US Cellphone system nearly irrelevant anyway
on
No 3G for HP Until 2007
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The US cellphone market ( and most of the Canadian one as well) is now so irrelevant to the world market, that it really does not matter.
CDMA, TDMA, but not GSM for the most part.
Sure, we have a couple of GSM providers, but on an alien frequency (1900). Add to that the greed of the N. American phone and cellphone providers, and not much in the way of progress is likely to happen here.
So, 3G will slowly push ahead in Asia, where all the tech now is, Europe will follow, and that's all folks.
In the meantime tech like WIMAX will progress, people will soon have portables using that or similar, VoIP on wireless will take off, and pretty soon cell phones as a separate device for talking (only) will become obsolete.
Both share the same.09nmSOI technology. AND remember the Opterons contain the memory controller on-chip, so simple CPU power comparison to the Intels does not reflect that the Intel chips require a chipset on the motherboard with a memory controller that is also consuming power, and making heat. About another 25W in the case of the new Intel chipsets that support Paxville.
The difference is dramatic. Total of 95W on the Opteron side, versus around 350W for the same setup on a Paxville, 2.8GHz, which is still a LOT slower than the 275 in most tests.
The only fan boys I see spouting here are Intel fanboys.
By that reasoning Iraq is no longer a nation, but is a territory of the USA. The elections were a farce and a failure, and are not recognised by the 2nd largest ethnic/population group, and there is no "exit date" for the occupying invaders.
So, like Tibet is a part of China, Iraq is a part of the USA.
Note, I am not saying what is right or wrong here,just following the logic you have expressed.
Maybe Slashddot could just put a big link at the top of the page to the hack a day site instead of constantly ripping their stories? http://www.hackaday.com/
That is what F-Secure antivirus perceives it to be: NAME: Istbar ALIAS: TrojanDownloader.Win32.IstBar VARIANT: TrojanDownloader.Win32.IstBar.bu
Istbar is an adware, which modifies Internet Explorer settings. It might install a new IE toolbar and change your default start page. It might also start new ad popups, typicaly advertising porn sites.
Istbar is not a virus and does not spread further from affected machines.
The price is NOT "exorbitant". It is twice the price of the singles, plus about 25% If you do the exercise of pricing one dual core , dual proc machine against two single core, dual proc machines it comes out the same! Further, if you compare a dual socket machine, with 2 dual cores ( a 4 core system) versus a machine built with a four socket machine, it comes out about 30% less expensive. THAT is the real "win" You can build 4 way systems using 2 way parts. Current 4 socket boards require bigger cases, bigger power, much bigger cooling, and don't forget you have 4 sets of RAM sockets to populate so that there is "local" RAM for each CPU. With a dual core you can use half as many sockets. NOT half as much RAM, but less pieces. 2GB on a dual socket, dual single CPU board takes 4 x 512MB modules Do the same on a 4 socket board with 4 CPUs and it takes 8 x 256MB. The fact that it makes half as much heat, and takes half a much space is the "free bonus"
Of course everything I mentioned here is referencing Opteron dual cores. Intel have nearly none of these advantages, so the only way they can sell them is by dropping the price.
Two good reasons: AMD single core, 2.2GHz (248) Opteron: 79 watts AMD dual core, 2.2GHz (275) Opteron: 90 watts.
Want a 4 way system? Take a 2 socket board, costs around $500 and use dual cores. Want to do the same with single cores? The board is around $2000
In the case of the Intel "dual core" CPUs your comments are valid. However in the case of dual core Opterons they are terribly wrong. There IS NO "CPU BUS" on opterons. They use discrete HT links. It is Intel that are still "trapped" on a Northbridge/memory bus. Cache: Each Opteron core has a full sized cache, the same size per core as the single CPUs have. Get Hot? No. That is an Intel "feature" An Opteron dual core uses the same power as the older generation ( aka January 2005) single cores. By doubling the CPU count and halving the number of machines required most customers actually use about 40% less power and make 40% less heat than by implementing single core Opterons.
So, consider yourself "flamed" But hopefully you will look past Intel and realize there IS a new game, and it is worth playing!
