link, there are many reasons why you make your claims... The only real problem that makes DVD-R technically inferior is that some of the bits are not protected by ECC parity bits.. Every other conclusion made by the article only promotes features in DVD+R(W) that are extra fluf having nothing to do with read/write quality on specific media and drives.
For instance, The article claims that because of the pre-pits used for media information sent to the drive, you must use a dual laser setup to be able to burn, but then the article slips in that many manufacturers nowadays are switching to single beam lasers. So it looks like they found a way to fix that problem. So after the first "pro" for DVD+R, he doesn't offer any REAL world disadvantage for DVD-R (Nobody cares what the paper-world advantage is if it is not translated to real world advantages) Not only this, but the claim that the pre-pit method reduces drive speed is a lie. In the real world, DVD-R is just as fast as DVD+R. Until there is proven technology in DVD+R that proves its superior burning speed, any point against the DVD-R pre-pit method is invalid.
Lets go onto "Pro" number 2 for DVD+R. (I'm skipping ECC bits because I admit that one) Defect management has not been implemented in any commodity DVD+R drive to date. All it is is fluff added to the specification and could also be added to the DVD-R specification in time. The claims that you can only get these features with DVD-R using software is true, but they are also true for DVD+R. There is nothing preventing DVD-R future specifications from including defect management on the hardware level (save patents, which are already a problem with DVD+R) Not only this, but since when was it better to implement such items in HARDWARE when it could just as easilly be implemented in software (especially considering you need special mastering software for either drive in the first place) Including hardware to do software's tasks just increases the cost of the drives and patent licensing for drive and media manufacturing. To quote from the article: "This makes DVD-RW not well suited for simple file storage or image burning, as it requires a complete file system to benefit from defect management." Duhh, this is what we have been doing in the CD-R arena since the begining! Why use more expensive media (DVD+MRW) and drives to accomplish something that software can accomplish for far, far cheaper and much more robust(if desired)?
Lets go onto "pro" number 3 for DVD+R... "Also a DVD+R(W) disc allows a drive to achieve better writing quality (independently of media quality), because it gives more information to a drive than a DVD-R(W). " This quote is backed up by nothing, and just shows how much less this reviewer truely understands. There is no evidence presented that DVD-R drives NEED that "more information" DVD+R drives provide to their drives. Not only this, but so far, it looks like current drive models are having NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER with the "limited" 7088 sector test area of the disk.
Now on to DVD+R "advantage number 4: Linking... Nothing in this article explains why using loss-less linking (used for things such as buffer-underrun protected recording) has any advantage over 32k wide linking. In fact, there is a very good and useful reason for this DVD-R method. Why on earth would you need perfect exact loss-less linking when your media is 4.7GB long and you are going to waste a measly 32k? Who cares? This variable sized linking used by DVD-R makes buffer-underrun technology simpler, and cheaper to manufacturer. It requires less precision by the drive, and therefore means drives can be manufactured for less money. Because the drive does not have to align gaps perfectly like the DVD+R specification requires, DVD-R drives do not have nearly as many problems with slicing level deviations as described in the article. (note that the article tries to make this as a negative for DVD-R. This is where the reviewer's poor engineering skills show through)
You think Sony is more innovative because they hold the patents on DVD+R and that is exactly why they invented teh DVD+R format. They already made DVD-R drives, and added DVD+R support so they would become the drive on the block to have. Silly isn't it?
Simple fact is that you should NEVER buy a Sony drive, or anything made by sony for that matter. The DVD+R/W format is the most ridiculous format on the planet, and anybody using it is feeding money into their pockets so they can invent more useless formats as alternatives to things that already exist. Then they sell it to dell to try to make it standard issue. Give me a break.
In the end, DVD-R/RW is the standard format, and the format of choice for most of the industry. Unless you buy only dell computers, you are likely to be using DVD-R/RW exclusively. DVD-R media is cheaper than DVD+R. DVD-R media is carried in every computer shop in town whilst DVD+R media is hard to find anywhere in more than a 3pack or single pack. Joe Schmoe knows what a DVD-R is, and they don't want to be confused with WTF a DVD+R is. When people buy a new Dell and find out they need to special order the DVD media for it, they tend to get fucking pissed.
Nice information, but irrelevant to the article at hand. Software compression can be done by anybody (gzip). This device uses physical compression of the pits on the written disk. It packs more pits onto the same sized media by making them closer together and smaller. The result is a CD-R that can hold 40% more data.
While software compression is nice, it doesn't work on mpeg, mp3, etc files very well. This new method of hardware compression of the pits on the media does work with this type of file, or any type of file no matter how random the digits.
