Your video argument is kinda my point though. A MPEG hardware decoder could decode the stream with much less power consumption. If your users are doing a lot of video work, sell them a hardware accelerator. Which in case you didn't notice, most recent GPUs sport.
We already have "accelerators" in our machines. Ethernet controllers offload the line handling, disk controllers handle polling the drives, sound cards handle DMA tasks, hell the DMA controller itself as well.
Making an MPEG decoder an optional addon for motherboards wouldn't be a smashingly bad idea.
Hint: There is a reason why Intel and AMD are focusing strongly on improving their idle power usage. And it ain't because they have nothing better to do.
Most of the time my E6600 sits here at 1.6Ghz even with firefox, audacious, etc going. For MOST of my tasks the box is just plain too fast. Of course, as a software developer I do put it through it's paces. Point is for most people who read webpages, listen to music, watch a movie, whatever, processors are VASTLY overpowered for what they do. Not every one is doing "make -j5", re-encoding live video, or whatever.
I'd bet that for most if you simply told them "it's really fast" and then didn't load a bloatware OS and tools on it they wouldn't know the difference.
Of course if Intel started just selling 1GHz cores and said "listen folks, you really aren't using the core anyways, so why waste the energy and wafer yield?" they wouldn't be able to sell $300 processors. Of course they would cost a lot less I guess anyways since the yield would be higher... hmmm...
Point is, XO is just fine with a "P2 class" processor.
Faster processors aren't always "better." An entire generation of kids [e.g. me] grew up on nothing more than 4MHz single-issue, no cache, barely any memory systems and did just fine. When I was a teenager it was a really big deal to get my first processor running over 100MHz [cyrix].
It's purely FUD that says you need a 1000MIPS processor for an EDUCATIONAL machine.
Having not seen either LCD I can't really say which is better. I like the XO design mostly because it's supposed to be easier to read in grayscale mode. That and it uses a lot less power which is kinda important for these tasks.
My first computer in the classroom was an apple ][, followed by the various 68000 based macs. If I can play math, language, and geographical games on a low end 6502 or 68000 based machine, surely to god kids can learn today with "only a P2." And none of them ran Win XP either.
I know why Intel spreads the myth that you need power to use a computer. They're in the business of pushing high end processors that most people don't need.
Most FPSes aren't really that much fun the first time through. And I wouldn't call getting lost on a map "interaction." As for Half-Life it's mostly just walk to point A, hit switch, do something, walk to point B, shoot a lot of things.
They're fun games initially but lose their stuff quick enough. The only real redeeming quality is online play but that's just until you get the asshats griefing. I was into Enemy Territory for a while until people kept cherry picking [spawn camping]. Then I just gave up because it wasn't fun anymore.
No. They don't. Things could be much better in terms of interaction with the environment. Games that really stuck with me like GTA are because the environments are interesting. People walking around, occasionally they are chased by the cops, etc, whatever, etc.... Look at games like Halo. It's basically run, jump, and shoot. There isn't really an "environment" and the game play while for a while, is entirely linear and predictable.
The Wii has broken out as more as a party console than a loner console. While I'm sure plenty of good single player games will come out, i think the majority of the pull is from people who want to play the Wii with their friends and family.
Compare that to most 360/PS2 games and you can see the attitude shift. 360 games are good single player games with absolutely no replayability. Once you finish Halo you hardly want to sit down and play it again from scratch. And most games which have good interaction [like guitar hero] are just not really fun in groups.
If I remember correctly from my switch of 2.4 to 2.6, my OS and tools still ran. Just because it's a new kernel doesn't mean the syscall interface changes.
That said, I agree though that the kernel coding standards are lax. I've had my hands in a few kernel modules and from 2.6.17 to 2.6.whatever macros change names, things move around, etc...They do this because for the most part the end user is none the wiser and it in some way probably cleans up the kernel [let's hope].
I've heard good things about Sun CC as well. Get that going in a commodity OS and you'll give GCC a run for it's money.
Yeah it is a good idea if you know for a fact that when you leave the house you're not going to be doing anything that involves carrying things. Which admittedly is probably well over 80% of all week days.
I'd probably go for a scooter if it weren't for the fact that I live in Canada, and for a good 6 months of the year it's really cold out [especially when moving at 60kph in open air] and I wouldn't be able to use it anyways.
