Yes, I understand that it has been a while since this has happened; however, if Apple makes another radical change to their architecture, like the jump long ago from 68k to PPC, or the more recent switch to G3/G4, I don't think it will take them very long to stop making their OS work with your iMacs. I understand that they make better products by not supporting the oldest models, but it makes buying the low end from them kind of scary.
Well, except of course for when the Mac you bought is no longer compatible - with anything! I'd say, given Apple's history of dropping their entire customer base every so often, that if you buy the bottom of the line (iBook or iMac G3 for $800-$1000) you get a pretty reasonable price, but it'll be unsupported in 1-2 years. Buy the top of the line for $3000 and you have maybe 3 years. That's just my opinion, though.
I want one of those iBooks, and they're actually relatively cheap, but I would be too afraid of Apple dropping their support of their slowest stuff in the very near future.
Yes, I suppose you're right... I always do manage to screw up though. Of course, in Nethack 3.4, the titan can summon entire hordes of monsters. (I don't recall him doing this in NH 3.3) He once summoned the entire room he was in on the water level completely full of monsters, including a lovely master mind flayer right next to me. I was kind of pissed, and kind of dead... Oh well.:) Thanks for the advice, by the way!
Use your brain. The prefix "Ir" on the front of the more commonly accepted word "Regardless" changes its meaning IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER. So, it's redundant, and it's incorrect. If the dictionary decides to have an entry for it just because a whole lot of people mistakenly use it, I'm personally still not going to recognize its validity.
No one sane thinks that playing a video game (of any type) is immoral. No one sane would think ANYTHING someone does which does no harm to anyone else is somehow morally wrong. Notice I said, no one sane.
You said, "a complete lie", "megahertz myth" and then go on with a single example which has already been pointed out by others to be quite unfair for more than one reason.
The parent post said this: (paraphrasing): Apple should take a big marker and cross out the actual clock speed of their processor and write in a doubled clock speed for 32 bit chips and a quadrupled one for 64 bit chips. That is what I was responding to with the words "big lie". Unfortunately, the MHz myth itself has become blown out of proportion, and is often used entirely incorrectly. Why, a poster on Slashdot not even two weeks ago claimed that a 600 MHz IMAC was the equivalent of a 1.8 GHz Athlon (with no data to back this up).
You're doing research - you've pointed out several extremely informative benchmarks, for instance. I would not respond to one of your posts with a terse, flamebaitish reply because I would not wish to insult you. However, the guy I was responding to, I guess I just found myself not caring quite as much.
Everyone rips off everyone else in the interface world. As soon as an interesting feature surfaces in one of the major ones, all of the others jump all over it.
MS: Sticky Menus in Win95 -> Macintosh: Sticky Menus in System 7.5, for instance. Also, Ctrl-Click on items for an item specific menu (first seen in System 8, I believe) - same as right clicking on Windows. Then there's the whole.Net and.Mac thing.
And, of course, MS just went ahead and copied nearly the entire Mac interface into Windows 95. There was that, too.
This is in no way specific to OS's either. Look at laundry detergent, for example. Some brand or another came out with an "ultra" version at one point, which was supposedly more concentrated and therefore came in a smaller package. Then, suddenly, all of the brands had that. And extra value meals at restaurants. They weren't always around, and yet now everyone has them!
Nothing really all that wrong with it, when you think about it - you almost need to copy your competition in order to stay relevant.
Yes, I guess I had forgotten that the 68040 in my machine was a 68LC040. Of course, I eventually modified mine by swapping the processor with a real 68040 anyway (the rumor at the time was that Apple was soldering the processors to the motherboard - that certainly was NOT the case with mine). So, I think it IS a fair comparison, if you want to argue like the parent post did that anything Apple uses is twice as fast as anything anyone else uses.
Anyone who has at least failed the first semester of a CS course would know that different architectures cannot be judged on MHz alone.
Hold on there, speedy. I never said any of that. You just read what you wanted to read from my comment. What I and many people continue to claim, is that MHz is a FACTOR. See if you can get that through your head. The MHz myth people on here, for the most part, are acting as if clock speed is entirely insignificant. The guy I was responding to actually claimed not only that a PowerPC processor would operate at double the efficiency (and consequently that a 64 bit PPC would operate at 4x efficiency ??) of an equivalent clock speed Intel processor, but that clock speed itself is "marketing fiction". I think that that is in fact quite ridiculous, even looking at these benchmarks.