Pretty simple: Slightly better than two single cores, mainly due to the fact that the Opterons are close coupled, and teh CPU cores commun icate directly in the package over a Hypertransport channel.
In the case of the Intel dual cores?
They have no direct communication, no HT bus, and all messages and RAM access has go to the northbridge chip and face a FIFO queue to memory.
In the case of thermal/power performance? At similar performance the AMDs are using about 60% the power, and making corresdpondingly less heat than the Intels.
Despite what the "Intel fanboys" are saying, Intel HAS lost this war at the first battle.
And Dell will keep selling Intel, for a while. Until it start to hurt the bottom line.
In the meantime, the changes are already happening. SuperMicro, who NEVER build boards for anything but Intel CPUs, are now selling a dual Opteron board.
The Emperor really does have no clothes!
If you can spare the time to get MythTV to work
on
Build Your Own DVR
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Reliably?
Myth has a long way to go yet. And some really awkward assumptions for defaults. "No, you should not see the cursor, that would be too easy to use"
If anything the test was "fixed" to make the Intel CPUs look better. For example the test systems were Intel 3.73GHz versus the AMD 4000+ at 2.4GHz.
Considering the competitive AMD CPU is the 2.6GHz FX55 model, this is obviously a skewed result.
They pitted an $1,100 Intel P4 against the $500 AMD Athlon64 4000.
Even if they had compared against the much faster AMD Athlon64 FX55, the price delta is still huge. The FX55 is an $835 chip versus the $1,100 Intel!
Even so, on most tests the AMD soundly won. Some of the tests would have been so embarrassing they skipped testing the AMD altogether. Where are the Sysoft Sandra results for the Athlon64?
Add to that the other hidden factor: Chipset Cost!
With the AMD64 on board memory comtroller, the Intel version of this chipset costs nearly double the AMD version.
So, let's sum up the cost results: $1,100 Intel CPU, with $400 RAM on a $250 motherboard. $1,750 total.
Versus: $500 AMD CPU, with $250 RAM, on a $150 motherboard. $900 total.
The only reason anyone would buy this is if they are an Intel fanboy, or are still drinking the Intel KoolAid.
It is not a question of IF Microsoft will beat/kill/maim Google, but specifically "how".
They never "beat" etscape, but they managed to kill them off by using various tactics associated with bundling free competition with the OS, using strongarm tactics to make other vendors and ISPs adopt their tech, and most importantly by making IE non standards compliant, so that when peoplr developed for use with IE it produced pages that were incompatible with Netscape.
The only thing interestingnow is which of the previous tactics will be used, and what new ones may arise.
And are also as "user friendly" But then we were directed to a Wired article from a guy who "reboots an application" Also, without peer review of the code, and some kind of OpenSource model, how on earth can this be trusted?
".Ciphire Labs also intends to release the source code to.."
Sure, and PGP is free, remember?? Oh, you don't? Look up some history.
I suppose I did not make myself clearly understood. It was my intention to post this here and to gather useful comments, corrections and suggestions.
Then I plan to write a new letter to the writer of the article, include the "gems" of this process, and give him the URL for the slashdot thread as an example of what I am describing.
Apparently I was overly optimistic, as pointing to this now mainly will illustrate the dark side of human behaviour.
However there are a few very good comments in all of this, so: "Thanks for contributing!"
Since it was first released in March 1999, Darwin has been the open-source OS technology underlying Apple's Mac OS X operating system"
Underlying being the key word.
It is a great start.
But it is only a part of the OS.
Let's say, for example, that M$ released the source for Windows, but kep the source for Internet Explorer and ActiveX closed, would that make IE more secure?
Apparently one can not even TRY to make a positive point without being drawn into the bitchfest. I am tempted to give up.
So far the replies have included: 1) A person making a good point that Java and PHP are not repleamcements for ActiveX. But not suggesting an alternative 2) A person who is giving me English lessons. Again, criticism, no positive suggestion or example. 3) A comment suggesting I meant ActiveX instead of ASP. Kind of true, but ASP has more to it than ActiveX I believe. 4) Someone who thinks that I used "childish insults"
Frankly I view the majority of these comments as part of the problem, and NOT part of a solution.