Yea, insted it is stashed into a bank account that can be instantly turned to cash within 24 hours. all 60 billion dollars of it. (yes, 60 billion)
This 10 billion dollar payout is negligable compared to what kind of cash microsoft has on hand right now. Especially considering in the past years, their on hand cash has exponentially risen and is now doubling every 6 months.
Now bill gates income has risen by $1billion (more than twice his normal sallary) and he doesn't even have to pay income tax on a SINGLE PENNY of it because of the Bush dividend tax cut.
How's that sound for a quality tax cut. Bill Gates is paying less percentage of income tax than the guy bagging groceries at the local store. I don't wanna hear a single republican tell me they are paying more in tax than me, because you aren't. And if you are, you are on the wrong side of the partyline.
"A character and a setting are VERY specific intellectual property or expressions. Although the fantasy and science fiction genres are HUGE, nearly every renowned work has immediately recognisable and distinguishable characters and settings. Middle Earth, Dune, Narnia, the Nautilus, Jedi, Discworld, Gandalf, Vimes, Paul Atreides - what makes you think that you can merely take the VAST amount of "development time" these authors spent on their creations and use it in a novel of your own?"
Well, If I did, I wouldn't be violating copyright. As your parent posted before you, that is a violation of TRADEMARK law, not COPYRIGHT law. You are the confused one. If I write a book with origional characters in it, and don't trademark the title of my book, the setting of my book, or the characters of my book, then I will have no right to sue anybody who uses those things in their own books. copyright only covers the specific work, not notions covered in the work.
calm down before you have a stroke. sheesh.
have you ever heard of being bug compatible with another program? When you emulate an interface, you need to be not only copying what is considered "properly running interface", but you also must be emulating any errors of the interface. The reason is that you don't know what are errors and what is a desired effect. If you were to release a clone of a program, and you want the interface to be the same, then their interface bugs should show up in your code. If not by accident (not usualy) then intentionally (usually how it happens in a reverse engineering project).
Where you been?
People don't buy games for a playstation unless it says "for playstation" on the box. If you want those words, you pay or get sued. Period.
Uhh, someone who wants to sell a game with the X-Box compatible logo on it?
Just like EVERY OTHER CONSOL LICENSING PROGRAM WORKS.
idiot.
You are correct in your recollection. The video card chips are more complex than general purpose CPUs. They are highly optimised CPUs with such things as SSE,Altivec,3DNow!, (but not by that name) only that is the whole chip (no general purpose calculations really). Their software runs on top of these chips and do the actual logic.
This is how both ATI and nVidia video cards actually work. And the reason why "hardware specs" would not yield 3D support without extensive development time and dedication in the open source world. This is also why nVidia keeps their software that runs on their chips so secret.
This isn't a link to a dual cpu version, but you might be interested in what people on pricewatch are charging for tower Opeteron servers with U320 SCSI and 3 year warranties. It's significantly less than apple's low end G5 tower (and these are relatively higher end machines)
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/95/5527-1.htm
BTW, why don't you show me a quad G5 for under $2000. The marketing information alone is gonna set you back a cool thousand, much less the pretty case, hard drives, motherboard, and all that neat stuff that comes in computer systems. Why don't we all just quit it with the mac zealot BS and start looking at reality. And that is the fact that apple hardware, no matter how well/not well it performs, has a price permium over any other type of PC. Period. Whether or not this is a bad thing has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
k thx bye.
"If anything the announcement demonstrates their commitment to not falling behind again."
I think its a little too late for that heh...
The new AMD Opteron PC is far more than just a PC. It is a workstation in its own right and outperforms the workstations built by Sun. The new AMD Opteron PC is both (much) faster and (much) cheaper than a Sun workstation.
Just look at the specs of the new AMD Opteron PC. 1.4,1.6,and 1.8 GHz and only $649 for a complete system [pricewatch.com]. It also does UNIX and Linux. AMD lucked out -- again. There will a surge of demand for this machine from engineers, moving beyond the traditional x86 core users (i. e. educational institutions, graphic artists, etc.). AMD will supplant both Sun and HP as the new workstation CPU company of Silicon Valley.
By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun.
WRONG
. aspx
The athlon XP's and second generation XP's use different voltage that was not available during the production of the TBIRD. the TBIRD is on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT die process than the athlon XP. They are NOT compatible.
From ASUS's website: http://www.asus.com/support/cpusupport/cpusupport
A7V supports up to 1400MHZ AMD Athlon T-Bird.