Incidentally, the benchmark in which apple modified the NCBI Blast (which I admittedly know nothing at all about) to run much faster on their own architecture seems a bit of an unfair comparison to the standard blast procedure (which only used gcc's optimizations) running on an Intel chip. Looking at the first graph, the A/G blast obviously runs much, much faster than the standard one on Apple's own architecture! The difference between this and a completely non-apple system SHOULD be very dramatic, right? Or am I missing something? (The NASA study, on the other hand, does demonstrate some interesting differences, as you stated)
I'm not basing my opinions of performance on one example either, so throwing words like "idiotic" at me aren't going to get you anywhere either. I simply provided one example from memory. I'm not going to spill out my whole life to you in a flame post, so you can stop drawing one thousand conclusions about my intelligence from one paragraph any time now. Thanks. I won't do you a similar disservice.
I've taken computer architecture before, thanks, and I've also USED many computers AND I've read benchmarks and listened to the comments of many people with much more knowledge than I on the subject and NO one expert has EVER made the claim, to me at least, that any (non-theoretical) RISC processor will operate 4x more efficiently in regard to clock speed.
While I do agree that a processor running several parallel instructions could average 4 IPC and run instructions really, really fast, if said processor is based on a reduced instruction set, doesn't that mean that each instruction actually accomplishes a smaller amount? (And that the speeds therefore may be closer to balancing than the RISC one actually being 4x as efficient?) Perhaps I simply misunderstand the nature of RISC, but that's the impression I have.
Yeah, too bad that that would be a complete lie. And also, no Macintosh I've ever used has performed twice as fast or even really significantly faster than a PC with equivalent clock speed. This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
I wish you Mac people would quit making a bunch of shit up instead of talking about the strong points of the Mac like you should be. Talk about superior OS stuff, I'm all ears, but "MHZ Myth" "MHZ Myth" just gets stupider every time you say it.
A quote from that article: But a new coalition of parents and friends -- the Center for a New American Dream -- is moving to organize public opinion and offer stiffer resistance. In a poll of parents commissioned by the center, 70 percent of parents, with children age 2 to 17, say that marketing to kids is bad for their kids' values and world view, makes them too materialistic, and puts pressure on kids to buy things that are bad for them.
Now, I will be the first to admit that Nader is not actually a Green, but many Greens have chosen him multiple times as their spokesperson, and his opinions are the most readily available. My knowledge of the views of other Greens comes largely from reading such far left media as Adbusters Magazine, where many, many readers have written in screaming about how violent video games should be banned, especially immediately following the Columbine incident.
My responses are not meant to imply that there are only two points of view possible, but to reply to an earlier grandparent post stating that the idea that liberals and censorship go together is laughable. They do go together. Wake up. Most liberal ideology strives for greater government micromanagement - more rules, more laws, more restrictions. That IS in fact what the word implies at this point, and if you don't believe it, you're fooling yourself.
I support the real artists by going to see them when they come through my town, dipshit. Those that are too big and important to get their ass down here don't get seen, and they don't get my money. And I probably wouldn't want to listen to their shitty CD anyway.
I don't totally disagree with you, but I don't buy into the whole idea that boys don't like girly things just because society tells them not to. I didn't like Barbie when I was a kid. Because it was girly. And lame. And I had no interest in it. I didn't need society to tell me this.
I think a lot of things like Barbie involve marketing people who have figured out how to market things to specific groups of children, rather than, as you are saying, society somehow brainwashing people into accepting that Barbie = for girls and Trucks = for boys.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
I have mostly leftward political leanings; however, I will not hesitate to point out to you, sir, that "liberals" tend to very heavily favor censorship of music and video games. Look at Tipper Gore's crusade against 2 Live Crew and The Dead Kennedies if you need a great example of this. I believe #3 applies very well in this case - liberals favor broader interpretation of constitutionally granted powers, such as the interpretation that the government has some sort of right to censor media.
Don't tell me you don't think the slightly left Democrats and the extremely left Greens don't both want to censor the video game industry. I've read too many statements affirming this from both to be convinced by your posting of a dictionary definition.
I repeat: they are selling Microsoft's code for profit.
This was not in the parent post. You are projecting a different argument entirely on to what he said before. I have heard that the XBOX Mod contains copyrighted code, and I agree that this would make it illegal. However, this is not at all common to modchips. The other poster, like many people, wants mods outlawed on the basis that people may use them for illicit purposes, but only if people make a profit from selling such devices.