Other than another Linux [like] distro is work towards an f'ing standard. We kinda have a standard in terms of glibc and most user space libraries like pthreads. But what about things like run level editors, placement of configuration files, etc.
More than just yet another distro [well in this case a new OS] what I think the *nix world could use is some standardization. Personally I like the rc-update scheme from Gentoo as it's fairly simple to use and should be portable to other OSes. In the grand scheme of things the Linux kernel seems to be doing ok given the variety of platforms it must support. Though it still has odds and ends it needs to keep up [like how USB support on some AMD based boxes died mid 2.6.x stream...].
That said, the "better Linux than Linux" solaris distro would have to have a glibc compatible layer, and all the usual suspects [pthreads, X11, GTK, motif, etc...] to be useful as an OSS replacement OS. Otherwise, you're no better off.
I agree about the not caring about the prices. I spend ~30-40$ a month on fuel [I live 6km from work and most of my friends are within 20km of my house] so in theory I could be harder on the car to get places quicker.
But that carries three pitfalls. One you burn more fuel. Two, you wear out your car faster [brakes, engine, etc]. Three, burning more fuel increases demand for it which will increase the price more and more.
For me, I like being conservative with fuel, not because I'm cheap. I could easily afford to spend $200 a month on fuel if I really wanted to [which I don't]. It's the down the road part I'm worried about. If we all have a "who cares" attitude, what will the prices be in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Of course in 20 years we'll probably not be so dependent on gasoline, but still it's worth being conservative.
That's not to say I don't go out and do things that I want [and not need] to do. So I guess in the grand scheme of things I'm "wasting" fuel as well. But I can minimalize that by driving better.
Well I should point out that in my experience a non-trivial # of drivers are actually doing the limit +/- 10% or so. In my experience it's a small percentage that want to do 20 or 30 over the limit. And they're typically aggressive drivers that follow closely, etc...
When I jump on the hwy to head out to my friends place, I stick to the right lane, do exactly 100kph and lo and behold the cars in front of me are doing the same [usually, sometimes slower]. Do I have a fit when I meet a car doing 95? Rush out and pass them to get my 5kph back? No. I slow down to 95, reset cruise and keep going. Of course if they were doing 80 or something I'd strongly consider passing them.
Point is, you have to f'ing relax. Just because the car in front of you is not going the speed you want doesn't mean you have to tailgate them, flash the lights, change lanes [without looking usually from what I see] then zoom past.
If 5mph [or kph] makes a "difference" in your trip time just leave 5 minutes earlier.
I must have missed the lesson where it says you're responsible for others. Sure if you cut people off you're stupid. But if I merge safely and you catch up to me, you're responsible for slowing down or passing. I suggest you grow up and stop inventing shit. If you rear-end me your the one who is at fault.
It's funny how you bitch about so many people not doing what you want [re: speeding]. Maybe it's not "everyone" who is doing 20 over the limit like you want.
As for your slippery slope comment, many people commit a lot of driving mistakes, from speeding, to changing lanes through intersections, denying right of way, not stopping at stop signs, etc. So by your logic, when I actually come to a stop at a stop sign instead of rolling through it, I'm a danger to society since the person behind me wouldn't expect it and if they hit me I'm at fault for my "inaction" of not just going through the stop.
Gotcha.
Point is, it's legal to do just the speed limit. Combine that with the fact that speeding rarely gets you where you're going significantly [if at all] faster and you got yourself a weak argument for speeding all the time.
At the end of the day, if I'm doing 65mph on the interstate, and you creep up behind me and want to do 75 or whatever, you're going to have to pass me. I won't speed just because you want to. I'm responsible for my actions. If a cop decides to stop me for doing 10 over, I'm the one who pays, not you. And it never ends though. Last time I was in long island we were doing ~60 or so in a 55 [brother was driving], and cars were passing us doing 80. The funny thing is we were driving in a straight line on cruise control. It was the people doing 80 who were zigzagging and driving to close, etc.
But I guess you're right, *we're* the dangerous ones... How dare we drive safely and consistently.
First lesson of driving. You're responsible for your actions. If I'm doing the limit, on cruise control, and you can't detect an increasing closing distance between the car in front of you and your car, then YOU'RE the dangerous one.
Your argument is like saying the Iraqis are living dangerous since there are "battles everywhere." Well, no. The insurgents and allied troops are creating the violence.... leave that aside for a moment...
