Same here. I was the last among my DOD buddies who (very reluctantly) switched to the Source version, and that is a case of losing one game for maybe 30 euros if it stops working. Using an operating system with online authentication, on which the function of the entire computer depends? No way.
Let me say in advance that my scruples are rather small when it comes to stealing from Microsoft......but it still won't be very attractive. Because as a typical Microsoft system, it will require frequent security patches, each of which can smuggle in a new anti-piracy feature. So I expect that it will be a race between crackers and Microsoft, and maintaining your illicit version might be more annoying than the activation.
Maybe it was simple incompetence. I have seen similar fom Microsoft (performance problems when accessing lots of files from a network share in XP. Windows 2000 is MUCH faster, and Win98 even better). Sometimes it seems that Windows is getting worse not better with new versions.
If "free" doesn't come with a 24/7 support contract, it's not "free."
If the product is mature and well developed, you might not need support. I'm working with Delphi (non-free!) in my job and cannot remember one case where we actually called Borland because of problems. Most of the time, we find the necessary answers on the internet. But that is something F/OSS is good at too.
I guess that the Cell is responsible for most of it, and the PS3s will have similar heat dissipation. Similar to modern gaming PCs;-) Putting them in unventilated cases was a really stupid idea, what were the Sony guys thinking??
The two obvious solutions to this are to bill bandwidth-hogging consumers for the bandwidth they consume, or to increase the flat-rate cost to a point where it covers a much lower contention rate than at present. Both those options are desperately unpopular, so it looks like the ISP tried making the figures add up another way.
The funny thing here in Germany is that usage-dependent but reasonable billing for larger data volumes seems absent in the end-user market. You either get -really cheap access for a few GByte/month, but exceeding the limit gets you a bill way out of proportion. Like 5 euros for the first 5 GBytes but one cent for each following Mbyte, so a month with 10 GByte volume would cost you 55 euros. Note that I made these figures up on the spot, but they do illustrate the character of most volume-limited offers. -or the typical flat-rate where the provider takes a loss from the power users.
I'd really expect providers to offer something like 5 euros for the first 5 GBytes and 50 cents for each extra GByte. That would save them a lot of headaches with power users and still be a good offer for the average user.
Of course, people who are seriously interested in gaming already know to get a capable graphics card. So the problem is much smaller than he claims. Mark Rein is an idiot.
I guess he is talking about Intel's integrated chipset graphics, which are (like all integrated graphics) NOT on the same performance level as separate GPU cards. From TFA:
Finally, Rein touched on software rendering support for Unreal Tournament 2007 on the PC, revealing that the company has been talking to a third-party about providing software rendering again "so we can support those crappy Intel chips," commenting that: "If it's possible this time, Epic will do it."
I wonder, however, what he expects to achieve with software rendering. In my experience, even obsolete GPUs are faster than software rendering, and I doubt if the Core 2 Duo can change that.
Really all you need is something that can withstand a 7.62 NATO round, as anything with more penetration is heavy, rare, unwieldy and definately not automatic.
Hand-held guns with more penetration are rare now, because they are not very useful in today's wars. Soldiers usually don't wear strong enough armor to make more than a 7.62 NATO round necessary. Tanks are too massive these days to penetrate with a rifle.
Agreed, the 939 and AM2 models are quite close in price. The AM2 platform offers slightly better performance and uses slightly less power, so if you buy a new system AM2 is preferable. Upgrading fom 939 to AM2, however, is a waste of money because the difference is too small to be really noticeable.
There are still socket 939 CPUs being sold. Maybe you can get a dual core for your existing board really cheap when stores are finally dumping the socket 939 line. It may be worthwile to keep an eye on the closing sales;-)
I take it you're talking about a significant number of machines? Enough that getting the choice right makes a difference in the four to five digit $ range?
Then you might want to buy one or two Core 2 Duo machines now and use them for testing. If all your applications run fine, consider going Intel. If they don't, you have spent maybe (pulling numbers out of my ass) $2.000 on avoiding a $20.000 error. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
For me (in Germany), the calculation looks a bit different:
For reliability, I want my machines with ECC RAM. Looking (for example) at my preferred vendor Alternate.de, I end up with the following prices:
On the Intel side, AFAIK you have to take the pricy 775X chipset for ECC (and some 775X boards are listed as NOT supporting ECC). Alternate prices for boards that actually support ECC RAM are around 200 euros. As processor, I might take the cheapest Core 2 Duo for 169 euros. No Pentium D please, I don't need an "enhanced heater";-) That makes about 370 euros for processor + board.
