I'm sure christians will realize how old the earth is soon enough, just like they were forced to realize earth wasn't flat.:-) Seriously, if that's what christianity stand for - laughing at people with completely legitimate opinions, just being different from what a book says, then it's nothing *I* would like to stand for...:-P
Download a typical 100K pr0n JPG: 0.00001 s Umm... Download a 650Mb ISO: 0.52 s Hm... Download 2 650Mb ISO's: 1.04 s Eeh?! Download 100 650Mb ISO's: 52 s Wow! Download 1000 650Mb ISO's: 8.7 min Jeez! Download an image of CowboyNeal: 12.31 hours Bah... Tech still need to catch up.
Hm.. Looks more like a paper written by an Intel fanatic by me.:)
After skimming through it, I immediately noticed a few weird things:
"...developers won't write 64-bit code if customers aren't buying and if 64-bit OSes aren't out there..."
Huh? What about Windows XP 64-bit Edition? And what does he mean with "developers won't write 64-bit code"? Uhmm.. Well, they don't usually write direct 32-bit code either, unless they program on assembly level. Isn't all this the pretty much transparent job of the compiler? I guess new compilers adapted for 64-bit platforms will start having stuff like 64-bit int:s and such things...
"My advice to AMD: drop the 64-bit hype, add the Pentium 4 SSE2 support,"
If AMD will follow their roadmap, they will have SSE2 support later this year. And, again, what's wrong with 64-bit? Intel is doing it too, should AMD just stay away from it and hope there will never be good 64-bit compilers? Where's the logic in that? Apparently, the author sees something great about this idea since it's repeated throughout the article, but I don't get it.
"Since an Athlon XP 1900 loses to a 1.53 GHz Pentium III, shouldn't AMD now give the Athlon XP a lower part number in order to reflect this development? Fair is fair!"
AMD's performance ratings may be stupid, but they was always meant to compare against Pentium 4's. And I seriously doubt that part about a 1.5 P3 being better than an XP 1900+. That would imply Intel is doing a bad job with their Pentium 4's, since an 1900+ is comparable to a P4 1.9 GHz, something the author of course doesn't mention.
"It is just a shame that Intel's marketing people keep trying to kill off the Pentium III in order to promote Pentium 4 sales."
Did he ever even take into consideration that P3's doesn't scale that well anymore? Heat, my friend.:) Why does he think they stopped at 1.53 instead of proceeding well into the 2 GHz domain when the P3's are sooo good?
This is just another proof of the author's lack of insight in processor architecture.
"My last 4 Athlon systems have now all either died or failed to work properly"
My first Athlon I've installed worked instantly. The first Athlon a friend installed worked instantly. And it was even one of those super hot Thunderbirds. Cool huh? I'm successfully running an (non-replaced!) Athlon at work. Are we super lucky then?
Nah, this is just a bad attempt on creating some sort of Athlon vs Intel debate...
I'm sure you'll find more weirdness in that article - he even shows of his big ego with this excellent line:
"Intel caught up as expected"
Actually, you only need to read the first paragraph to see where the entire article is heading (and he get to show off his bias too):
"AMD freaks cheered and went back to playing their video games."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635 Their conclusion in short:
Thoroughbred is more of an evolution to the Palomino core than a revolution. In other words, nothing new except minor speed increases to the end user. No special architecture changes, except decreased transistor amounts to allow higher clock frequencies and perhaps a bit lower prices as well.
After attempting to overclock their Thoroughbred @ 1.8 GHz, they observed there was almost no overclocking potential at all, leading to some doubts to whether AMD will keep up with Intel that well until their Hammer processors is ready.
So the Thoroughbred core seem to extend the Athlon XP lifetime with perhaps a few more 66 MHz jumps from the current 1.8 GHz, but will probably never get more than a 10-20% performance increase above the Athlon XP "Palomino" 2100+. From Anandtech's analysis, I'd think the best Thoroughbreds will end around a "2600+" performance rating.
Another good reason to use the Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol (yeah, correct link, it's *also* on Salon.com - how convenient). The details here.
Transmitting IP Datagrams over Avian Carriers simply has to be a way to avoid these mega corporations getting control over these common, often fiber based transmission techniques.