If you can't deal with cars doing the speed limit you really shouldn't be on the road. And it's not dangerous.
The problem with your logic is where does it end? So you're doing 10 over the limit? I start wanting to do 20 over. Are you the dangerous one? What if I talk 10 of my friends into doing 30 over? Are we safer than you?
You all to seem I'm on the basis that the limit is ALWAYS the best idea. Often it is, but in many cases it's just a system for a class of road.
My point though is I drive the limit since it's what the rules are. If the government changed a 80kph zone to 90kph and it was actually safe conditions, I'd do 90kph. But it's 80 so I do 80.
Others do 90 not because "it's safe" or whatever, they do 90 [or more] because they're impatient and don't have consideration for others. Why should I break the rules just to make your life more comfortable. If you really think you have a case than petition the government to address the situation.
I should also point out most cars are out of their performance band beyond 100kph. So while you are "moving faster" you're also burning fuel faster.
I'd be for driving faster if the limit was faster. I'm only against driving faster because it's illegal, not because I'm the anti-christ and out to get you. Get the man to up the limit or quit your bitchin. If *everyone* is doing it, why isn't the limit higher?
That said, I've seen enough accidents from people following too closely, or driving too fast for the conditions. Believe it or not, but just because you don't get hurt doesn't mean it's safe.
As for the autobahn, I have to question the traffic density. Sure it's easy to do 100mph on an open road. Try that in a city like San Diego or Toronto [or probably Atlanta].
I love that bullshit argument. No, how about it's the one driving outside the speed limit that is the danger. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean it's right. If the limit should be 80, then petition your government to change the law. But chances are if you made it 80, people would just do 100 or whatever. I've personally seen people doing 150kph on the 407 [close to 100mph].
What I *will* do is the limit with my cruise control on so there are no surprises. And if you're reckless enough to crash into a car that is moving at a relatively constant rate, then *you are* the danger not me.
I hate people who think they can do whatever they want because it seems to be the norm. Fuck you. I'll do the limit because that's what society [re: the government] has asked me to do. Also because I'm a new driver and I want to avoid tickets [re: insurance hikes].
If you can't cope with people doing the limit on cruise control you SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING AT ALL.
Yeah it's hard to compare though since we're not doing the same driving. A true test would put us in the same route and just basically do endless round trips.
That said, my car is between medium and compact in size, yet I can still get 5 people in it and drive around town, and it has a decent size trunk. So it's not like a smartcar in terms of size. That and sticker mileages are always misleading. My car is supposed to get 34MPG in the city... if by city you mean a constant 35mph velocity. And HWY it is supposed to get 44MPG again assuming a constant 60mph speed...
My parents both drive relatively new 6 cylinder cars and they both get noticeably less mileage than I do. Of course they also drive a lot faster [e.g. no coasting, etc].
Go to any major down town area. That's what living next to work is like. Noisy, busy, cramped. That's why people wanted to live 30 miles from work. Most good cities have the usual corner stores nearby so you're not driving 20 miles to get a bag of milk. unless you're in places like San Diego where they thrive on living 50 miles from anything... arrg that place sucks.
Where I live in Ottawa, I'm about 3 blocks from a decent size mall, corner stores and bus stops. But I also live in a house with a decent sized lawn, etc...
It's where people got the NIMBY attitude that you have to drive 20 miles to get anything done.
Well if one car is getting 23MPG on the hwy and I'm getting 23MPG in the city, I'd say I'm better off. I don't have hwy records yet as I haven't driven it for any length on the highway.
Not be able to drive your friends along, pick up groceries [or anything else]: Amazingly fantactularly priceless.
Yeah, for just driving yourself around it's probably fine [except where winters exist]. But if you are going out with the buddies, or SO, or picking things up, a car wins handsdown.
Of course if people got both a car AND a scooter and chose the appropriate vehicle for the circumstances, then maybe that would be keen.
Ah good point. when I bought the car it was brand new with only ~24km on the meter. So maybe that's it. I'm actually do for the first oil change in three weeks.
Yeah, how shameful of them for doing the speed limits!!! I love doing that. I hit the limit as close as I can then stick on cruise and watch the faces in the rear view mirror. Seeing people get angry for doing what's expected of yourself is just awesome. Watching them fly passed me only to have to slow down and stop at the same red light is priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
Your video argument is kinda my point though. A MPEG hardware decoder could decode the stream with much less power consumption. If your users are doing a lot of video work, sell them a hardware accelerator. Which in case you didn't notice, most recent GPUs sport.
