Yeah, it makes you reconsider that Athlon XP 2500+ purchase. 64-bit is temping, but you have to keep in mind that the 754-pinout on the chip is doomed. AMD already announced that they will move to a 939-pinout for most future 64s (Opterons are 940, so I assume they are just removing the "multiple-cpu" pin.) If that's the case, you may not have a very long upgrade path (3700?)
That's pretty standard practice in hardware manufacturing. It also explains the reasons why some hardware (Radeon 9500, etc) can be "unlocked" and turned into the real thing. They don't actually test "every" part at first, just samples of a batch. If X% fail the full spec, the entire batch is remarked as reduced-spec parts. They they are individually tested at the lower spec. It stands to reason that a certain number of these part would have passed the more rigorous full-spec tests, thus us "cheap" buyers can sometimes get lucky and get a nice piece of hardware for a small price.
.. has another winner on their hands. Excellent performance at a fraction of the price. 2 GHz, 64-bit performance for about $200 is nothing to sneeze at. Bring on the 64-bit apps/drivers! (And, of course, the MS OS.)
Re:Why buy mid-range?
on
The Return of S3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, the Radeon 9700s have been out for over a year now, and they are still well over $200. I think that a mid-range 9600 Pro for $130 or so is a good investment. You usually get 70-80% the performance of the high end, but at less than 50% the price.
When you talk about "buying a 6 month old top-end card for a fraction of the price" you are talking about buying a Radeon 9800 for $290 that cost $450 six months ago. Yes, it's a lot less than it was, but that's still too much for the above-casual/below-fanical game. That's not exactly a bargain to them. It's like a $9.5M estate selling for $6M. Yes, that's a huge savings, but still out of most buyers' league.
One important fact is that the McDonald's coffee, if it ever was "too hot", is still "too hot". You will STILL get 3rd degree burns if you put it in your crotch. It just takes a little longer to do it. Anything is dangerous if you choose to do something stupid with it.
That's the point, NO YOU WONT! The coffee is now served at a temperature that, yes, will burn your skin if you spill it, but it will lose heat at a fast enough rate to NOT cause SERIOUS burns. Yes, it will hurt. Yes, you will need to apply some Aloe Vera gel. Yes, it will be sore for days and/or weeks. NO, YOU WILL NOT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY AND SKIN GRAFTS!
The point, always ignored, is that if you choose to do something stupid it is your own fault.
Ignored no longer! Addressed here! I agree! (with a caveat) If you choose to do something stupid without regards to the normal worse-case scenario, it is your own fault.
Here are some examples of things that may get you killed:
1) Looking down the barrel of a gun to see if it is loaded: STUPID. 2) Kicking a rabid pit-bull in the face and running away: STUPID. 3) Opening you mailbox: NOT STUPID.
Now 1 and 2 are obvious. They fall under your "it's you own fault." category. I agree. But what about 3? What if there is an explosive in your mailbox. Or a deadly spider/snake? Are these people "doing something stupid?" No. Under normal circumstances, opening your mailbox is not a dangerous act. Millions of people do it everyday. You've done it thousands of times before. You may willingly accept the possibility that you might get a splinter, or stub your toe, or receive a nasty chain letter, but not the possibility of death. THAT'S NOT NORMAL. Just like putting a cup of hot coffee between your legs. You may willingly accept the possibility of spilling it and scalding your skin or ruining your pants, but not the possibility of having your skin and tissue melted and chemically fused to the seat of your car. THAT'S NOT NORMAL!
Well, we're obviously at an impasse here. I would agree that the whole "sue fast food retailers because I'm fat" lawsuits are without merit, as are most recent tobacco lawsuits, but not this particular case.
The toy manufacturer then labels the coffee mentioning this disease, so everyone knows it is there and acts accordingly.
Actually, it would be more accurate if the manufacturer added a label mentioning the possibility of "mild discomfort," while failing to mention the searing pain, lengthy hospital stay, and expensive surgeries. Saying "Warning, contents may be hot" does not quite convey the same meaning as "Warning, contents are unnecessarily hot and may cause rapid melting of the skin and tissue within seconds of contact, causing extreme trauma and permanent disfiguration. Try an apple pie."
