When people say they'll never use that in the real world, they're absolutely right. Most people, yes. But it may be useful in computer arithemetics, because it gets rid of the trigonometric functions which are not the fastest. Of course, the example in the sample chapter requires some use of sqrt(), which also tends to be slow on computers. So it is not sure yet which approach will win in terms of performance, but don't be surprised if software based on rational trigonometry starts popping up.
If TFA is correct, Apple is planning to use the low-power Chips promised for next year, rather than the AMD64 which are pretty good right now. Which is fine if Intel can deliver, but I would not like to bet the company on it. If I was in Steve Jobs' shoes, I might do it the other way round: Use AMD64 now, switch to Intel later if they keep their promises.
From TFA: Executives have talked of taking a more "modular" approach to Microsoft's biggest products, breaking them down into smaller elements that can be worked on independently. So they found out that linking Internet Exploder to each and any component is not a Good Idea.
I wonder why MS did this in the first place. Maybe to support their position in the antitrust ligitation a few years ago that IE cannot be removed without crippling the OS. So they made it that way in Windows 2000 and XP, after the same statement was proved wrong for Win9x by Shane Brooks. Now, the intentional spaghetti code has served its purpose and can be removed;-)
Which will become worse if you are actually fighting at the front. Can't wear ear protection all time because you would not hear the enemy sneaking around. Then the shooting starts and you don't have time to put in foamies. Result: REAL hearing damage from exposure without any protection. If you are lucky not to catch a bullet. I guess that's how war veterans got their hearing damage.
Microsoft has right now: -Windows XP Home Edition -Windows XP Professional -Windows XP Media Center Edition, not counting the Tablet PC Edition and the AMD64 Edition, because of the different hardware platform. On the server side, there is -Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition -Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition -Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition to list only the obvious ones. I'm leaving out the Web Edition and the Small Business Server, because I'm not sure if the OS is actually different.
That makes six versions of Windows right now. Going to seven versions is only a moderate increase in flavoritis.
...because it means giving legal power to someone who is not supposed to have it. Suddenly the ESRB rating board, which is not accountable to the government or to congress, can dictate terms to the industry. Great way to create a new, out-of-control bureaucracy that will eventually grow into a moloch.
Those were only necessary because DOS was so limited in terms of memory. Had it used a 32bit address space from the start (wishful thinking and impossible on the hardware of that time, I know), there would have been no 640kByte limit and no necessity for EMS and XMS.
Trusted Computing would be excellent for organizations that want to secure their network if the organization gets to determine what is allowed. How the part in italics will work out in Windows is not quite clear yet: When Vista hits the market, will the IT department of your company have the tools to allow/disallow certain applications? Or will they have to suck up what Microsoft delivers? If it is the former, Trusted Computing might be good for companies (but still not recommended for the private user). If it is the latter, avoid it like the plague.
1. and 3.: Will mostly change the resonance frequency and damping of the system. Around that frequency, the amount of damping will influence efficiency, but that only applies to a small frequency band. Maybe one octave. Above that, cabinet volume, driver suspension and damping have little influence on efficiency. Of course, if you are only interested in that small frequency band (as in a subwoofer) this is OK. If you build a typical 2-way speaker, where the bass driver also has to handle the mid-range frequencies, your mid-range efficiency is dictated by the driver and you have to match the bass response to it as good as you can. 2.: Is also limited to a small frequency band. Unless you go for a horn design. Let's assume a well-tuned bass reflex system for now: Again, for a subwoofer design that small frequency band may be all you need. For the 2-way box it still can extend the freq response to lower frequencies, which is pretty nice. But it will not do much for overall efficiency. 4.: Here I absolutely agree, a higher BL motor will immediately increase efficiency.