Even if you have an ASUS A7V-133 (the second revision of the A7V) you still do not have support for the second generation athlonXP, but only the origional Athlon XP (provided you have a newer revision of the ASUS PCB, up to 2100+) If you haven't noticed, athlons are up to 3000+ nowadays. In fact, even the newest ASUS motherboard does not support every single Socket A Athlon. So this fact pretty much disproves any point you might have had. Motherboard manufactureres and chipset makers CANNOT predict what AMD's new signaling specifications are going to be for each new athlon model. They can only design to current specs and get lucky if their design works with future chips. This is why YOUR A7V (if that is in fact what it is) will not run Athlon XP CPU's EVER.
Either your an idiot, or you are a troll.
"The only physical changes to the Athlon packaging have been SlotA to SocketA, and the new organic substrate introduced with the Athlon XPs "
This is also FALSE. There are other physical differences. CORE voltages are different across the athlon line. And I'm not talking minor jumps like that between the xp 1600+ and 2100+. But major differences because of the CPU die process. Memory BUS interface pins are also completely different and use a different signaling interface to the northbridge between CPU models. This is not something that ANY SINGLE CHIPSET has support for across the Athlon lineup.
Perhaps it's YOUR information that's wrong.
the way HT works is by the following principle:
the pentium4 has a very deep pipeline. It is very hard to keep this pipeline full under normal circumstances. Most OS's are multitasking, and juggle many tasks on one CPU, causing large amounts of overhead for task switching in the scheduler. The fact that the CPU is hard to keep full and that the scheduler has to do lots of overhead work to give each task enough CPU time lays a path to a new idea: Hyperthreading...
The idea is to put a second frontend on the CPU. the backend is still the same old deep as hell pipeline. So now the scheduler of the OS has 2 frontends to send instructions to, effectively halving the number of processes it has to juggle on each CPU, thus halvng the overhead it uses to switch between processes for multitasking. All this stuff gets shoved down the same deep pipeline, but since it was full of bubbles to begin with, now it just has less bubbles, and is much fuller (and in reality, sometimes overfilled, ill get to this later)...
So if you are doing a buncha tasks on your computer all requiring a moderate amount of CPU, Hyperthreading is faster.
The times Hyperthreading is slower is when you have a single task that is designed for multiple CPUs and keeps the pipeline of each CPU without any extra tricks(ie. number crunching, little multitasking). In this case, an application that supports dual CPU's on a HT CPU would run the same speed as on a single non-HT cpu (slight overhead makes it slightly slower on HT). In this case, the HT cpu is feeding the pipeline too much inforamation that it can't process it all, so each frontend is only processing half the data that a full CPU could process if it were a real CPU.
So all in all, it just depends. Yes, you are going to get slower on HT cpu's if your SMP application is already good at keeping pipelines full to the brim. Insted, you should think of hyperthreading as something that helps yoru OS schedule tasks with no overhead in task switching. It would be really nice if you had >2 frontends to the P4. Say you had 64 frontends. The scheduler could just put each new task on your UNIX box on a new frontend, and the software would not have to save the CPU state and switch tasks, run for a fraction of a second, save CPU info, switch again, etc etc 64 times for 64 tasks thousands of times a second. Insted it would just run a task on each frontend and it all shoves into the deep backend and out it comes good as new with no OS scheduler overhead. Imagine that!
Of course, 64 frontends would be overboard. But you get the idea now don't you?
Did you read anything your parent said? Retard.
I dont give a shit what those links say. The literal meaning of "begs the question" is what he said, and what he ment. Whatever those links say have NOTHING to do with any of it.
Read your socketA motherboard manual. It will say which cpu's are supported. You still have to upgrade your motherboard to upgrade your AMD CPU. I hate it that I'm the one that broke the news to you, but its just as true as the intel platform, if not, then to a greater extent.
Not to mention the origional athlon was slotA, not socketA. Here, I will list off some timeframes for you:
Slot A Athlon
Socket A Tbird Athlon 100MHz FSB (DDR200)
Socket A Tbird Athlon 133MHz FSB (DDR266)
Socket A XP Athlon 133MHz FSB (DDR266) origional XP
Socket A XP Athlon 133MHz FSB (DDR266) 2nd Generation XP
Socket A XP Athlon 166MHz FSB (DDR333)
All that stored in the capitol letter 'A'. Not a single cpu listed will work in a motherboard of the older generation [at full speed w/o hacks]. Wow what a concept. 6 CPU's to go along with 6 seperate socketA chipset generations that are not pin compatible with eachother. Maybe your wrong.
idiot.