Most AMD AM2 mainboards however support ECC - easy enough as it is a feature of the CPU's built-in memory controller. I found an AM2 board with ECC RAM support for 69 euros (Asus M2N-MX) but I might prefer the full-size Asus M2N for 84 euros. As processor, I might take the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ for 179 euros. Not quite as fast as the Core 2 Duo above but good enough. That makes 263 euros for the above combination of processor + board.
So I can save around 100 euros by going AMD, at the expense of having not quite the same CPU power.
Which is still limited. Last thing I've read, the ATI stockholders still have to agree to the deal. Only when that is done and the deal is finalized, AMD will have control of ATI. At that point, I'd like to hear the position of AMD management on Open Source graphics drivers.
The memory standard is not a big deal yet, because the old DDR standard with 2 channels (Socket 939) is good enough for the current dual cores. But as TFA says, it is an investment in the future because with quad cores the demand for more bandwidth will come. I think introducing AM2 would have become necessary anyway, and it was smart of AMD to do it a few months ago while they still had the lead in performance. Pushing such a change to market would be more difficult now, because people have better alternatives (hello Core 2 Duo).
Personally responsibility and dedication is not encouraged or needed at all and in many ways, can be viewed as you are challenging authority. After all, you do not know enough to make a decision or to suggest something. The company will dictate exactly what you will do and when you will do it.
In my experience this is somewhat exaggerated, but the tendency is there and it leads people to wait for management to make decisions instead of starting things on their own. Big problem if your management is incapable of making the necessary decisions soon so things can progress.
Steve Yegge states that having a work (priority) queue is an important part of keeping things going, and I tend to agree. Clueless management (see above) will sometimes put up crazy deadlines and sometimes let the queue run dry so people start killing time with unproductive activities. Like reading blogs and posting on slashdot;-)
The average buyer will not understand "out of order architecture" anyway. The MHz race was different, because even non-techies could see how the computers got faster with increasing clock speed. But now? Maybe it will be "number of cores". Otherwise Intel and AMD will have to use meaningless slogans like "Intel inside" to suggest a sense of security when using their particular brand. I expect a mixture of touting lots of cores and almost-fraudulent crap like "the Pentium III will make your internet faster".
Programming today's computers with or four cores is hard, as VISTA shows. Doing this for 80 cores may be a real bear of a project.
Windows NT could handle four processors 10 years ago. If Vista has problems, it is not due to handling multiple processors, but because Microsoft tries to integrate a bit too much into the operating system.
Oops, it seems I misquoted the voltage:-( A quick Google search shows that 36/42 Volt is indeed what they are looking at, not 48 Volt. Which seems a bit weird to me, but you are right...
Modern CPUs run on core voltages of 1.5 v or less, depending on model. DDR RAM is 2.5V IIRC. So you will have to convert most of your power from 5 V to something else. And if you have to re-convert anyway, 5V as intermediate voltage is not optimal. When converting to 5V, the voltage drop in the power diodes and in the wires to the mainboard eats a much higher proportion of the power than with 12V as intermediate voltage. 24V or even 48V would be even better. The auto industry is currenly starting to introduce 48V systems BTW.
Right now, it is doubtful if SCO has the rights to Unix. IIRC they are in a lawsuit with Novell over that, where Novell says the rights have never been properly tranferred to now-SCO. So I guess that would be settled quickly between IBM and Novell, in a way that lets both of them save face.
Here's an honest question: Ignoring the cost, just what is it that you think is so much better about Windows 2000 compared to XP? I've used both and I'll tell you what: Nothing.
No need to have it activated by Microsoft. I really distrust such forced activation schemes. What if Microsoft declares the end of XP's lifetime and switches the activation servers off? Sure you could sue them and probably win, but I want to avoid the problem in the first place.
Apart from that, Windows 2000 is showing its age (you have to manually configure some newer stuff like LBA 48 disk access) but still does the job.
However, I will contest your idea that Windows XP is intuitive while 98 is not. I remember very distinctly seeing my company moving from 98 to 2000 and XP, and in those years it was hard as heck to figure out where everything had been capriciously moved in the newer operating systems. You just think XP is more intuitive now because you haven't used 98 in a long time.
Agreed, Windows XP is different rather than more intuitive than 98. Personally, I find that the Windows NT - based systems have become less intuitive from NT4 over Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Several settings that were accessible directly under NT4's "Control Panel" have moved into submenus in 2000, not all of them obvious. IMHO XP is worse. In direct comparison to 98, I guess only the fact that many concepts are not directly equivalent saves XP from looking bad.
Short term, it is indeed the willingness of customers to pay. The new Counterstrike system reflects that. So far, so good.