What I was asking him was, what difference does profit make? It's what drives capitalism, is it not?
I'm so sick of hearing this same ridiculous argument. You haven't thought it out at all. Why do you think people should have to create their own mod? Why should everyone have to invent things over and over and over again?
Historically, someone invents something and people benefit from it. What you suggest is that everyone should invent everything that they use instead of just buying it from someone with expertise in its making. I don't know how to make cars or refrigerators or televisions either - and yet I have all of those!
The new world, which has been dubbed Quaoar, is about 1,280 kilometres (800 miles) across. Quaoar orbits the sun ever 288 years and is 1250 Km wide, about the size of all the asteroids combined.
So, is it 1,280 or 1,250?
Hint: The difference wouldn't be so significant if you didn't write them right next to each other like that.
Well, it's not actually a viable alternative to MS, at all. That's my problem with it. Lindows is just like Windows - except that it's not. See, that will always be the problem with ANY of these "let's do everything just like MS" people - in the areas in which they fall short, especially Windows compatibility, they will always appear inferior, period.
Yes, I know Lindows has various nifty features - but they're selling themselves on their ability to be so much like Windows that people won't be horrified by the complexities of Linux. This is not a good strategy. Why would ANYONE switch to something that's "just like Windows" when they're already using something that "just IS Windows"? It doesn't make sense.
The features mentioned in the review aren't going to convince anyone either. Because, as I said, they've gone down the path of emulating MS, as soon as they called their distribution "Lindows".
Anyone from around the midwest?
on
High Score
·
· Score: 2
If anyone is around the area of Omaha, you can play some classics at Family Fun Center. They have a section upstairs and kind of in the back where they shove all the old clunkers that people still want to play. I haven't been up there for a while, but last time I went, they had Moon Patrol, Galaga, and Centipede, among others. Good stuff!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I understand that it has been a while since this has happened; however, if Apple makes another radical change to their architecture, like the jump long ago from 68k to PPC, or the more recent switch to G3/G4, I don't think it will take them very long to stop making their OS work with your iMacs. I understand that they make better products by not supporting the oldest models, but it makes buying the low end from them kind of scary.
Well, except of course for when the Mac you bought is no longer compatible - with anything! I'd say, given Apple's history of dropping their entire customer base every so often, that if you buy the bottom of the line (iBook or iMac G3 for $800-$1000) you get a pretty reasonable price, but it'll be unsupported in 1-2 years. Buy the top of the line for $3000 and you have maybe 3 years. That's just my opinion, though.
I want one of those iBooks, and they're actually relatively cheap, but I would be too afraid of Apple dropping their support of their slowest stuff in the very near future.
Yes, I suppose you're right... I always do manage to screw up though. Of course, in Nethack 3.4, the titan can summon entire hordes of monsters. (I don't recall him doing this in NH 3.3) He once summoned the entire room he was in on the water level completely full of monsters, including a lovely master mind flayer right next to me. I was kind of pissed, and kind of dead... Oh well. :) Thanks for the advice, by the way!
I'm interested to know how an ascension is "guaranteed" once you clear the mines... Why is that, exactly? (I'm seriously asking).
Use your brain. The prefix "Ir" on the front of the more commonly accepted word "Regardless" changes its meaning IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER. So, it's redundant, and it's incorrect. If the dictionary decides to have an entry for it just because a whole lot of people mistakenly use it, I'm personally still not going to recognize its validity.
No one sane thinks that playing a video game (of any type) is immoral. No one sane would think ANYTHING someone does which does no harm to anyone else is somehow morally wrong. Notice I said, no one sane.
It get wierder ... his defence is actually the truth!
Posting anonymously to avoid being framed by the CIA.
I guess some people will believe anything. Hey, I think the X-Files is on. You'd better get home. The truth is out there.
I do agree, but hasn't MS been boasting about being "innovative" for ages?
MS says a lot of things...
You said, "a complete lie", "megahertz myth" and then go on with a single example which has already been pointed out by others to be quite unfair for more than one reason.
The parent post said this: (paraphrasing): Apple should take a big marker and cross out the actual clock speed of their processor and write in a doubled clock speed for 32 bit chips and a quadrupled one for 64 bit chips. That is what I was responding to with the words "big lie". Unfortunately, the MHz myth itself has become blown out of proportion, and is often used entirely incorrectly. Why, a poster on Slashdot not even two weeks ago claimed that a 600 MHz IMAC was the equivalent of a 1.8 GHz Athlon (with no data to back this up).