As I wrote, I do not believe my comments are perfect, and I am willing and desiring to submit to peer review. Along with that comes the responsibility to act positively in participating.
Instead of posting "bitchfest" comments here, perhaps we should politely email the author and help him broaden his understandingof the issues?
Here is what I wrote to him, as an example. While I am sure it is not perfect, I believe it touches on the matters he clearly does not yet understand.
Emailed to: mingram@globeandmail.ca
Re: Your article: A bug-free surfing zone
By Mathew Ingram Friday, January 14, 2005 - Page R31
Hi Matthew. While I have to thank you for a relatively informative article, I also have to point out that you are still, in many ways "Not getting it"
You have fallen into two fundamental errors of understanding:
First: " That engine forms the basis for a new browser called Firefox, which is free for Windows and Mac users"
In this you badly missed the point of the Mozilla project. Firstly the Mozilla project is where various browsers, Gecko based and other, spawn from. It was an example of the first major project ceded to the Open Source movement. It was decided that the best way to encourage development, without being tied to a development budget, was to move the development to an Open Source model, where thousands of users/develeopers could adopt and continue the development unfettered by traditional copyright and ownership issues. By moving the Netscape source to a "copyleft" model this has clearly demonstrated an alternative and much more useful model for ownership and develeopment.
Your second case of misunderstanding: Adding insult to injury you only mentioned the old (and many say obsolete) Microsoft and Apple environments, and totally ignored the much more relevant and modern Open Soruce communities, such as Linux and FreeBSD.
Thirdly, in the last paragraph you wrote: "Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs."
While I fully agree that Firefox is NOT perfect, the one item you chose as an erxample is not a bug! ActiveX and similar are not features, but instead are what can be called "malware". A model for extensions that is so insecure and flawed is not to be supported. It was a fatal error by Microsoft, and continues to be so. Nobody is interested in "fixing" this. If you want an extension model with some practical features, the world has already settled on a few, most notably PHP and Java. These can be secured, and can be considered "safe" extensions when properly implemented.
The only "bug" that is relevant here is the continued dependancy by a handful of misguided developers who are still using ActiveX on web pages.
The severity of this bug is such that the US Dept. of Homeland Security issued an advisory advising people to NOT use Internet Explorer.
Internet Explorer and ASP IS the "bug". Avoiding it's faults is an improvement, NOT a "bug"
BTW, whether you want to Internet Explorer installed on a Windows system is not a choice you get to make. M$ have integrated the browser into the OS in a fashion that does not allow you to remove it. All you can do is remove links to it. These are called "shortcuts" in Windows terms.
Maybe next time you foray into this arena, good intentions in hand, you might want to submit your article for peer review in the relevant communities. I will be glad to point you in the directions for this if you like. Feel free to ask.
BTW, this highlights what is probably the strongest feature of Open Source software: Peer review.
By submitting code, text, and other means of expression to peer review, we utilize a wide community of people to assist in improving our works, avoiding the pitfalls of well intentioned, but misadvised concepts and cases where we simply were not aware of a relevant matter on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
The US cellphone market ( and most of the Canadian one as well) is now so irrelevant to the world market, that it really does not matter.
CDMA, TDMA, but not GSM for the most part.
Sure, we have a couple of GSM providers, but on an alien frequency (1900).
Add to that the greed of the N. American phone and cellphone providers, and not much in the way of progress is likely to happen here.
So, 3G will slowly push ahead in Asia, where all the tech now is, Europe will follow, and that's all folks.
In the meantime tech like WIMAX will progress, people will soon have portables using that or similar, VoIP on wireless will take off, and pretty soon cell phones as a separate device for talking (only) will become obsolete.
Our firm does computer and network service for a few law firms.
Based on that experience I can certainly assure you that most lawyers
are about as tech illiterate as you can find.
Not too surprising, as there is a noticable tendency:
"The more arrogant one is, the less likely one is to be literate with anything outside of one's immediate field"
No, a PROPERLY designed dual core does NOT use twice the power, at the same clockspeeds.
s px?opn=OSA248BLBOX
s px?opn=OSA275CBBOX
.09nmSOI technology.