What GP was hinting at ist that in a lucrative real life market, eventually new competitors will enter the market. Eventually, the market will turn into a commodities market where price is driven down by a plentiful supply. Real life producers hate that and try everything to make their product appear different, so it is less susceptible to competition. With varying success of course. Examples: The makers of standard PCs are struggling to keep afloat in the competition. Apple seems to get away with charging more, due to their own operating system and (mostly) nice design.
Of course, MS could require all OEMs to bundle a Zune with their PCs, like they did with Windows 3.0, and then all bets are off. Not anymore. MS have been convicted of abusing a monopoly before. And while the penalty was rather laughable, it would make a nice legal precedent for a lawsuit by Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. I was the last among my DOD buddies who (very reluctantly) switched to the Source version, and that is a case of losing one game for maybe 30 euros if it stops working.
Using an operating system with online authentication, on which the function of the entire computer depends? No way.
Let me say in advance that my scruples are rather small when it comes to stealing from Microsoft... ...but it still won't be very attractive. Because as a typical Microsoft system, it will require frequent security patches, each of which can smuggle in a new anti-piracy feature. So I expect that it will be a race between crackers and Microsoft, and maintaining your illicit version might be more annoying than the activation.
Maybe it was simple incompetence. I have seen similar fom Microsoft (performance problems when accessing lots of files from a network share in XP. Windows 2000 is MUCH faster, and Win98 even better). Sometimes it seems that Windows is getting worse not better with new versions.
If "free" doesn't come with a 24/7 support contract, it's not "free."
If the product is mature and well developed, you might not need support. I'm working with Delphi (non-free!) in my job and cannot remember one case where we actually called Borland because of problems.
Most of the time, we find the necessary answers on the internet. But that is something F/OSS is good at too.
http://www.mc.com/literature/literature_files/Cel
I guess that the Cell is responsible for most of it, and the PS3s will have similar heat dissipation. Similar to modern gaming PCs
Putting them in unventilated cases was a really stupid idea, what were the Sony guys thinking??
The funny thing here in Germany is that usage-dependent but reasonable billing for larger data volumes seems absent in the end-user market. You either get
-really cheap access for a few GByte/month, but exceeding the limit gets you a bill way out of proportion. Like 5 euros for the first 5 GBytes but one cent for each following Mbyte, so a month with 10 GByte volume would cost you 55 euros. Note that I made these figures up on the spot, but they do illustrate the character of most volume-limited offers.
-or the typical flat-rate where the provider takes a loss from the power users.
I'd really expect providers to offer something like 5 euros for the first 5 GBytes and 50 cents for each extra GByte. That would save them a lot of headaches with power users and still be a good offer for the average user.
Ah, thanks for the link.
Of course, people who are seriously interested in gaming already know to get a capable graphics card. So the problem is much smaller than he claims. Mark Rein is an idiot.
I wonder, however, what he expects to achieve with software rendering. In my experience, even obsolete GPUs are faster than software rendering, and I doubt if the Core 2 Duo can change that.
Hand-held guns with more penetration are rare now, because they are not very useful in today's wars. Soldiers usually don't wear strong enough armor to make more than a 7.62 NATO round necessary. Tanks are too massive these days to penetrate with a rifle.
But these power suits would make the reintroduction of stronger rifles necessary. Maybe the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup configuration to keep it compact. Only semi-automatic of course, because the recoil would be hefty.
And I'm sure that most serious military forces would adopt something like that.
Agreed, the 939 and AM2 models are quite close in price.
The AM2 platform offers slightly better performance and uses slightly less power, so if you buy a new system AM2 is preferable.
Upgrading fom 939 to AM2, however, is a waste of money because the difference is too small to be really noticeable.
There are still socket 939 CPUs being sold. ;-)
Maybe you can get a dual core for your existing board really cheap when stores are finally dumping the socket 939 line. It may be worthwile to keep an eye on the closing sales
I take it you're talking about a significant number of machines? Enough that getting the choice right makes a difference in the four to five digit $ range?
Then you might want to buy one or two Core 2 Duo machines now and use them for testing.
If all your applications run fine, consider going Intel.
If they don't, you have spent maybe (pulling numbers out of my ass) $2.000 on avoiding a $20.000 error. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
For me (in Germany), the calculation looks a bit different:
;-)
For reliability, I want my machines with ECC RAM. Looking (for example) at my preferred vendor Alternate.de, I end up with the following prices:
On the Intel side, AFAIK you have to take the pricy 775X chipset for ECC (and some 775X boards are listed as NOT supporting ECC). Alternate prices for boards that actually support ECC RAM are around 200 euros.
As processor, I might take the cheapest Core 2 Duo for 169 euros. No Pentium D please, I don't need an "enhanced heater"
That makes about 370 euros for processor + board.