We already have "accelerators" in our machines. Ethernet controllers offload the line handling, disk controllers handle polling the drives, sound cards handle DMA tasks, hell the DMA controller itself as well.
Making an MPEG decoder an optional addon for motherboards wouldn't be a smashingly bad idea.
Tom
Hint: There is a reason why Intel and AMD are focusing strongly on improving their idle power usage. And it ain't because they have nothing better to do.
Most of the time my E6600 sits here at 1.6Ghz even with firefox, audacious, etc going. For MOST of my tasks the box is just plain too fast. Of course, as a software developer I do put it through it's paces. Point is for most people who read webpages, listen to music, watch a movie, whatever, processors are VASTLY overpowered for what they do. Not every one is doing "make -j5", re-encoding live video, or whatever.
I'd bet that for most if you simply told them "it's really fast" and then didn't load a bloatware OS and tools on it they wouldn't know the difference.
Of course if Intel started just selling 1GHz cores and said "listen folks, you really aren't using the core anyways, so why waste the energy and wafer yield?" they wouldn't be able to sell $300 processors. Of course they would cost a lot less I guess anyways since the yield would be higher... hmmm...
Point is, XO is just fine with a "P2 class" processor.
Tom
Faster processors aren't always "better." An entire generation of kids [e.g. me] grew up on nothing more than 4MHz single-issue, no cache, barely any memory systems and did just fine. When I was a teenager it was a really big deal to get my first processor running over 100MHz [cyrix].
It's purely FUD that says you need a 1000MIPS processor for an EDUCATIONAL machine.
Having not seen either LCD I can't really say which is better. I like the XO design mostly because it's supposed to be easier to read in grayscale mode. That and it uses a lot less power which is kinda important for these tasks.
Tom
My first computer in the classroom was an apple ][, followed by the various 68000 based macs. If I can play math, language, and geographical games on a low end 6502 or 68000 based machine, surely to god kids can learn today with "only a P2." And none of them ran Win XP either.
I know why Intel spreads the myth that you need power to use a computer. They're in the business of pushing high end processors that most people don't need.
Tom
Most FPSes aren't really that much fun the first time through. And I wouldn't call getting lost on a map "interaction." As for Half-Life it's mostly just walk to point A, hit switch, do something, walk to point B, shoot a lot of things.
They're fun games initially but lose their stuff quick enough. The only real redeeming quality is online play but that's just until you get the asshats griefing. I was into Enemy Territory for a while until people kept cherry picking [spawn camping]. Then I just gave up because it wasn't fun anymore.
Tom
No. They don't. Things could be much better in terms of interaction with the environment. Games that really stuck with me like GTA are because the environments are interesting. People walking around, occasionally they are chased by the cops, etc, whatever, etc.... Look at games like Halo. It's basically run, jump, and shoot. There isn't really an "environment" and the game play while for a while, is entirely linear and predictable.
The Wii has broken out as more as a party console than a loner console. While I'm sure plenty of good single player games will come out, i think the majority of the pull is from people who want to play the Wii with their friends and family.
Compare that to most 360/PS2 games and you can see the attitude shift. 360 games are good single player games with absolutely no replayability. Once you finish Halo you hardly want to sit down and play it again from scratch. And most games which have good interaction [like guitar hero] are just not really fun in groups.
Tom
If I remember correctly from my switch of 2.4 to 2.6, my OS and tools still ran. Just because it's a new kernel doesn't mean the syscall interface changes.
That said, I agree though that the kernel coding standards are lax. I've had my hands in a few kernel modules and from 2.6.17 to 2.6.whatever macros change names, things move around, etc...They do this because for the most part the end user is none the wiser and it in some way probably cleans up the kernel [let's hope].
I've heard good things about Sun CC as well. Get that going in a commodity OS and you'll give GCC a run for it's money.
Tom
Yeah it is a good idea if you know for a fact that when you leave the house you're not going to be doing anything that involves carrying things. Which admittedly is probably well over 80% of all week days.
I'd probably go for a scooter if it weren't for the fact that I live in Canada, and for a good 6 months of the year it's really cold out [especially when moving at 60kph in open air] and I wouldn't be able to use it anyways.
Tom
Other than another Linux [like] distro is work towards an f'ing standard. We kinda have a standard in terms of glibc and most user space libraries like pthreads. But what about things like run level editors, placement of configuration files, etc.