Another bad analogy. The coffee was preferred hot.
Again, if 99 people out of 100 said "Yes, please amputate my left foot with a dull cleaver" and you proceeded to amputate the left feet of all 100 people, you should expect at least one lawsuit. People, in general, are stupid.
People do want their coffee hot. McDonald's lost the suit and were ordered to reduce the temps of their coffee. Do you find McD's coffee to be *cold* now? No? You mean they lowered the temps by at least 25 degrees F and 99% of the people can't tell the difference? Why was it so hot to begin with? Oh, because of the 3 people who like to buy coffee, drive 45 minutes to work, then drink it, expecting it to still scald their tongues complained that it was only luke-warm? Well, let's endanger our entire customer base to please this vocal minority, by all means.
[another analogy, as I seem to like them =P] If I ordered a hot meal from a restaurant and the waiter warned me "that skillet may be hot," I would have no grounds to complain if I touched the pan with my finger and got a blister. I agree with that. But could I complain if it was so hot that I spontaneously burst into flames simply by leaning over my plate to grab the salt? I think so...
So by your reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for toy manufacturers to infuse some rare disease into their products that is non-contagious to 99.9% of the populous, but may permanently disfigure some of those unfortunate enough to scratch the surface and be infected by the virus. Sure, why not? Why not just add some weapons-grade uranium to the coffee cups, so that they will keep the coffee nice and toasty for the next few millennia, as well?
1) A McD manager *testified* that the coffee was unfit for consumption. I guarantee no one at this location was "consuming it with no problems." It was heated to 180+ degrees F!
2) The issue isn't about the spill at all. As a business owner, you can't place thousands of poisoned-tipped spikes around your facility, then deny blame if someone trips and falls, claiming "She fell herself, we didn't push her."
I'm against frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, if not more so. But this was just a case where business came before responsibility.
Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz / 1MB cache) 512MB RAM Radeon 9600 160GB HD (7200rpm / 8MB cache) 6-channel audio DVD Drive CD-RW 10/100 NIC 56K modem Firewire & USB Media Card reader KB &Mouse Speakers Windows XP, MS Works, MS Money, Norton AV, Power DVD, etc...
Bare-bones? I mean, it's missing a monitor, that's it. What else exactly are you looking for in a PC?
So you don't consider what Linus Torvalds does 'better' than what a cracker does? Hint: hacking has nothing to do with breaking into computers.
My argument is that the term hacker now means "person who breaks into unauthorized computer systems" to 90% of the general public. Yes, some people think they are hackers because they write code. Some people think they are hackers because they steal credit card numbers. Some people think they are hackers because they kick a little sack around with their feet. Some people with a chronic cough from smoking probably refer to themselves as hackers, as well.
My point is, who cares? As long as you know who are are and what you do, what difference does it make? I don't kick and scream when someone refers to me as a computer nerd, versus the more accurate computer "geek." I don't point out my lack of thick glasses and a pocket protector. BECAUSE IT DOESN"T MATTER!
PS: How many people do you think would cry foul if they read on the front page of the Times, "World Famous Computer Hacker, Linus Torvalds..."
And my response to this is "get over yourself." It isn't like people are confusing astrophysicists with mall security guards. You're trying to argue that what you do is "better' than what a cracker does based solely on your "intentions." Whatever. I guess some bank robbers should be referred to as humanitarians, since they were getting the money to help those less fortunate. And if you wake up at 3:00 with some stranger snooping around your house, don't call the police until he actually takes something and leaves. After all, he might just be "hacking around."
Give it up, you've lost the fight. The term hacker typically has negative connotations in the mind of the public. Just like pirate and revolutionist.
I don't see Shakespeare using a tag, kiddo. Learn how to write properly and focus on content -- if that is crappy no amount of fancy colours is going to save your email.
Yes, Shakespeare is a true master of modern writing. That's why everyone I know continues to write in the same manner. The New York Times and the Tribune both are written in iambic pentameter, no? I mean, humans obviously perfected the art of writing several hundred years ago, why bother to even suggest to try to improve upon or add to it? How dare we be so bold!