Most AMD AM2 mainboards however support ECC - easy enough as it is a feature of the CPU's built-in memory controller.
I found an AM2 board with ECC RAM support for 69 euros (Asus M2N-MX) but I might prefer the full-size Asus M2N for 84 euros.
As processor, I might take the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ for 179 euros. Not quite as fast as the Core 2 Duo above but good enough.
That makes 263 euros for the above combination of processor + board.
So I can save around 100 euros by going AMD, at the expense of having not quite the same CPU power.
Which is still limited.
Last thing I've read, the ATI stockholders still have to agree to the deal. Only when that is done and the deal is finalized, AMD will have control of ATI. At that point, I'd like to hear the position of AMD management on Open Source graphics drivers.
The memory standard is not a big deal yet, because the old DDR standard with 2 channels (Socket 939) is good enough for the current dual cores. But as TFA says, it is an investment in the future because with quad cores the demand for more bandwidth will come.
I think introducing AM2 would have become necessary anyway, and it was smart of AMD to do it a few months ago while they still had the lead in performance. Pushing such a change to market would be more difficult now, because people have better alternatives (hello Core 2 Duo).
In my experience this is somewhat exaggerated, but the tendency is there and it leads people to wait for management to make decisions instead of starting things on their own. Big problem if your management is incapable of making the necessary decisions soon so things can progress.
Steve Yegge states that having a work (priority) queue is an important part of keeping things going, and I tend to agree. Clueless management (see above) will sometimes put up crazy deadlines and sometimes let the queue run dry so people start killing time with unproductive activities.
Like reading blogs and posting on slashdot
The average buyer will not understand "out of order architecture" anyway. The MHz race was different, because even non-techies could see how the computers got faster with increasing clock speed.
But now?
Maybe it will be "number of cores". Otherwise Intel and AMD will have to use meaningless slogans like "Intel inside" to suggest a sense of security when using their particular brand.
I expect a mixture of touting lots of cores and almost-fraudulent crap like "the Pentium III will make your internet faster".
Windows NT could handle four processors 10 years ago. If Vista has problems, it is not due to handling multiple processors, but because Microsoft tries to integrate a bit too much into the operating system.
Oops, it seems I misquoted the voltage :-(
A quick Google search shows that 36/42 Volt is indeed what they are looking at, not 48 Volt. Which seems a bit weird to me, but you are right...
Modern CPUs run on core voltages of 1.5 v or less, depending on model. DDR RAM is 2.5V IIRC.
So you will have to convert most of your power from 5 V to something else. And if you have to re-convert anyway, 5V as intermediate voltage is not optimal. When converting to 5V, the voltage drop in the power diodes and in the wires to the mainboard eats a much higher proportion of the power than with 12V as intermediate voltage.
24V or even 48V would be even better. The auto industry is currenly starting to introduce 48V systems BTW.
Right now, it is doubtful if SCO has the rights to Unix. IIRC they are in a lawsuit with Novell over that, where Novell says the rights have never been properly tranferred to now-SCO. So I guess that would be settled quickly between IBM and Novell, in a way that lets both of them save face.
No need to have it activated by Microsoft. I really distrust such forced activation schemes. What if Microsoft declares the end of XP's lifetime and switches the activation servers off?
Sure you could sue them and probably win, but I want to avoid the problem in the first place.
Apart from that, Windows 2000 is showing its age (you have to manually configure some newer stuff like LBA 48 disk access) but still does the job.
Agreed, Windows XP is different rather than more intuitive than 98.
Personally, I find that the Windows NT - based systems have become less intuitive from NT4 over Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Several settings that were accessible directly under NT4's "Control Panel" have moved into submenus in 2000, not all of them obvious. IMHO XP is worse.
In direct comparison to 98, I guess only the fact that many concepts are not directly equivalent saves XP from looking bad.
Short term, it is indeed the willingness of customers to pay. The new Counterstrike system reflects that. So far, so good.
What GP was hinting at ist that in a lucrative real life market, eventually new competitors will enter the market. Eventually, the market will turn into a commodities market where price is driven down by a plentiful supply. Real life producers hate that and try everything to make their product appear different, so it is less susceptible to competition. With varying success of course. Examples:
The makers of standard PCs are struggling to keep afloat in the competition.
Apple seems to get away with charging more, due to their own operating system and (mostly) nice design.
Of course, MS could require all OEMs to bundle a Zune with their PCs, like they did with Windows 3.0, and then all bets are off.
Not anymore. MS have been convicted of abusing a monopoly before. And while the penalty was rather laughable, it would make a nice legal precedent for a lawsuit by Apple.