You're doing research - you've pointed out several extremely informative benchmarks, for instance. I would not respond to one of your posts with a terse, flamebaitish reply because I would not wish to insult you. However, the guy I was responding to, I guess I just found myself not caring quite as much.
Everyone rips off everyone else in the interface world. As soon as an interesting feature surfaces in one of the major ones, all of the others jump all over it.
.Net and .Mac thing.
MS: Sticky Menus in Win95 -> Macintosh: Sticky Menus in System 7.5, for instance. Also, Ctrl-Click on items for an item specific menu (first seen in System 8, I believe) - same as right clicking on Windows. Then there's the whole
And, of course, MS just went ahead and copied nearly the entire Mac interface into Windows 95. There was that, too.
This is in no way specific to OS's either. Look at laundry detergent, for example. Some brand or another came out with an "ultra" version at one point, which was supposedly more concentrated and therefore came in a smaller package. Then, suddenly, all of the brands had that. And extra value meals at restaurants. They weren't always around, and yet now everyone has them!
Nothing really all that wrong with it, when you think about it - you almost need to copy your competition in order to stay relevant.
Yes, I guess I had forgotten that the 68040 in my machine was a 68LC040. Of course, I eventually modified mine by swapping the processor with a real 68040 anyway (the rumor at the time was that Apple was soldering the processors to the motherboard - that certainly was NOT the case with mine). So, I think it IS a fair comparison, if you want to argue like the parent post did that anything Apple uses is twice as fast as anything anyone else uses.
Anyone who has at least failed the first semester of a CS course would know that different architectures cannot be judged on MHz alone.
Hold on there, speedy. I never said any of that. You just read what you wanted to read from my comment. What I and many people continue to claim, is that MHz is a FACTOR. See if you can get that through your head. The MHz myth people on here, for the most part, are acting as if clock speed is entirely insignificant. The guy I was responding to actually claimed not only that a PowerPC processor would operate at double the efficiency (and consequently that a 64 bit PPC would operate at 4x efficiency ??) of an equivalent clock speed Intel processor, but that clock speed itself is "marketing fiction". I think that that is in fact quite ridiculous, even looking at these benchmarks.
Incidentally, the benchmark in which apple modified the NCBI Blast (which I admittedly know nothing at all about) to run much faster on their own architecture seems a bit of an unfair comparison to the standard blast procedure (which only used gcc's optimizations) running on an Intel chip. Looking at the first graph, the A/G blast obviously runs much, much faster than the standard one on Apple's own architecture! The difference between this and a completely non-apple system SHOULD be very dramatic, right? Or am I missing something? (The NASA study, on the other hand, does demonstrate some interesting differences, as you stated)
I'm not basing my opinions of performance on one example either, so throwing words like "idiotic" at me aren't going to get you anywhere either. I simply provided one example from memory. I'm not going to spill out my whole life to you in a flame post, so you can stop drawing one thousand conclusions about my intelligence from one paragraph any time now. Thanks. I won't do you a similar disservice.
I've taken computer architecture before, thanks, and I've also USED many computers AND I've read benchmarks and listened to the comments of many people with much more knowledge than I on the subject and NO one expert has EVER made the claim, to me at least, that any (non-theoretical) RISC processor will operate 4x more efficiently in regard to clock speed.
While I do agree that a processor running several parallel instructions could average 4 IPC and run instructions really, really fast, if said processor is based on a reduced instruction set, doesn't that mean that each instruction actually accomplishes a smaller amount? (And that the speeds therefore may be closer to balancing than the RISC one actually being 4x as efficient?) Perhaps I simply misunderstand the nature of RISC, but that's the impression I have.
Yeah, too bad that that would be a complete lie. And also, no Macintosh I've ever used has performed twice as fast or even really significantly faster than a PC with equivalent clock speed. This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
I wish you Mac people would quit making a bunch of shit up instead of talking about the strong points of the Mac like you should be. Talk about superior OS stuff, I'm all ears, but "MHZ Myth" "MHZ Myth" just gets stupider every time you say it.
Nader's views on violent media
A quote from that article:
But a new coalition of parents and friends -- the Center for a New American Dream -- is moving to organize public opinion and offer stiffer resistance. In a poll of parents commissioned by the center, 70 percent of parents, with children age 2 to 17, say that marketing to kids is bad for their kids' values and world view, makes them too materialistic, and puts pressure on kids to buy things that are bad for them.