But I'm sure there will soon be a Pigeonsoft breeding huge amounts of pigeons for the sole purpose of pissing of others. And of course, the technique of training them to carry datagrams will be patented. And if you try to understand how it works, you'll be sued by the PPAA (Pigeon Protocol Association) for "infringing on intellectual property". They will use the PMCA (Pigeon Master Copyright Act) to support this claim in court.
I thought it was pretty obvious after reading the review. I mean, what other conclusion could you draw from it? That AMD will mess up big time and Intel will surpass it with the same clock speed?:)
Forgot one thing... He elaborated a bit about P4's and said that "Intel has an interesting super long pipeline in the P4's - it's gonna be interesting to see what clock speeds it requires to fill so it can be of use to 100%".:)
I guess we have an explanation of the diff in AMD/Intel clock frequencies right there...
you've got to wonder what intel isn't doing to optimize.
FYI, we had a teacher in a processor architecture course that worked with optimizing algorithms and had worked for Intel. He left and started working for AMD instead. He openly said that Intel sucked. Guess what PR that gives when it's from the mouth of an insightful teacher.:)
So they must do something wrong over there.:) At least in the eyes of some optimizing guys. heh
(regarding IE 6): "If you're a Netscape 6.1 fan, don't bother to switch."
Huh??
So, do this translate to the following scores then?
IE 6: 7 of 10. Moz 0.9.3 / Netscape 6.1: 7 of 10. Moz 1.0: (surprise!) 7 of 10.
Is that because the browser demands have increased somehow? I don't think so, since the web looks to be demanding more or less the same since IE 6 (or IE 5 for that matter...) was released. I have no other explanation for this than their reviewers either don't do in depth tests or are simply poor enough to not notice progress.
You need to remember that Internet Explorer is nothing without its Explorer integration.
You can kill IE and keep the Windows Explorer, but not the opposite. Mozilla was designed to fit more than the Windows OS and therefore doesn't have as many dependiences on the Windows Explorer.
Btw, explorer.exe alone = 6,340 Kb right now. That's about 2 times, so not even when measuring with IE in favor, that facts isn't always right.
Finally note: I'm right now using 2 tabs in Mozilla and a *single* IE window, so I wasn't even favoring Mozilla...
3. What will happen to these experiments over time? That depends in part on you. Your comments and the feedback from other users could elevate a project to consideration for integration into Google.com. Other demos may disappear and never be spoken of again.
Might be worth telling them (on their Google Boards dedicated to the labs) that we actually like it and just don't abuse it for fun.
Or perhaps that's just what we're doing.:)
Re:Google *do* cach itself, and the result is funn
on
Google Experiments
·
· Score: 2
Oh, it's on the International Google! doh!
Well, it got +4 Funny currently so someone must be amused.:)
Or perhaps they're just amused by my stupidity.:(
Re:Google *do* cach itself, and the result is funn
on
Google Experiments
·
· Score: 2
I was talking about the Dilbert thing.
Yeah, I read all about that Dilbert thing afterwards by clicking on the logo. But it looked funny as I hadn't seen the logo before even if I'm a frequent Google visitor.:)
Hmm... So you're saying I speak UTF8? Nah, that would be inefficient, requiring twice as long time to... Umm... Sorry, now I confused with Unicode again. *hides*:)
Google *do* cach itself, and the result is funny!
on
Google Experiments
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, the stuff we all love. ;-)
Except for that last one... >:-(
lol
Slashdot.org not among 10 first matches when searching for "slashdot"...
Needless to say, I never wasted more time by checking the next page...
I'll just say this:
:-)
;-)
Google manage to get a graph of the slashdot effect among the first 20 hits, while AllTheWeb just manage to get Cliff showing a Think Unix book (in weirdo hawaiian clothes).
I don't know about you, but Google give me more relevant matches as usual.
I'm sure christians will realize how old the earth is soon enough, just like they were forced to realize earth wasn't flat. :-) Seriously, if that's what christianity stand for - laughing at people with completely legitimate opinions, just being different from what a book says, then it's nothing *I* would like to stand for... :-P
Upgrade to 56k, you cheap, whining bastard! ;-)
Time to...
Download a typical 100K pr0n JPG: 0.00001 s
Umm...
Download a 650Mb ISO: 0.52 s
Hm...
Download 2 650Mb ISO's: 1.04 s
Eeh?!
Download 100 650Mb ISO's: 52 s
Wow!
Download 1000 650Mb ISO's: 8.7 min
Jeez!