SpaceX is putting together interesting technology at good prices that could spark the kind of 'rapid evolution' that the industry needs Exactly. These guys approach the problem from the right angle: Build a commercially viable rocket with good payload, and more applications will follow. I hope they will not be delayed by bureaucracy too much. Because the Falcon 9 will make NASA look rather bad, transporting almost as much as the shuttle at a fraction of the price. I would not put it beyond politicians to try and sabotage Space-X in order to avoid that embarassement.
a pretty clean, high-end sound to them -- not the kind of thing you want for your party cellar Well, I would like a clean, distortion-free sound in the party cellar too. So that would not disqualify the Linn Keilidhs to me.
My own speakers are a pair of JBL L 90A from the late 90s. Very clean and neutral sound, but with the capability of getting quite loud. 90dB/W, rated at 200 W RMS and with a bass driver that can take high amplitudes. On a few occasions where consideration for the neighbors allowed it, I cranked them up with Heavy Metal. I found that the sound was MUCH preferable to that of cheap "disco" loudspeakers. Perfect for the party cellar;-)
There is a (rather indirect) relationship: High efficiency is promoted by either 1) light membranes or 2) a horn Unfortunately, 1) translates into a high resonance frequency, below which the response curve falls off. And 2) requires uncomfortably large enclosures to work for deep frequencies.
If you don't mind going for big and expensive speakers, however, huge enclosure volumes help with 1) and 2) becomes an option as well. Especially as a "corner horn" that uses your walls as an extension of the horn: http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=2
As an aside, would most computer users be better off getting a real amplifier and real speakers and using them for 10 years rather than dealing with shitty PC speakers? In terms of audio quality, yes. Even a mediocre hi-fi system will beat the typical computer speaker hands down. Ther are, however, two small caveats: 1) The "real" amplifier plus speakers tends to use up more desk space. 2) If you still use a CRT monitor, make sure that the speakers are not too close to the tube. The magnetic fields from the speakers' magnets can distort the path of the electron beam. Alternatively, look for magnetically shielded speakers.
The average small to medium hi-fi loudspeaker tends to have an efficiency in the mid eighty-something dB/W. With something like 50 W of power, this is is quite sufficient for moderate volumes. If you want something loud for the party cellar, look for something with 90 dB/W or better. This kind of efficiency is usually found in larger loudspeakers, which can also handle 100W RMS or more. I guess Handyman's speakers belong in that category and would do fine in the party cellar. Big P.A. systems for rock concerts tend to have around 100 dB/W, combined with a few thousand watts of power. The resulting volume is quite impressive even in a large hall.
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally 3D games do essentially the same, and they usually produce quite good results with much lesser hardware. And they still tend to have better FPS than you would need for a GUI.
I don't know about XP (not running it), but the requirements for 95, 98 and 2000 were just sufficient to start the OS without a swap orgy. Run any non-trivial application that was new at the time, and you better have two times the official minimum.
Valve will either still be going strong, or they will have released a patch to allow offline play, and besides, Steam already offers offline play... Offline play has been reported to work only for a limited time. If Valve will or will not release a patch is not proven either way. In the meantime, I'm treating HL2 like a game I would rent for a year or so: I will pay only a price that is adequate for a limited time of gameplay. Say, 20 Euros at most. That will probably soon be an issue, when Day Of Defeat Source comes out and DOD 1.1 dries up due to lack of players. Well, we'll see if the "silver edition" is already available at that price...
When Steam was new, it was abysmal. Maybe you started using it by the time it was mostly debugged. These days it mostly works fine, EXCEPT for the "friends" network. Which is a nice idea, but it is also broken since at least half a year.
Give Enter The Matrix some slack though they only had 3 days to go from Alpha to Final due to their tight schedule to tie in with the movie. Sounds like a reason to cut the programmers some slack but fire the management. Basing your schedule on wishful thinking is not a good idea.
That's why the field needs further research. Especially number 3. needs to be greatly improved. With something like 500% we might be in business: Put 100 in, get 500 out as heat. Convert to electricity with 40% efficiency, get 200. Minus 100 for ignition leaves 100 for delivery to customers outside the power plant.