For example, look at the Opteron 248 REV E4 versus the dual core Opteron 275REV E6
85W for single core 248
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.a
95W for dual core 275
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.a
Both share the same
AND remember the Opterons contain the memory controller on-chip, so simple CPU power comparison to the Intels does not reflect that the Intel chips require a chipset on the motherboard with a memory controller that is also consuming power, and making heat.
About another 25W in the case of the new Intel chipsets that support Paxville.
The difference is dramatic.
Total of 95W on the Opteron side, versus around 350W for the same setup on a Paxville, 2.8GHz, which is still a LOT slower than the 275 in most tests.
The only fan boys I see spouting here are Intel fanboys.
By that reasoning Iraq is no longer a nation, but is a territory of the USA.
The elections were a farce and a failure, and are not recognised by the 2nd largest ethnic/population group, and there is no "exit date" for the occupying invaders.
So, like Tibet is a part of China, Iraq is a part of the USA.
Note, I am not saying what is right or wrong here,just following the logic you have expressed.
Maybe Slashddot could just put a big link at the top of the page to the hack a day site instead of constantly ripping their stories?
http://www.hackaday.com/
That is what F-Secure antivirus perceives it to be:
NAME: Istbar
ALIAS: TrojanDownloader.Win32.IstBar
VARIANT: TrojanDownloader.Win32.IstBar.bu
Istbar is an adware, which modifies Internet Explorer settings. It might install a new IE toolbar and change your default start page. It might also start new ad popups, typicaly advertising porn sites.
Istbar is not a virus and does not spread further from affected machines.
I went and saw ROTS last week.a t/akeysections/4lim/apelev2.html
Here in Canada that cost me $12 (Canadian) or about$9.60 USD
My friend in Manila went and saw it the same day.
His cost?
About $2.00 USD (often less):
http://www.passport2manila.com/akeysections/copyc
So, what is the value of the movie ticket?
Clearly, if the MPAA members they truly believed in what they are saying, then they would not "give away" seats at $2.00
While it does not paint a pretty picture, I can not see what in the article can be considered slanderous, incorrect, or even "spun"
So, what's the problem here?
The price is NOT "exorbitant".
It is twice the price of the singles, plus about 25%
If you do the exercise of pricing one dual core , dual proc machine against two single core, dual proc machines it comes out the same!
Further, if you compare a dual socket machine, with 2 dual cores ( a 4 core system) versus a machine built with a four socket machine, it comes out about 30% less expensive.
THAT is the real "win"
You can build 4 way systems using 2 way parts.
Current 4 socket boards require bigger cases, bigger power, much bigger cooling, and don't forget you have 4 sets of RAM sockets to populate so that there is "local" RAM for each CPU.
With a dual core you can use half as many sockets.
NOT half as much RAM, but less pieces.
2GB on a dual socket, dual single CPU board takes 4 x 512MB modules
Do the same on a 4 socket board with 4 CPUs and it takes 8 x 256MB.
The fact that it makes half as much heat, and takes half a much space is the "free bonus"
Of course everything I mentioned here is referencing Opteron dual cores.
Intel have nearly none of these advantages, so the only way they can sell them is by dropping the price.
Two good reasons:
AMD single core, 2.2GHz (248) Opteron: 79 watts
AMD dual core, 2.2GHz (275) Opteron: 90 watts.
Want a 4 way system? Take a 2 socket board, costs around $500 and use dual cores.
Want to do the same with single cores? The board is around $2000
In the case of the Intel "dual core" CPUs your comments are valid.
However in the case of dual core Opterons they are terribly wrong.
There IS NO "CPU BUS" on opterons.
They use discrete HT links.
It is Intel that are still "trapped" on a Northbridge/memory bus.
Cache: Each Opteron core has a full sized cache, the same size per core as the single CPUs have.
Get Hot?
No. That is an Intel "feature"
An Opteron dual core uses the same power as the older generation ( aka January 2005) single cores.
By doubling the CPU count and halving the number of machines required most customers actually use about 40% less power and make 40% less heat than by implementing single core Opterons.
So, consider yourself "flamed"
But hopefully you will look past Intel and realize there IS a new game, and it is worth playing!
In the case of the AMD Opteron dual cores?