Download an image of CowboyNeal: 12.31 hours
Bah... Tech still need to catch up.
Hm.. Looks more like a paper written by an Intel fanatic by me. :)
:) Why does he think they stopped at 1.53 instead of proceeding well into the 2 GHz domain when the P3's are sooo good?
After skimming through it, I immediately noticed a few weird things:
"...developers won't write 64-bit code if customers aren't buying and if 64-bit OSes aren't out there..."
Huh? What about Windows XP 64-bit Edition?
And what does he mean with "developers won't write 64-bit code"? Uhmm.. Well, they don't usually write direct 32-bit code either, unless they program on assembly level. Isn't all this the pretty much transparent job of the compiler? I guess new compilers adapted for 64-bit platforms will start having stuff like 64-bit int:s and such things...
"My advice to AMD: drop the 64-bit hype, add the Pentium 4 SSE2 support,"
If AMD will follow their roadmap, they will have SSE2 support later this year. And, again, what's wrong with 64-bit? Intel is doing it too, should AMD just stay away from it and hope there will never be good 64-bit compilers? Where's the logic in that? Apparently, the author sees something great about this idea since it's repeated throughout the article, but I don't get it.
"Since an Athlon XP 1900 loses to a 1.53 GHz Pentium III, shouldn't AMD now give the Athlon XP a lower part number in order to reflect this development? Fair is fair!"
AMD's performance ratings may be stupid, but they was always meant to compare against Pentium 4's. And I seriously doubt that part about a 1.5 P3 being better than an XP 1900+. That would imply Intel is doing a bad job with their Pentium 4's, since an 1900+ is comparable to a P4 1.9 GHz, something the author of course doesn't mention.
"It is just a shame that Intel's marketing people keep trying to kill off the Pentium III in order to promote Pentium 4 sales."
Did he ever even take into consideration that P3's doesn't scale that well anymore? Heat, my friend.
This is just another proof of the author's lack of insight in processor architecture.
"My last 4 Athlon systems have now all either died or failed to work properly"
My first Athlon I've installed worked instantly. The first Athlon a friend installed worked instantly. And it was even one of those super hot Thunderbirds. Cool huh? I'm successfully running an (non-replaced!) Athlon at work. Are we super lucky then?
Nah, this is just a bad attempt on creating some sort of Athlon vs Intel debate...
I'm sure you'll find more weirdness in that article - he even shows of his big ego with this excellent line:
"Intel caught up as expected"
Actually, you only need to read the first paragraph to see where the entire article is heading (and he get to show off his bias too):
"AMD freaks cheered and went back to playing their video games."
Rating: -1 Troll
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635
Their conclusion in short:
Thoroughbred is more of an evolution to the Palomino core than a revolution. In other words, nothing new except minor speed increases to the end user. No special architecture changes, except decreased transistor amounts to allow higher clock frequencies and perhaps a bit lower prices as well.
After attempting to overclock their Thoroughbred @ 1.8 GHz, they observed there was almost no overclocking potential at all, leading to some doubts to whether AMD will keep up with Intel that well until their Hammer processors is ready.
So the Thoroughbred core seem to extend the Athlon XP lifetime with perhaps a few more 66 MHz jumps from the current 1.8 GHz, but will probably never get more than a 10-20% performance increase above the Athlon XP "Palomino" 2100+. From Anandtech's analysis, I'd think the best Thoroughbreds will end around a "2600+" performance rating.
Another good reason to use the Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol (yeah, correct link, it's *also* on Salon.com - how convenient). The details here.
Transmitting IP Datagrams over Avian Carriers simply has to be a way to avoid these mega corporations getting control over these common, often fiber based transmission techniques.
But I'm sure there will soon be a Pigeonsoft breeding huge amounts of pigeons for the sole purpose of pissing of others. And of course, the technique of training them to carry datagrams will be patented. And if you try to understand how it works, you'll be sued by the PPAA (Pigeon Protocol Association) for "infringing on intellectual property". They will use the PMCA (Pigeon Master Copyright Act) to support this claim in court.
That's the world we're living in.
When clicking the link in the story, I was sent to a page with a huge animated image. It went like this:
(blurred animated shot in skin tones)
Some text floating over the picture:
"Oh... Yes! Oh yes!"
"Oh... Lower!"
"Lower!"
Then the text "Need new glasses? Buy progressive glasses blah blah"
It was just funny to see how it linked to the story about broadband internet, when the ad content was so similar to what it's mainly used for.