That would have to include some sort of X86 emulation. Which is performance-wise usually not a good solution. But then again, Linux exists for the Itanium. And in the "high-performance areas" TFA mentions, it has a good reputation. I suspect Microsoft is throwing away the Itanium market with this move. Which may not hurt them too much considering the low market share of the Itanic, but still...
Yes, and the methods that they use for brutal suppression of their population and media censorship are laudable too. Well, I said that I dislike that aspect of their policy.
Corporations are not greedy. Corporations are amoral legal constructs to insulate individuals from liability. Which leads to greedy, immoral behaviour. Allowing such constructs to exist without better checks on their power is, at best, stupid. I'm not advocating the complete abolishment of corporations. But the insulation from liability goes too far. While outright falsifying the books is usually punished, when was the last time a manager was held responsible for "minor" misdeeds as illegal price fixing? Holding management personally liable for more kinds of illegal actions might improve things.
Forcing private industry to divest itself of trade secrets to participate in China's economy is a human rights violation So you are sorry for the amoral legal constructs? Besides, I don't consider it a human right to sell stuff to China. China's business practices may be unfair and maybe even violate some trade agreements, but making a human rights issue of this is ridiculous. Problems in that area are best adressed by some counter-pressure in form of tolls on Chinese products, which the USA could certainly introduce.
In other news, you can often read that China allowed some foreign investment only if the investor makes significant concessions in form of technology transfer. Frequently, this takes the form of requiring a partnership with a chinese company. This way, the chinese make sure they get their part of the profits and get their hands on the know-how.
If Microsoft think they have a cushy retreat in China, they are in for a nasty surprise. As much as I dislike the way Chinese government tramples human rights, their ways of keeping greedy corporations in their place deserves some respect.
Slashdot Mirror
When people say they'll never use that in the real world, they're absolutely right.
Most people, yes. But it may be useful in computer arithemetics, because it gets rid of the trigonometric functions which are not the fastest. Of course, the example in the sample chapter requires some use of sqrt(), which also tends to be slow on computers. So it is not sure yet which approach will win in terms of performance, but don't be surprised if software based on rational trigonometry starts popping up.
If TFA is correct, Apple is planning to use the low-power Chips promised for next year, rather than the AMD64 which are pretty good right now. Which is fine if Intel can deliver, but I would not like to bet the company on it. If I was in Steve Jobs' shoes, I might do it the other way round:
Use AMD64 now, switch to Intel later if they keep their promises.
From TFA:
;-)
Executives have talked of taking a more "modular" approach to Microsoft's biggest products, breaking them down into smaller elements that can be worked on independently.
So they found out that linking Internet Exploder to each and any component is not a Good Idea.
I wonder why MS did this in the first place. Maybe to support their position in the antitrust ligitation a few years ago that IE cannot be removed without crippling the OS. So they made it that way in Windows 2000 and XP, after the same statement was proved wrong for Win9x by Shane Brooks.
Now, the intentional spaghetti code has served its purpose and can be removed
Which will become worse if you are actually fighting at the front. Can't wear ear protection all time because you would not hear the enemy sneaking around. Then the shooting starts and you don't have time to put in foamies. Result:
REAL hearing damage from exposure without any protection. If you are lucky not to catch a bullet. I guess that's how war veterans got their hearing damage.
If you want disk encryption, you need the TPM module./ learnmore/encryptdata.mspx
Um, isn't that a step backwards? According to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security
Windows XP already has encryption capability. And there is no mention of a TPM module.
Microsoft has right now:
-Windows XP Home Edition
-Windows XP Professional
-Windows XP Media Center Edition,
not counting the Tablet PC Edition and the AMD64 Edition, because of the different hardware platform. On the server side, there is
-Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition
-Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
-Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition
to list only the obvious ones. I'm leaving out the Web Edition and the Small Business Server, because I'm not sure if the OS is actually different.
That makes six versions of Windows right now. Going to seven versions is only a moderate increase in flavoritis.