Why the hell do you people simply assume that because something has "fancy" colors, it is immediately rediculous and not worth your precious time? Are you the same type of people who believe black-and-white TV shows were the height of entertainment? That all original music pre-dated the seventies? That the 8-bit consoles perfected the art of gaming? What are you guys, some 13-year-old posers who think it's cool to act "old skool?" Grow up and try acting like adults, for shit's sake. Times change. Sometimes you have to change with them. Otherwise, you can just die off like the other dinosaurs.
If your ideas cannot be expressed efficiently in plain text and boldface, italics, etc. are required to express them, the problem is your writing, not the format. Word choice and careful editing can alleviate the need for bolding, as well as your sentence length. Plus, the extra attention given to the writing will probably result in a better and more successful sales pitch.
Oh come on! You're telling me that television, magazines, billboards, illustrated textbooks, and even maps are are useless and wasteful, as the exact same information could just as easily and accurately be conveyed by a well-worded article in a black and white newspaper with 8-point Times New Roman font?
So the entire fields of technical writing, marketing, art, graphic design, etc are all useless?
Writing is defintely an art, but I think you may want to rethink that stand. Next you'll be saying that relational databases are useless, as you can just as efficiently store all information in a flat text file.
I don't get on how everyone looks down upon HTML email. I understand that it can have issues, but this isn't the dark ages anymore. Some ideas just can't be expressed as efficiently in plain text. Sometimes bold type is needed. Sometimes a proper table is needed. Sometimes embedded images. Even blinking marquee text may be needed! (just kidding!). And you can't deny the usability of having an active HTML link embedded in an email. Maybe XML or something may be more appropriate (but probably just as prone to abuse), but the idea that a terminal window and pine should be the only allowable way to view email is severely outdated.
I have to wonder if the money spent on Windows wouldn't be better spent improving Evolution and making it blow Outlook out of the water
In due time, I say. We cannot over-look the hooooge Windows user-base. First you need a working client. Then you can get feedback and improve upon it.
How many people do you think believe that they can offer suggestions to Microsoft in improve thier products? I know I've sent email to MS on more than one occasion, suggesting that they investigate adding tabbed browsing to IE. This was when I first saw it in Opera and again later in Mozilla. I never got a response, and I see that it has never materialized. As a result, I've been using Firebird for several months, and recommend it to everyone I know.
Now how many people believe that you can make suggestions for an OS project? Even if you can't get your feature added, there's not much stopping you from doing it yourself, other than your own limitations. This is why OS can be better than proprietary software. This is how OS software will blow X out of the water.
Uh, no. I would like to think the purpose of releasing OS software for Windows is not to "make a clone," but rather to "supply the same functionality in an application that is open, standards-compliant, and similiar in appearance/use."
A lot of open source developers have the attitude of "anything you can do, we can do better." And this is a good thing. You wouldn't say, "Why run Firebird on Windows? It's just a IE clone, run the real thing," now would you?
.. that one of the oft-overlooked facilitators of open-source software is having a Windows client. Mozilla/Firebird/Thunderbird seem to understand this, as well as tons of other projects. I am almost at a point where I could switch from Win2k to any flavor of Linux and still use the same apps 90% of the time. (Thunderbird, OO.org, Thunderbird, Gimp, Eclipse, etc)
I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of Evolution and why it may be impossible to run on Windows, but I think that if it were possible, it would be a large boon to the project.
Just looking at our planet, intellent technological life is an extremely unlikely occurrence.
Yet, it did happen. Maybe it was a 100% certainty. Maybe we only had a 1 in a billion chance, or 1 in a trillion, or in a trillion, billion, million. But, didn't we just estimate that there are like 70 sextillion stars in our universe? Doesn't that make for slightly better odds?