So "everyone" is missing that?
:)
I thought it was pretty obvious after reading the review. I mean, what other conclusion could you draw from it? That AMD will mess up big time and Intel will surpass it with the same clock speed?
Forgot one thing... He elaborated a bit about P4's and said that "Intel has an interesting super long pipeline in the P4's - it's gonna be interesting to see what clock speeds it requires to fill so it can be of use to 100%". :)
I guess we have an explanation of the diff in AMD/Intel clock frequencies right there...
you've got to wonder what intel isn't doing to optimize.
:)
:) At least in the eyes of some optimizing guys. heh
FYI, we had a teacher in a processor architecture course that worked with optimizing algorithms and had worked for Intel. He left and started working for AMD instead. He openly said that Intel sucked. Guess what PR that gives when it's from the mouth of an insightful teacher.
So they must do something wrong over there.
Ah, thanks ;)
:)
:D
Found this PDF document to be a very interesting document with tons of info about the Hammer. So intersting that I felt the need to post it here.
Regarding registers, it shows that not only has it got 2x "standard"/GPR registers that's 2x wide, but also 2x SSE/SSE2 128-bit registers.
So it seems to total in 16 * 128-bit registers, 16 * 64-bit registers (and 8 * 80-bit regs for floating point ops).
Yeah, and a widened program counter register too.
Enlighten me! :)
:)
:P
How many registers are there?
I've only programmed on assembly level for MIPS (32 regs) and x86 (whoa - registers gone awry)
In short, the MIPS was fun and an excellent "beginner's processor" to try out your noob assembly skills on. The x86 was a nightmare.
(regarding IE 6): "If you're a Netscape 6.1 fan, don't bother to switch."
Huh??
So, do this translate to the following scores then?
IE 6: 7 of 10.
Moz 0.9.3 / Netscape 6.1: 7 of 10.
Moz 1.0: (surprise!) 7 of 10.
Is that because the browser demands have increased somehow? I don't think so, since the web looks to be demanding more or less the same since IE 6 (or IE 5 for that matter...) was released. I have no other explanation for this than their reviewers either don't do in depth tests or are simply poor enough to not notice progress.
Right now:
explorer.exe + iexplore.exe = 15,776 Kb
mozilla.exe = 14,908 Kb
You need to remember that Internet Explorer is nothing without its Explorer integration.
You can kill IE and keep the Windows Explorer, but not the opposite. Mozilla was designed to fit more than the Windows OS and therefore doesn't have as many dependiences on the Windows Explorer.
Btw, explorer.exe alone = 6,340 Kb right now. That's about 2 times, so not even when measuring with IE in favor, that facts isn't always right.
Finally note: I'm right now using 2 tabs in Mozilla and a *single* IE window, so I wasn't even favoring Mozilla...
Yesterday: Open Source development might make it easier for terrorists to break into systems.
Today: Credit cards might make us pay for terrorist actions.
Tomorrow: Windows might actually be an act of terror. Umm.. Nah, that wouldn't be news. We knew that all along.
It was just a bit of Microsoft humor and nothing to be taken seriously. :)
Well, if it's E3 babes you want, it's E3 babes you shall get! ;)
Honestly, who cares which year's E3 it's from?
You mean this one: ""
:)
Ha! Still possible in Windows 2000. That's so much MS when you think about it.
Earlier in the FAQ:
:)
3. What will happen to these experiments over time? That depends in part on you. Your comments and the feedback from other users could elevate a project to consideration for integration into Google.com. Other demos may disappear and never be spoken of again.
Might be worth telling them (on their Google Boards dedicated to the labs) that we actually like it and just don't abuse it for fun.
Or perhaps that's just what we're doing.
Oh, it's on the International Google! doh!
:)
:(
Well, it got +4 Funny currently so someone must be amused.
Or perhaps they're just amused by my stupidity.
I was talking about the Dilbert thing.
:)
:)
Yeah, I read all about that Dilbert thing afterwards by clicking on the logo. But it looked funny as I hadn't seen the logo before even if I'm a frequent Google visitor.
Hmm... So you're saying I speak UTF8? Nah, that would be inefficient, requiring twice as long time to... Umm... Sorry, now I confused with Unicode again. *hides*
Looks like an easter egg to me. :)
Google's cache of www.google.com