I think a lot of them are spyware firewalls - the implication is that initally you were broadcasting and unprotected, but with their spyware firewall, you are protected from the evil hackers.
And you don't broadcast your IP - it is "sent" only to the routers on the path, and the server on the end.
You realize java does bounds-checking on EVERY array access? Even ones where you (the coder, who sees the program at a more abstract, higher level) can be certain you are safe? That is a HUGE performance hit for anything using arrays.
5.23b - Section 5.23a is not to be disclosed to others who have not accepted this licence. In the event of disclosure, Microsoft reserves the right to enter licensee's home and harvest all of licensee's organs with a fork.
Well, one possibility is that new graphics chips come out every few months, whereas other components tend to change relatively little over longer periods of time.
Consider the Athlon and the GeForce. The Athlon was initially released in the middle of '99. Up through the Palomino (over two years later), very little was changed about the design, with the exception of moving the L2 cache onto the die. I don't know if Thoroughbreds are different from the rest of the Athlons. Most athlons today are Palominos. (this is 3 years after the "classic" athlon launch)
The original GeForce (SDR) came out some time in 1999 or 2000, followed soon by the GeForce DDR and GeForce2. We are now up to the GeForce4. Some people might argue that the GF2 wasn't veyr different from the GF DDR, but even so, that is at least THREE times the designs. This is not even considering the various "MX" lines, and the GF4 ti4200 vs the 4400 and 4600. (Admittedly, the Duron lines for AMD went through one revision and are a different design than the Athlon, unlike Celerons vs. P3's and P4's).
So.... nVidia is pumping out new designs (read: more R&D costs) more frequently, AND has a smaller market. Not everyone needs a fast video card (most people don't even know it matters) but EVERYONE buys into Intel MHz-marketing (you need a P4 for the internet, etc.)
Not to be a jerk... Is that the whole game? I returned the chalice and the screen is just flashing around the edges... were old games really that short? How much would a game like that cost?:-)
But how does having remote windowing/etc help an "average user"? (I personally like having it, but I don't think it would bug me if a system like MS Terminal Services had to be used instead)
What does Mac OS X use? Something different. Maybe we (the rest of the *nix world) should see HOW MUCH they gained from doing that - it may be that rewriting a lot of apps (or doing some sort of backwards compatibility mode) would be worth it.
I use Intel Anypoint 10mbps cards at home - the network works fine. It is more than fast enough for broadband internet and LAN games. File transfers vary in speed, but I think they usually go about 4Mbps or faster (which is compeltely acceptable for my network). The only problem is that ALL of the 10Mbps HPNA cards I know of use a Broadcomm chip that has no linux support, and none of the manufacturers (including broadcomm) is willing to release drivers or datasheets. This means that I can only use windows at home - no *nix.
Everything you said is correct... BUT... It doesn't matter how much work a processor does per clock, if you can scale an "inferior" (according to your definition of inferior) to a MUCH higher clock.
This may not even be an architectural flaw as much as the result of an inferior manufacturing process. If Motorola's fabs aren't as good as Intel's (I don't think they are) then the fact that the G4 is a "better" processor on paper is completely irrelevant - for all the consumer cares, the FASTEST G4 available is slower than the fastest P4 (Currently, according to benchmarks not done by apple, it seems that you dont even need the absolute fastest P4s to beat the fastest Macs)
Slashdot pages render MUCH MUCH faster in Phoenix.3 than Moz 1.0.1 (on my Athlon 750,320mb ram). There are annoying pauses as mozilla renders each page - not so in phoenix:-)
I do not believe you are correct. In a modern processor, almost NO power is consumed when computations are not happening. CMOS logic is set up so that as long as its state does not change, there is no current flowing (well, transistors "leak", but that is relatively little current). However, when the clock ticks, all the gates start changing states. During the state change, power is consumed. This page has some excellent applets which show how and when the current flows.
During computation is the only time power is being used. Because of how CMOS works, power usage grows approximatekly linearly with clock speed - which makes sense - if power is consumed when stuff changes state, doubling the clock doubles the number of state changes per time, increasing power consumption.
Why does x86 waste space? The instructions are variable-length, which, as I understand it, would result in minimum executable size.... A fixed-length instruction architecture, on the other hand, WOULD seem to waste space/bandwidth for instructions that could be shorter.
Based on the example IP you provided, I'll assume you are "here". Here, dorm downstream is uncapped, but upstream is capped. Result: everything is fast, except sending files off campus from the dorms, which tends to float between 5-10kb/sec.
This is in the current Scientific American. It is news. A lot of science doesn't get published until a while after the fact (so it can be peer reviewed, etc)
No, watts are a measurement of rate. 1000kJ in.1 second would be 1000kj /.1 seconds = 10,000kW. It doesn't matter how long the pulse is, only the joules per time. 100kW in.1 seconds = 100kJ/sec *.1 sec = 10kJ of energy absorbed by the target.
Talking just doesn't work. People just want their computers to work... no more, no less. They don't believe they have time to deal stuff like with figuring out what companies or products are evil / less evil.
It does get cheaper. A pentium 2 cost Intel $72 to make. New stuff obviuosly costs much less (since you can buy it for less). And consinder the costs when processors were initially introduced. For pentium 1's, it was well over $1000. Now they start in the hundreds.
You can test drive a car and floor it. You see that the 260 isn't twice as fast. But at computer stores, you don't get a brutal demo where they stress the system to the max... instead you watch some prerendered video. That is definitely a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of them are spyware firewalls - the implication is that initally you were broadcasting and unprotected, but with their spyware firewall, you are protected from the evil hackers.
And you don't broadcast your IP - it is "sent" only to the routers on the path, and the server on the end.
Check out AT&T's TTS demo. It sounds REALLY good.