The universe is much too vast to describe in absolute terms. I'm much better off in saying "life probably exists out there" than anyone who says "life cannot exist out there, stop looking for it."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it makes you reconsider that Athlon XP 2500+ purchase. 64-bit is temping, but you have to keep in mind that the 754-pinout on the chip is doomed. AMD already announced that they will move to a 939-pinout for most future 64s (Opterons are 940, so I assume they are just removing the "multiple-cpu" pin.) If that's the case, you may not have a very long upgrade path (3700?)
That's pretty standard practice in hardware manufacturing. It also explains the reasons why some hardware (Radeon 9500, etc) can be "unlocked" and turned into the real thing. They don't actually test "every" part at first, just samples of a batch. If X% fail the full spec, the entire batch is remarked as reduced-spec parts. They they are individually tested at the lower spec. It stands to reason that a certain number of these part would have passed the more rigorous full-spec tests, thus us "cheap" buyers can sometimes get lucky and get a nice piece of hardware for a small price.
I'm glad I'm not the only one...
More info about the case in my Journal.
Well, the Radeon 9700s have been out for over a year now, and they are still well over $200. I think that a mid-range 9600 Pro for $130 or so is a good investment. You usually get 70-80% the performance of the high end, but at less than 50% the price.
When you talk about "buying a 6 month old top-end card for a fraction of the price" you are talking about buying a Radeon 9800 for $290 that cost $450 six months ago. Yes, it's a lot less than it was, but that's still too much for the above-casual/below-fanical game. That's not exactly a bargain to them. It's like a $9.5M estate selling for $6M. Yes, that's a huge savings, but still out of most buyers' league.
That's an odd statment. "X uses Java, but should have used C/C++ so it could have been portable."
Aren't portability and system-independence some of the major benefits of using Java over compiled languages?
.. must.. not.. reply.. Ahhhh!
One important fact is that the McDonald's coffee, if it ever was "too hot", is still "too hot". You will STILL get 3rd degree burns if you put it in your crotch. It just takes a little longer to do it. Anything is dangerous if you choose to do something stupid with it.
That's the point, NO YOU WONT! The coffee is now served at a temperature that, yes, will burn your skin if you spill it, but it will lose heat at a fast enough rate to NOT cause SERIOUS burns. Yes, it will hurt. Yes, you will need to apply some Aloe Vera gel. Yes, it will be sore for days and/or weeks. NO, YOU WILL NOT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY AND SKIN GRAFTS!
The point, always ignored, is that if you choose to do something stupid it is your own fault.
Ignored no longer! Addressed here! I agree! (with a caveat) If you choose to do something stupid without regards to the normal worse-case scenario, it is your own fault.
Here are some examples of things that may get you killed:
1) Looking down the barrel of a gun to see if it is loaded: STUPID.
2) Kicking a rabid pit-bull in the face and running away: STUPID.
3) Opening you mailbox: NOT STUPID.
Now 1 and 2 are obvious. They fall under your "it's you own fault." category. I agree. But what about 3? What if there is an explosive in your mailbox. Or a deadly spider/snake? Are these people "doing something stupid?" No. Under normal circumstances, opening your mailbox is not a dangerous act. Millions of people do it everyday. You've done it thousands of times before. You may willingly accept the possibility that you might get a splinter, or stub your toe, or receive a nasty chain letter, but not the possibility of death. THAT'S NOT NORMAL. Just like putting a cup of hot coffee between your legs. You may willingly accept the possibility of spilling it and scalding your skin or ruining your pants, but not the possibility of having your skin and tissue melted and chemically fused to the seat of your car. THAT'S NOT NORMAL!
See the trend here?
Well, we're obviously at an impasse here. I would agree that the whole "sue fast food retailers because I'm fat" lawsuits are without merit, as are most recent tobacco lawsuits, but not this particular case.
The toy manufacturer then labels the coffee mentioning this disease, so everyone knows it is there and acts accordingly.
Actually, it would be more accurate if the manufacturer added a label mentioning the possibility of "mild discomfort," while failing to mention the searing pain, lengthy hospital stay, and expensive surgeries. Saying "Warning, contents may be hot" does not quite convey the same meaning as "Warning, contents are unnecessarily hot and may cause rapid melting of the skin and tissue within seconds of contact, causing extreme trauma and permanent disfiguration. Try an apple pie."