In that language, 1E5 actually means 1*10^5.
...because it means giving legal power to someone who is not supposed to have it. Suddenly the ESRB rating board, which is not accountable to the government or to congress, can dictate terms to the industry.
Great way to create a new, out-of-control bureaucracy that will eventually grow into a moloch.
Those were only necessary because DOS was so limited in terms of memory. Had it used a 32bit address space from the start (wishful thinking and impossible on the hardware of that time, I know), there would have been no 640kByte limit and no necessity for EMS and XMS.
Trusted Computing would be excellent for organizations that want to secure their network if the organization gets to determine what is allowed.
How the part in italics will work out in Windows is not quite clear yet:
When Vista hits the market, will the IT department of your company have the tools to allow/disallow certain applications? Or will they have to suck up what Microsoft delivers?
If it is the former, Trusted Computing might be good for companies (but still not recommended for the private user).
If it is the latter, avoid it like the plague.
1. and 3.:
Will mostly change the resonance frequency and damping of the system. Around that frequency, the amount of damping will influence efficiency, but that only applies to a small frequency band. Maybe one octave. Above that, cabinet volume, driver suspension and damping have little influence on efficiency.
Of course, if you are only interested in that small frequency band (as in a subwoofer) this is OK.
If you build a typical 2-way speaker, where the bass driver also has to handle the mid-range frequencies, your mid-range efficiency is dictated by the driver and you have to match the bass response to it as good as you can.
2.:
Is also limited to a small frequency band. Unless you go for a horn design. Let's assume a well-tuned bass reflex system for now:
Again, for a subwoofer design that small frequency band may be all you need.
For the 2-way box it still can extend the freq response to lower frequencies, which is pretty nice. But it will not do much for overall efficiency.
4.:
Here I absolutely agree, a higher BL motor will immediately increase efficiency.
SpaceX is putting together interesting technology at good prices that could spark the kind of 'rapid evolution' that the industry needs
Exactly. These guys approach the problem from the right angle:
Build a commercially viable rocket with good payload, and more applications will follow.
I hope they will not be delayed by bureaucracy too much. Because the Falcon 9 will make NASA look rather bad, transporting almost as much as the shuttle at a fraction of the price. I would not put it beyond politicians to try and sabotage Space-X in order to avoid that embarassement.
a pretty clean, high-end sound to them -- not the kind of thing you want for your party cellar
;-)
Well, I would like a clean, distortion-free sound in the party cellar too. So that would not disqualify the Linn Keilidhs to me.
My own speakers are a pair of JBL L 90A from the late 90s. Very clean and neutral sound, but with the capability of getting quite loud. 90dB/W, rated at 200 W RMS and with a bass driver that can take high amplitudes. On a few occasions where consideration for the neighbors allowed it, I cranked them up with Heavy Metal. I found that the sound was MUCH preferable to that of cheap "disco" loudspeakers. Perfect for the party cellar
There is a (rather indirect) relationship:
High efficiency is promoted by either
1) light membranes or
2) a horn
Unfortunately, 1) translates into a high resonance frequency, below which the response curve falls off. And 2) requires uncomfortably large enclosures to work for deep frequencies.
If you don't mind going for big and expensive speakers, however, huge enclosure volumes help with 1) and 2) becomes an option as well. Especially as a "corner horn" that uses your walls as an extension of the horn:
http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=2
As an aside, would most computer users be better off getting a real amplifier and real speakers and using them for 10 years rather than dealing with shitty PC speakers?
In terms of audio quality, yes. Even a mediocre hi-fi system will beat the typical computer speaker hands down.
Ther are, however, two small caveats:
1) The "real" amplifier plus speakers tends to use up more desk space.
2) If you still use a CRT monitor, make sure that the speakers are not too close to the tube. The magnetic fields from the speakers' magnets can distort the path of the electron beam. Alternatively, look for magnetically shielded speakers.