Now, I will be the first to admit that Nader is not actually a Green, but many Greens have chosen him multiple times as their spokesperson, and his opinions are the most readily available. My knowledge of the views of other Greens comes largely from reading such far left media as Adbusters Magazine, where many, many readers have written in screaming about how violent video games should be banned, especially immediately following the Columbine incident.
My responses are not meant to imply that there are only two points of view possible, but to reply to an earlier grandparent post stating that the idea that liberals and censorship go together is laughable. They do go together. Wake up. Most liberal ideology strives for greater government micromanagement - more rules, more laws, more restrictions. That IS in fact what the word implies at this point, and if you don't believe it, you're fooling yourself.
Yeah, even worse point, loser. I'm not going to listen to EVERY musician anyway. Christ, you're stupid.
I support the real artists by going to see them when they come through my town, dipshit. Those that are too big and important to get their ass down here don't get seen, and they don't get my money. And I probably wouldn't want to listen to their shitty CD anyway.
I don't totally disagree with you, but I don't buy into the whole idea that boys don't like girly things just because society tells them not to. I didn't like Barbie when I was a kid. Because it was girly. And lame. And I had no interest in it. I didn't need society to tell me this.
I think a lot of things like Barbie involve marketing people who have figured out how to market things to specific groups of children, rather than, as you are saying, society somehow brainwashing people into accepting that Barbie = for girls and Trucks = for boys.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
I have mostly leftward political leanings; however, I will not hesitate to point out to you, sir, that "liberals" tend to very heavily favor censorship of music and video games. Look at Tipper Gore's crusade against 2 Live Crew and The Dead Kennedies if you need a great example of this. I believe #3 applies very well in this case - liberals favor broader interpretation of constitutionally granted powers, such as the interpretation that the government has some sort of right to censor media.
Don't tell me you don't think the slightly left Democrats and the extremely left Greens don't both want to censor the video game industry. I've read too many statements affirming this from both to be convinced by your posting of a dictionary definition.
neither of you have any clue
No, I think I do.
I repeat: they are selling Microsoft's code for profit.
This was not in the parent post. You are projecting a different argument entirely on to what he said before. I have heard that the XBOX Mod contains copyrighted code, and I agree that this would make it illegal. However, this is not at all common to modchips. The other poster, like many people, wants mods outlawed on the basis that people may use them for illicit purposes, but only if people make a profit from selling such devices.
What I was asking him was, what difference does profit make? It's what drives capitalism, is it not?
I'm so sick of hearing this same ridiculous argument. You haven't thought it out at all. Why do you think people should have to create their own mod? Why should everyone have to invent things over and over and over again?
Historically, someone invents something and people benefit from it. What you suggest is that everyone should invent everything that they use instead of just buying it from someone with expertise in its making. I don't know how to make cars or refrigerators or televisions either - and yet I have all of those!
We're going to ban all computer games because playing them can lead to death. Now that would be very 'liberal,' don't you think?
Yes.
The new world, which has been dubbed Quaoar, is about 1,280 kilometres (800 miles) across. Quaoar orbits the sun ever 288 years and is 1250 Km wide, about the size of all the asteroids combined.
So, is it 1,280 or 1,250?
Hint: The difference wouldn't be so significant if you didn't write them right next to each other like that.
Well, it's not actually a viable alternative to MS, at all. That's my problem with it. Lindows is just like Windows - except that it's not. See, that will always be the problem with ANY of these "let's do everything just like MS" people - in the areas in which they fall short, especially Windows compatibility, they will always appear inferior, period.
Yes, I know Lindows has various nifty features - but they're selling themselves on their ability to be so much like Windows that people won't be horrified by the complexities of Linux. This is not a good strategy. Why would ANYONE switch to something that's "just like Windows" when they're already using something that "just IS Windows"? It doesn't make sense.
The features mentioned in the review aren't going to convince anyone either. Because, as I said, they've gone down the path of emulating MS, as soon as they called their distribution "Lindows".
If anyone is around the area of Omaha, you can play some classics at Family Fun Center. They have a section upstairs and kind of in the back where they shove all the old clunkers that people still want to play. I haven't been up there for a while, but last time I went, they had Moon Patrol, Galaga, and Centipede, among others. Good stuff!
I know, I sound like a big damn commercial.