Pretty simple: Slightly better than two single cores, mainly due to the fact that the Opterons are close coupled, and teh CPU cores commun icate directly in the package over a Hypertransport channel.
In the case of the Intel dual cores?
They have no direct communication, no HT bus, and all messages and RAM access has go to the northbridge chip and face a FIFO queue to memory.
In the case of thermal/power performance?
At similar performance the AMDs are using about 60% the power, and making corresdpondingly less heat than the Intels.
Despite what the "Intel fanboys" are saying, Intel HAS lost this war at the first battle.
And Dell will keep selling Intel, for a while.
Until it start to hurt the bottom line.
In the meantime, the changes are already happening.
SuperMicro, who NEVER build boards for anything but Intel CPUs, are now selling a dual Opteron board.
The Emperor really does have no clothes!
Reliably?
Myth has a long way to go yet.
And some really awkward assumptions for defaults.
"No, you should not see the cursor, that would be too easy to use"
Free does not necessarily mean "best"
If anything the test was "fixed" to make the Intel CPUs look better.
For example the test systems were Intel 3.73GHz versus the AMD 4000+ at 2.4GHz.
Considering the competitive AMD CPU is the 2.6GHz FX55 model, this is obviously a skewed result.
They pitted an $1,100 Intel P4 against the $500 AMD Athlon64 4000.
Even if they had compared against the much faster AMD Athlon64 FX55, the price delta is still huge. The FX55 is an $835 chip versus the $1,100 Intel!
Even so, on most tests the AMD soundly won.
Some of the tests would have been so embarrassing they skipped testing the AMD altogether.
Where are the Sysoft Sandra results for the Athlon64?
Add to that the other hidden factor: Chipset Cost!
With the AMD64 on board memory comtroller, the Intel version of this chipset costs nearly double the AMD version.
So, let's sum up the cost results:
$1,100 Intel CPU, with $400 RAM on a $250 motherboard. $1,750 total.
Versus:
$500 AMD CPU, with $250 RAM, on a $150 motherboard. $900 total.
The only reason anyone would buy this is if they are an Intel fanboy, or are still drinking the Intel KoolAid.
Here is the counter petition
Do yourself a favour and make a statement supporting freedom of speech by signing this petition, please.
It is not a question of IF Microsoft will beat/kill/maim Google, but specifically "how".
They never "beat" etscape, but they managed to kill them off by using various tactics associated with bundling free competition with the OS, using strongarm tactics to make other vendors and ISPs adopt their tech, and most importantly by making IE non standards compliant, so that when peoplr developed for use with IE it produced pages that were incompatible with Netscape.
The only thing interestingnow is which of the previous tactics will be used, and what new ones may arise.
Things like Sony versus XBox are all drivel.
And are also as "user friendly"
But then we were directed to a Wired article from a guy who "reboots an application"
Also, without peer review of the code, and some kind of OpenSource model, how on earth can this be trusted?
".Ciphire Labs also intends to release the source code to.."
Sure, and PGP is free, remember??
Oh, you don't?
Look up some history.
I suppose I did not make myself clearly understood.
It was my intention to post this here and to gather useful comments, corrections and suggestions.
Then I plan to write a new letter to the writer of the article, include the "gems" of this process, and give him the URL for the slashdot thread as an example of what I am describing.
Apparently I was overly optimistic, as pointing to this now mainly will illustrate the dark side of human behaviour.
However there are a few very good comments in all of this, so: "Thanks for contributing!"
Apparently because I am an asshole, while you,OTOH, are perfect.
To quote from
http://www.opendarwin.org/:
"What is OpenDarwin.org?
Since it was first released in March 1999, Darwin has been the open-source OS technology underlying Apple's Mac OS X operating system"
Underlying being the key word.
It is a great start.
But it is only a part of the OS.
Let's say, for example, that M$ released the source for Windows, but kep the source for Internet Explorer and ActiveX closed, would that make IE more secure?
Sorry, but I personally beleive that ANY code that is not publishing the source and allowing one to fix bugs in it in an operating system Is obsolete.
And certainly not secure.
**My opinion**
Apparently one can not even TRY to make a positive point without being drawn into the bitchfest.