Another bad analogy. The coffee was preferred hot.
Again, if 99 people out of 100 said "Yes, please amputate my left foot with a dull cleaver" and you proceeded to amputate the left feet of all 100 people, you should expect at least one lawsuit. People, in general, are stupid.
People do want their coffee hot. McDonald's lost the suit and were ordered to reduce the temps of their coffee. Do you find McD's coffee to be *cold* now? No? You mean they lowered the temps by at least 25 degrees F and 99% of the people can't tell the difference? Why was it so hot to begin with? Oh, because of the 3 people who like to buy coffee, drive 45 minutes to work, then drink it, expecting it to still scald their tongues complained that it was only luke-warm? Well, let's endanger our entire customer base to please this vocal minority, by all means.
[another analogy, as I seem to like them =P]
If I ordered a hot meal from a restaurant and the waiter warned me "that skillet may be hot," I would have no grounds to complain if I touched the pan with my finger and got a blister. I agree with that. But could I complain if it was so hot that I spontaneously burst into flames simply by leaning over my plate to grab the salt? I think so...
So by your reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for toy manufacturers to infuse some rare disease into their products that is non-contagious to 99.9% of the populous, but may permanently disfigure some of those unfortunate enough to scratch the surface and be infected by the virus. Sure, why not? Why not just add some weapons-grade uranium to the coffee cups, so that they will keep the coffee nice and toasty for the next few millennia, as well?
1) A McD manager *testified* that the coffee was unfit for consumption. I guarantee no one at this location was "consuming it with no problems." It was heated to 180+ degrees F!
2) The issue isn't about the spill at all. As a business owner, you can't place thousands of poisoned-tipped spikes around your facility, then deny blame if someone trips and falls, claiming "She fell herself, we didn't push her."
I'm against frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, if not more so. But this was just a case where business came before responsibility.
Don't forget the frivolous McDonald's suit: a lady spilled hot coffee on her own lap, and she sued McDonald's over it and won in court
Once again, Ms. Information (heh) raises its ugly head. Check the Journal for some links and info.
Are there still people who haven't heard of Google? Or Wikipedia?
No advantages, except for the fact that no one will have to decipher what the computer 'meant.'
"Well, first it filled in this circle, but then looks like it erased it an drew a frowny face over the candidate's name and penciled in 'L4M3r'..."
Since when is
So you don't consider what Linus Torvalds does 'better' than what a cracker does? Hint: hacking has nothing to do with breaking into computers.
My argument is that the term hacker now means "person who breaks into unauthorized computer systems" to 90% of the general public. Yes, some people think they are hackers because they write code. Some people think they are hackers because they steal credit card numbers. Some people think they are hackers because they kick a little sack around with their feet. Some people with a chronic cough from smoking probably refer to themselves as hackers, as well.
My point is, who cares? As long as you know who are are and what you do, what difference does it make? I don't kick and scream when someone refers to me as a computer nerd, versus the more accurate computer "geek." I don't point out my lack of thick glasses and a pocket protector. BECAUSE IT DOESN"T MATTER!
PS: How many people do you think would cry foul if they read on the front page of the Times, "World Famous Computer Hacker, Linus Torvalds..."
And my response to this is "get over yourself." It isn't like people are confusing astrophysicists with mall security guards. You're trying to argue that what you do is "better' than what a cracker does based solely on your "intentions." Whatever. I guess some bank robbers should be referred to as humanitarians, since they were getting the money to help those less fortunate. And if you wake up at 3:00 with some stranger snooping around your house, don't call the police until he actually takes something and leaves. After all, he might just be "hacking around."
Give it up, you've lost the fight. The term hacker typically has negative connotations in the mind of the public. Just like pirate and revolutionist.
I don't see Shakespeare using a tag, kiddo. Learn how to write properly and focus on content -- if that is crappy no amount of fancy colours is going to save your email.