The average small to medium hi-fi loudspeaker tends to have an efficiency in the mid eighty-something dB/W. With something like 50 W of power, this is is quite sufficient for moderate volumes.
If you want something loud for the party cellar, look for something with 90 dB/W or better. This kind of efficiency is usually found in larger loudspeakers, which can also handle 100W RMS or more. I guess Handyman's speakers belong in that category and would do fine in the party cellar.
Big P.A. systems for rock concerts tend to have around 100 dB/W, combined with a few thousand watts of power. The resulting volume is quite impressive even in a large hall.
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally
3D games do essentially the same, and they usually produce quite good results with much lesser hardware. And they still tend to have better FPS than you would need for a GUI.
So what makes Vista so hardware-hungry??
I don't know about XP (not running it), but the requirements for 95, 98 and 2000 were just sufficient to start the OS without a swap orgy.
Run any non-trivial application that was new at the time, and you better have two times the official minimum.
Valve will either still be going strong, or they will have released a patch to allow offline play, and besides, Steam already offers offline play...
Offline play has been reported to work only for a limited time. If Valve will or will not release a patch is not proven either way.
In the meantime, I'm treating HL2 like a game I would rent for a year or so:
I will pay only a price that is adequate for a limited time of gameplay. Say, 20 Euros at most. That will probably soon be an issue, when Day Of Defeat Source comes out and DOD 1.1 dries up due to lack of players. Well, we'll see if the "silver edition" is already available at that price...
When Steam was new, it was abysmal. Maybe you started using it by the time it was mostly debugged.
These days it mostly works fine, EXCEPT for the "friends" network. Which is a nice idea, but it is also broken since at least half a year.
Give Enter The Matrix some slack though they only had 3 days to go from Alpha to Final due to their tight schedule to tie in with the movie.
Sounds like a reason to cut the programmers some slack but fire the management. Basing your schedule on wishful thinking is not a good idea.
That's why the field needs further research. Especially number 3. needs to be greatly improved.
With something like 500% we might be in business:
Put 100 in, get 500 out as heat. Convert to electricity with 40% efficiency, get 200. Minus 100 for ignition leaves 100 for delivery to customers outside the power plant.
That would have to include some sort of X86 emulation. Which is performance-wise usually not a good solution.
But then again, Linux exists for the Itanium. And in the "high-performance areas" TFA mentions, it has a good reputation. I suspect Microsoft is throwing away the Itanium market with this move. Which may not hurt them too much considering the low market share of the Itanic, but still...
Yes, and the methods that they use for brutal suppression of their population and media censorship are laudable too.
Well, I said that I dislike that aspect of their policy.
Corporations are not greedy. Corporations are amoral legal constructs to insulate individuals from liability.
Which leads to greedy, immoral behaviour. Allowing such constructs to exist without better checks on their power is, at best, stupid.
I'm not advocating the complete abolishment of corporations. But the insulation from liability goes too far. While outright falsifying the books is usually punished, when was the last time a manager was held responsible for "minor" misdeeds as illegal price fixing? Holding management personally liable for more kinds of illegal actions might improve things.
Forcing private industry to divest itself of trade secrets to participate in China's economy is a human rights violation
So you are sorry for the amoral legal constructs?
Besides, I don't consider it a human right to sell stuff to China. China's business practices may be unfair and maybe even violate some trade agreements, but making a human rights issue of this is ridiculous.
Problems in that area are best adressed by some counter-pressure in form of tolls on Chinese products, which the USA could certainly introduce.
In other news, you can often read that China allowed some foreign investment only if the investor makes significant concessions in form of technology transfer. Frequently, this takes the form of requiring a partnership with a chinese company. This way, the chinese make sure they get their part of the profits and get their hands on the know-how.
If Microsoft think they have a cushy retreat in China, they are in for a nasty surprise. As much as I dislike the way Chinese government tramples human rights, their ways of keeping greedy corporations in their place deserves some respect.