I am tempted to give up.
So far the replies have included:
1) A person making a good point that Java and PHP are not repleamcements for ActiveX.
But not suggesting an alternative
2) A person who is giving me English lessons.
Again, criticism, no positive suggestion or example.
3) A comment suggesting I meant ActiveX instead of ASP. Kind of true, but ASP has more to it than ActiveX I believe.
4) Someone who thinks that I used "childish insults"
Frankly I view the majority of these comments as part of the problem, and NOT part of a solution.
As I wrote, I do not believe my comments are perfect, and I am willing and desiring to submit to peer review.
Along with that comes the responsibility to act positively in participating.
So... Anyone care to try and do that?
Yes, you are right.
By submitting to peer review I was able to get the benefit of input from knowledgable people like you!
OTOH, what do you suggest as replacement technologies for Active X?
Instead of posting "bitchfest" comments here, perhaps we should politely email the author and help him broaden his understandingof the issues?
Here is what I wrote to him, as an example.
While I am sure it is not perfect, I believe it touches on the matters he clearly does not yet understand.
Emailed to: mingram@globeandmail.ca
Re: Your article:
A bug-free surfing zone
By Mathew Ingram
Friday, January 14, 2005 - Page R31
Hi Matthew.
While I have to thank you for a relatively informative article, I also have to point out that you are still, in many ways "Not getting it"
You have fallen into two fundamental errors of understanding:
First:
" That engine forms the basis for a new browser called Firefox, which is free for Windows and Mac users"
In this you badly missed the point of the Mozilla project.
Firstly the Mozilla project is where various browsers, Gecko based and other, spawn from.
It was an example of the first major project ceded to the Open Source movement.
It was decided that the best way to encourage development, without being tied to a development budget, was to move the development to an Open Source model, where thousands of users/develeopers could adopt and continue the development unfettered by traditional copyright and ownership issues.
By moving the Netscape source to a "copyleft" model this has clearly demonstrated an alternative and much more useful model for ownership and develeopment.
Your second case of misunderstanding:
Adding insult to injury you only mentioned the old (and many say obsolete) Microsoft and Apple environments, and totally ignored the much more relevant and modern Open Soruce communities, such as Linux and FreeBSD.
Thirdly, in the last paragraph you wrote:
"Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs."
While I fully agree that Firefox is NOT perfect, the one item you chose as an erxample is not a bug!
ActiveX and similar are not features, but instead are what can be called "malware".
A model for extensions that is so insecure and flawed is not to be supported.
It was a fatal error by Microsoft, and continues to be so.
Nobody is interested in "fixing" this.
If you want an extension model with some practical features, the world has already settled on a few, most notably PHP and Java. These can be secured, and can be considered "safe" extensions when properly implemented.
The only "bug" that is relevant here is the continued dependancy by a handful of misguided developers who are still using ActiveX on web pages.
The severity of this bug is such that the US Dept. of Homeland Security issued an advisory advising people to NOT use Internet Explorer.
Internet Explorer and ASP IS the "bug".
Avoiding it's faults is an improvement, NOT a "bug"
BTW, whether you want to Internet Explorer installed on a Windows system is not a choice you get to make. M$ have integrated the browser into the OS in a fashion that does not allow you to remove it.
All you can do is remove links to it. These are called "shortcuts" in Windows terms.
Maybe next time you foray into this arena, good intentions in hand, you might want to submit your article for peer review in the relevant communities. I will be glad to point you in the directions for this if you like.
Feel free to ask.
BTW, this highlights what is probably the strongest feature of Open Source software: Peer review.
By submitting code, text, and other means of expression to peer review, we utilize a wide community of people to assist in improving our works, avoiding the pitfalls of well intentioned, but misadvised concepts and cases where we simply were not aware of a relevant matter on the topic.
We are all going to make mistakes, but i
Linux drivers?
AMD provided full driver support for their chipsets, and even optimized BLAS libraries (these are scientific computing libraries).
To get this from Intel you have to buy their compiler suite.
How about next time you study up on some facts before you blindly repeat the Intel party line?
"The five person voting panel voted 57 to 3.14 in
favour of getting rid of the Diebold machines."
- 'Downside'