A context switch (switching from one task to the next) takes quite a performance hit. Hyperthreading, as said in the article, allows for two virtual cores - each one able to track a thread of execution in hardware. By doing this, you can decrease the amount of times the OS performs a context switch.
I think IBM's POWER has a similar implementation too.
I haven't looked into the Intel implementation of x86-64, but I would think using different register sizes would break just about anything.
What you might be referring to is the 4-stage translation table which only allows each process a 48-bit address space. AMD uses this, and they're going to bring it up to the full 64-bit at a later date. I am assuming that despite Intel's implementation being slower, they both are pretty much identical.
To be stupidly paranoid about this, losing the case could be a good thing for Microsoft. If they had to cough up say, $1 billion to never hear about it again, it would be worth it to get rid of all the other competing browsers.
Yeah. One major technical reason. The majority of systems that Dell sells are workstation machines. They just run Windows 2K/XP, and Microsoft Office. Thus, they don't need the 64-bit mode, or the speed increase AMD offers.
AMD doesn't produce the chipsets, nor has the fabrication facilities of Intel, so overall, Intel provides the better deal. While an Opteron is a no-brainer for a server, I think it's safe to assume that their use of Xeons is a side-effect of their deals with Intel when making workstations.
I'm not a lawyer, but in the UK, the Data Protection Act states that a company must make sure that personal data is kept secure. Is it the same in the US?
You are defending a company with a long track record of (arguably illegally) screwing over the competition, by trying to be funny. Go and read the Halloween documents.
You have got to be kidding. Microsoft makes its money from locking out competitors. I'll be damned surprised if that ever happens...and before you support Mono, take the following into account:
- Microsoft are not stupid. - Microsoft will have seen Mono coming a mile away. - Microsoft support software patents. - Microsoft do NOT want people to write software that works on any platform.
I don't think there will, as such be a "year of Linux on the desktop". It will slowly crawl its way in. Firstly, to corporate desktops running nothing other than a word processor and spreadsheet, and then it'll make its way to the 'average' home user who uses it at work.
That's how Microsoft took over, anyway. Would be nice if they got screwed in exactly the same way. However, hopefully it doesn't totally take over, so we're all left with a choice of OS.
Parent is OT, but quite right. Uncle Bill will have seen Mono coming a mile away, and certainly has plans for it. Microsoft makes money almost entirely through lack of interoperability.
Absolutely spot-on. As many people often forget, good hardware is totally useless without the appropriate software. Porting games from other platforms could very easily have some 'issues' too.
Really, AC? The side effects are quite convenient though, wouldn't you say?
A "smart piece of engineering" does not involve breaking standards in such a dirty way. I assume you are referring to a SYN flood attack, which can be avoided using other methods.
From what I can tell, the original poster seems to know what he's talking about, and searching on google reveals a few pages suggesting the same thing.
If it's true, this is a textbook example of how a monopoly is a bad thing.
Suppose an individual patents something, and Microsoft use it without permission. Microsoft can then drag a court case out until the individual goes bankrupt.
While the need to upgrade from Windows 9x to Windows 2000/XP was obvious, due to various flaws in 9x, what reasons are you going to give to people to pay to upgrade to Longhorn, considering that 2000/XP (with security software) are perfectly adequate for most people?
That's kind of like the disclaimer on KaZaA saying that you shouldn't use it for copyright violation - ie it exists for the sole purpose of covering their arses.
Slashdot Mirror
A context switch (switching from one task to the next) takes quite a performance hit. Hyperthreading, as said in the article, allows for two virtual cores - each one able to track a thread of execution in hardware. By doing this, you can decrease the amount of times the OS performs a context switch.
I think IBM's POWER has a similar implementation too.
I haven't looked into the Intel implementation of x86-64, but I would think using different register sizes would break just about anything.
What you might be referring to is the 4-stage translation table which only allows each process a 48-bit address space. AMD uses this, and they're going to bring it up to the full 64-bit at a later date. I am assuming that despite Intel's implementation being slower, they both are pretty much identical.