...].
More than just yet another distro [well in this case a new OS] what I think the *nix world could use is some standardization. Personally I like the rc-update scheme from Gentoo as it's fairly simple to use and should be portable to other OSes. In the grand scheme of things the Linux kernel seems to be doing ok given the variety of platforms it must support. Though it still has odds and ends it needs to keep up [like how USB support on some AMD based boxes died mid 2.6.x stream
That said, the "better Linux than Linux" solaris distro would have to have a glibc compatible layer, and all the usual suspects [pthreads, X11, GTK, motif, etc...] to be useful as an OSS replacement OS. Otherwise, you're no better off.
Tom
I agree about the not caring about the prices. I spend ~30-40$ a month on fuel [I live 6km from work and most of my friends are within 20km of my house] so in theory I could be harder on the car to get places quicker.
But that carries three pitfalls. One you burn more fuel. Two, you wear out your car faster [brakes, engine, etc]. Three, burning more fuel increases demand for it which will increase the price more and more.
For me, I like being conservative with fuel, not because I'm cheap. I could easily afford to spend $200 a month on fuel if I really wanted to [which I don't]. It's the down the road part I'm worried about. If we all have a "who cares" attitude, what will the prices be in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Of course in 20 years we'll probably not be so dependent on gasoline, but still it's worth being conservative.
That's not to say I don't go out and do things that I want [and not need] to do. So I guess in the grand scheme of things I'm "wasting" fuel as well. But I can minimalize that by driving better.
Tom
Well I should point out that in my experience a non-trivial # of drivers are actually doing the limit +/- 10% or so. In my experience it's a small percentage that want to do 20 or 30 over the limit. And they're typically aggressive drivers that follow closely, etc...
When I jump on the hwy to head out to my friends place, I stick to the right lane, do exactly 100kph and lo and behold the cars in front of me are doing the same [usually, sometimes slower]. Do I have a fit when I meet a car doing 95? Rush out and pass them to get my 5kph back? No. I slow down to 95, reset cruise and keep going. Of course if they were doing 80 or something I'd strongly consider passing them.
Point is, you have to f'ing relax. Just because the car in front of you is not going the speed you want doesn't mean you have to tailgate them, flash the lights, change lanes [without looking usually from what I see] then zoom past.
If 5mph [or kph] makes a "difference" in your trip time just leave 5 minutes earlier.
Tom
I must have missed the lesson where it says you're responsible for others. Sure if you cut people off you're stupid. But if I merge safely and you catch up to me, you're responsible for slowing down or passing. I suggest you grow up and stop inventing shit. If you rear-end me your the one who is at fault.
It's funny how you bitch about so many people not doing what you want [re: speeding]. Maybe it's not "everyone" who is doing 20 over the limit like you want.
As for your slippery slope comment, many people commit a lot of driving mistakes, from speeding, to changing lanes through intersections, denying right of way, not stopping at stop signs, etc. So by your logic, when I actually come to a stop at a stop sign instead of rolling through it, I'm a danger to society since the person behind me wouldn't expect it and if they hit me I'm at fault for my "inaction" of not just going through the stop.
Gotcha.
Point is, it's legal to do just the speed limit. Combine that with the fact that speeding rarely gets you where you're going significantly [if at all] faster and you got yourself a weak argument for speeding all the time.
At the end of the day, if I'm doing 65mph on the interstate, and you creep up behind me and want to do 75 or whatever, you're going to have to pass me. I won't speed just because you want to. I'm responsible for my actions. If a cop decides to stop me for doing 10 over, I'm the one who pays, not you. And it never ends though. Last time I was in long island we were doing ~60 or so in a 55 [brother was driving], and cars were passing us doing 80. The funny thing is we were driving in a straight line on cruise control. It was the people doing 80 who were zigzagging and driving to close, etc.
But I guess you're right, *we're* the dangerous ones... How dare we drive safely and consistently.
Tom
First lesson of driving. You're responsible for your actions. If I'm doing the limit, on cruise control, and you can't detect an increasing closing distance between the car in front of you and your car, then YOU'RE the dangerous one.
... leave that aside for a moment ...
Your argument is like saying the Iraqis are living dangerous since there are "battles everywhere." Well, no. The insurgents and allied troops are creating the violence.