You realize java does bounds-checking on EVERY array access? Even ones where you (the coder, who sees the program at a more abstract, higher level) can be certain you are safe? That is a HUGE performance hit for anything using arrays.
Careful!!!
5.23b - Section 5.23a is not to be disclosed to others who have not accepted this licence. In the event of disclosure, Microsoft reserves the right to enter licensee's home and harvest all of licensee's organs with a fork.
That is at max current and 100C if you look carefully. I would hope your motherboard isn't that underengineered and not that hot!
Sure, they're a problem, but they're a great way to get free boards that you can pretty easily fix :)
The pics page is linked to at the very bottom.
Well, one possibility is that new graphics chips come out every few months, whereas other components tend to change relatively little over longer periods of time.
Consider the Athlon and the GeForce. The Athlon was initially released in the middle of '99. Up through the Palomino (over two years later), very little was changed about the design, with the exception of moving the L2 cache onto the die. I don't know if Thoroughbreds are different from the rest of the Athlons. Most athlons today are Palominos. (this is 3 years after the "classic" athlon launch)
The original GeForce (SDR) came out some time in 1999 or 2000, followed soon by the GeForce DDR and GeForce2. We are now up to the GeForce4. Some people might argue that the GF2 wasn't veyr different from the GF DDR, but even so, that is at least THREE times the designs. This is not even considering the various "MX" lines, and the GF4 ti4200 vs the 4400 and 4600. (Admittedly, the Duron lines for AMD went through one revision and are a different design than the Athlon, unlike Celerons vs. P3's and P4's).
So.... nVidia is pumping out new designs (read: more R&D costs) more frequently, AND has a smaller market. Not everyone needs a fast video card (most people don't even know it matters) but EVERYONE buys into Intel MHz-marketing (you need a P4 for the internet, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Not to be a jerk... Is that the whole game? I returned the chalice and the screen is just flashing around the edges... were old games really that short? How much would a game like that cost? :-)
But how does having remote windowing/etc help an "average user"? (I personally like having it, but I don't think it would bug me if a system like MS Terminal Services had to be used instead)
What does Mac OS X use? Something different. Maybe we (the rest of the *nix world) should see HOW MUCH they gained from doing that - it may be that rewriting a lot of apps (or doing some sort of backwards compatibility mode) would be worth it.
Thanks! This is great news :)
I use Intel Anypoint 10mbps cards at home - the network works fine. It is more than fast enough for broadband internet and LAN games. File transfers vary in speed, but I think they usually go about 4Mbps or faster (which is compeltely acceptable for my network). The only problem is that ALL of the 10Mbps HPNA cards I know of use a Broadcomm chip that has no linux support, and none of the manufacturers (including broadcomm) is willing to release drivers or datasheets. This means that I can only use windows at home - no *nix.
Everything you said is correct... BUT...
It doesn't matter how much work a processor does per clock, if you can scale an "inferior" (according to your definition of inferior) to a MUCH higher clock.
This may not even be an architectural flaw as much as the result of an inferior manufacturing process. If Motorola's fabs aren't as good as Intel's (I don't think they are) then the fact that the G4 is a "better" processor on paper is completely irrelevant - for all the consumer cares, the FASTEST G4 available is slower than the fastest P4 (Currently, according to benchmarks not done by apple, it seems that you dont even need the absolute fastest P4s to beat the fastest Macs)
Slashdot pages render MUCH MUCH faster in Phoenix .3 than Moz 1.0.1 (on my Athlon 750,320mb ram). There are annoying pauses as mozilla renders each page - not so in phoenix :-)
I do not believe you are correct. In a modern processor, almost NO power is consumed when computations are not happening. CMOS logic is set up so that as long as its state does not change, there is no current flowing (well, transistors "leak", but that is relatively little current). However, when the clock ticks, all the gates start changing states. During the state change, power is consumed. This page has some excellent applets which show how and when the current flows.
During computation is the only time power is being used. Because of how CMOS works, power usage grows approximatekly linearly with clock speed - which makes sense - if power is consumed when stuff changes state, doubling the clock doubles the number of state changes per time, increasing power consumption.
Why does x86 waste space? The instructions are variable-length, which, as I understand it, would result in minimum executable size.... A fixed-length instruction architecture, on the other hand, WOULD seem to waste space/bandwidth for instructions that could be shorter.
I think the reason for the ADA is that there are NOT enough disabled Americans to have any measurable effect if they don't support specific companies.
I do agree with you remark about Target.
Based on the example IP you provided, I'll assume you are "here". Here, dorm downstream is uncapped, but upstream is capped. Result: everything is fast, except sending files off campus from the dorms, which tends to float between 5-10kb/sec.
This is in the current Scientific American. It is news. A lot of science doesn't get published until a while after the fact (so it can be peer reviewed, etc)
I dunno.... I burned the memtest86 ISO - a whopping 2MB. A pic on the rest of the disc (or maybe even just text) would have been pretty cool :)
No, watts are a measurement of rate. 1000kJ in .1 second would be 1000kj / .1 seconds = 10,000kW. It doesn't matter how long the pulse is, only the joules per time. 100kW in .1 seconds = 100kJ/sec * .1 sec = 10kJ of energy absorbed by the target.
Talking just doesn't work. People just want their computers to work... no more, no less. They don't believe they have time to deal stuff like with figuring out what companies or products are evil / less evil.
It does get cheaper. A pentium 2 cost Intel $72 to make. New stuff obviuosly costs much less (since you can buy it for less). And consinder the costs when processors were initially introduced. For pentium 1's, it was well over $1000. Now they start in the hundreds.
You can test drive a car and floor it. You see that the 260 isn't twice as fast. But at computer stores, you don't get a brutal demo where they stress the system to the max... instead you watch some prerendered video. That is definitely a difference.