Yes, Shakespeare is a true master of modern writing. That's why everyone I know continues to write in the same manner. The New York Times and the Tribune both are written in iambic pentameter, no? I mean, humans obviously perfected the art of writing several hundred years ago, why bother to even suggest to try to improve upon or add to it? How dare we be so bold!
Why the hell do you people simply assume that because something has "fancy" colors, it is immediately rediculous and not worth your precious time? Are you the same type of people who believe black-and-white TV shows were the height of entertainment? That all original music pre-dated the seventies? That the 8-bit consoles perfected the art of gaming? What are you guys, some 13-year-old posers who think it's cool to act "old skool?" Grow up and try acting like adults, for shit's sake. Times change. Sometimes you have to change with them. Otherwise, you can just die off like the other dinosaurs.
Jeez.
Any hot geek guys out there who want gifts from a "secret admirer?"
Well, I qualify for at least 2 of these. Ok, maybe just 1 1/2.
You're an Evolution developer?
No, I'm not. I didn't mean to give that impression. Perhaps my choice of the word "we" was inadvertantly misleading...
If your ideas cannot be expressed efficiently in plain text and boldface, italics, etc. are required to express them, the problem is your writing, not the format. Word choice and careful editing can alleviate the need for bolding, as well as your sentence length. Plus, the extra attention given to the writing will probably result in a better and more successful sales pitch.
Oh come on! You're telling me that television, magazines, billboards, illustrated textbooks, and even maps are are useless and wasteful, as the exact same information could just as easily and accurately be conveyed by a well-worded article in a black and white newspaper with 8-point Times New Roman font?
So the entire fields of technical writing, marketing, art, graphic design, etc are all useless?
Writing is defintely an art, but I think you may want to rethink that stand. Next you'll be saying that relational databases are useless, as you can just as efficiently store all information in a flat text file.
I don't get on how everyone looks down upon HTML email. I understand that it can have issues, but this isn't the dark ages anymore. Some ideas just can't be expressed as efficiently in plain text. Sometimes bold type is needed. Sometimes a proper table is needed. Sometimes embedded images. Even blinking marquee text may be needed! (just kidding!). And you can't deny the usability of having an active HTML link embedded in an email. Maybe XML or something may be more appropriate (but probably just as prone to abuse), but the idea that a terminal window and pine should be the only allowable way to view email is severely outdated.
I have to wonder if the money spent on Windows wouldn't be better spent improving Evolution and making it blow Outlook out of the water
In due time, I say. We cannot over-look the hooooge Windows user-base. First you need a working client. Then you can get feedback and improve upon it.
How many people do you think believe that they can offer suggestions to Microsoft in improve thier products? I know I've sent email to MS on more than one occasion, suggesting that they investigate adding tabbed browsing to IE. This was when I first saw it in Opera and again later in Mozilla. I never got a response, and I see that it has never materialized. As a result, I've been using Firebird for several months, and recommend it to everyone I know.
Now how many people believe that you can make suggestions for an OS project? Even if you can't get your feature added, there's not much stopping you from doing it yourself, other than your own limitations. This is why OS can be better than proprietary software. This is how OS software will blow X out of the water.
Uh, no. I would like to think the purpose of releasing OS software for Windows is not to "make a clone," but rather to "supply the same functionality in an application that is open, standards-compliant, and similiar in appearance/use."
A lot of open source developers have the attitude of "anything you can do, we can do better." And this is a good thing. You wouldn't say, "Why run Firebird on Windows? It's just a IE clone, run the real thing," now would you?
Have you looked at Mozilla Calendar?
I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of Evolution and why it may be impossible to run on Windows, but I think that if it were possible, it would be a large boon to the project.
Just looking at our planet, intellent technological life is an extremely unlikely occurrence.
Yet, it did happen. Maybe it was a 100% certainty. Maybe we only had a 1 in a billion chance, or 1 in a trillion, or in a trillion, billion, million. But, didn't we just estimate that there are like 70 sextillion stars in our universe? Doesn't that make for slightly better odds?
The universe is much too vast to describe in absolute terms. I'm much better off in saying "life probably exists out there" than anyone who says "life cannot exist out there, stop looking for it."