To be stupidly paranoid about this, losing the case could be a good thing for Microsoft. If they had to cough up say, $1 billion to never hear about it again, it would be worth it to get rid of all the other competing browsers.
From my experience, the Athlon XP and P4 Prescott or above both run bloody hot. The Athlon 64 runs damn cool, and the P4 Northwood is nearly as good.
Yeah. One major technical reason. The majority of systems that Dell sells are workstation machines. They just run Windows 2K/XP, and Microsoft Office. Thus, they don't need the 64-bit mode, or the speed increase AMD offers.
AMD doesn't produce the chipsets, nor has the fabrication facilities of Intel, so overall, Intel provides the better deal. While an Opteron is a no-brainer for a server, I think it's safe to assume that their use of Xeons is a side-effect of their deals with Intel when making workstations.
I'm not a lawyer, but in the UK, the Data Protection Act states that a company must make sure that personal data is kept secure. Is it the same in the US?
If that megabyte is of text, spreadsheet, or code then $5/megabyte could well be too little.
You are defending a company with a long track record of (arguably illegally) screwing over the competition, by trying to be funny. Go and read the Halloween documents.
You have got to be kidding. Microsoft makes its money from locking out competitors. I'll be damned surprised if that ever happens. ..and before you support Mono, take the following into account:
- Microsoft are not stupid.
- Microsoft will have seen Mono coming a mile away.
- Microsoft support software patents.
- Microsoft do NOT want people to write software that works on any platform.
Go figure.
A quarter would be pushing your luck. $1 would be a fair price. Surely they can't be earning more than that per head on advertising revenue.
Not exactly:
n tracts/default.htm
http://www.oft.gov.uk/Consumer/Unfair+terms+in+co
Gah. Coffee. I meant that we really don't want to find out when it's too late.
Well, it's not exactly a good idea to try and prove it, is it?
Yes, you got a Troll mod.
I don't think there will, as such be a "year of Linux on the desktop". It will slowly crawl its way in. Firstly, to corporate desktops running nothing other than a word processor and spreadsheet, and then it'll make its way to the 'average' home user who uses it at work.
That's how Microsoft took over, anyway. Would be nice if they got screwed in exactly the same way. However, hopefully it doesn't totally take over, so we're all left with a choice of OS.
Parent is OT, but quite right. Uncle Bill will have seen Mono coming a mile away, and certainly has plans for it. Microsoft makes money almost entirely through lack of interoperability.
Absolutely spot-on. As many people often forget, good hardware is totally useless without the appropriate software. Porting games from other platforms could very easily have some 'issues' too.
I think he's taking the piss. The timecube thing looks like something written by someone who is mentally ill.
Really, AC? The side effects are quite convenient though, wouldn't you say?
A "smart piece of engineering" does not involve breaking standards in such a dirty way. I assume you are referring to a SYN flood attack, which can be avoided using other methods.
In that case, you probably want to use something like Gentoo. SuSE is designed to be a workstation for an average user.
From what I can tell, the original poster seems to know what he's talking about, and searching on google reveals a few pages suggesting the same thing.
If it's true, this is a textbook example of how a monopoly is a bad thing.
Suppose an individual patents something, and Microsoft use it without permission. Microsoft can then drag a court case out until the individual goes bankrupt.
I think a lot of 'development countries' may very well tell the rest of the world to go fuck themselves on this issue.
While the need to upgrade from Windows 9x to Windows 2000/XP was obvious, due to various flaws in 9x, what reasons are you going to give to people to pay to upgrade to Longhorn, considering that 2000/XP (with security software) are perfectly adequate for most people?
That's kind of like the disclaimer on KaZaA saying that you shouldn't use it for copyright violation - ie it exists for the sole purpose of covering their arses.
I assume some spamware uses zombie networks to send spam. Surely that's illegal.