If you can't deal with cars doing the speed limit you really shouldn't be on the road. And it's not dangerous.
The problem with your logic is where does it end? So you're doing 10 over the limit? I start wanting to do 20 over. Are you the dangerous one? What if I talk 10 of my friends into doing 30 over? Are we safer than you?
Tom
You all to seem I'm on the basis that the limit is ALWAYS the best idea. Often it is, but in many cases it's just a system for a class of road.
My point though is I drive the limit since it's what the rules are. If the government changed a 80kph zone to 90kph and it was actually safe conditions, I'd do 90kph. But it's 80 so I do 80.
Others do 90 not because "it's safe" or whatever, they do 90 [or more] because they're impatient and don't have consideration for others. Why should I break the rules just to make your life more comfortable. If you really think you have a case than petition the government to address the situation.
I should also point out most cars are out of their performance band beyond 100kph. So while you are "moving faster" you're also burning fuel faster.
Tom
I'd be for driving faster if the limit was faster. I'm only against driving faster because it's illegal, not because I'm the anti-christ and out to get you. Get the man to up the limit or quit your bitchin. If *everyone* is doing it, why isn't the limit higher?
That said, I've seen enough accidents from people following too closely, or driving too fast for the conditions. Believe it or not, but just because you don't get hurt doesn't mean it's safe.
As for the autobahn, I have to question the traffic density. Sure it's easy to do 100mph on an open road. Try that in a city like San Diego or Toronto [or probably Atlanta].
Tom
I love that bullshit argument. No, how about it's the one driving outside the speed limit that is the danger. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean it's right. If the limit should be 80, then petition your government to change the law. But chances are if you made it 80, people would just do 100 or whatever. I've personally seen people doing 150kph on the 407 [close to 100mph].
What I *will* do is the limit with my cruise control on so there are no surprises. And if you're reckless enough to crash into a car that is moving at a relatively constant rate, then *you are* the danger not me.
I hate people who think they can do whatever they want because it seems to be the norm. Fuck you. I'll do the limit because that's what society [re: the government] has asked me to do. Also because I'm a new driver and I want to avoid tickets [re: insurance hikes].
If you can't cope with people doing the limit on cruise control you SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING AT ALL.
Milk comes in bags in Canada [at least in Ontario/Quebec] as well as in cartons.
Welcome to diversity, eh.
Tom
Yeah it's hard to compare though since we're not doing the same driving. A true test would put us in the same route and just basically do endless round trips.
That said, my car is between medium and compact in size, yet I can still get 5 people in it and drive around town, and it has a decent size trunk. So it's not like a smartcar in terms of size. That and sticker mileages are always misleading. My car is supposed to get 34MPG in the city... if by city you mean a constant 35mph velocity. And HWY it is supposed to get 44MPG again assuming a constant 60mph speed...
My parents both drive relatively new 6 cylinder cars and they both get noticeably less mileage than I do. Of course they also drive a lot faster [e.g. no coasting, etc].
Tom
There is no "passing lane" that's just a convention. Actually there are passing lanes but they're not what you think they are.
And frankly if I'm coasting to a red what does it matter? Not like you can pass me and all of a sudden the light is green.
Tom
Go to any major down town area. That's what living next to work is like. Noisy, busy, cramped. That's why people wanted to live 30 miles from work. Most good cities have the usual corner stores nearby so you're not driving 20 miles to get a bag of milk. unless you're in places like San Diego where they thrive on living 50 miles from anything ... arrg that place sucks.
Where I live in Ottawa, I'm about 3 blocks from a decent size mall, corner stores and bus stops. But I also live in a house with a decent sized lawn, etc...
It's where people got the NIMBY attitude that you have to drive 20 miles to get anything done.
Tom
Well if one car is getting 23MPG on the hwy and I'm getting 23MPG in the city, I'd say I'm better off. I don't have hwy records yet as I haven't driven it for any length on the highway.
Tom
Not be able to drive your friends along, pick up groceries [or anything else]: Amazingly fantactularly priceless.
Yeah, for just driving yourself around it's probably fine [except where winters exist]. But if you are going out with the buddies, or SO, or picking things up, a car wins handsdown.
Of course if people got both a car AND a scooter and chose the appropriate vehicle for the circumstances, then maybe that would be keen.
Tom
Ah good point. when I bought the car it was brand new with only ~24km on the meter. So maybe that's it. I'm actually do for the first oil change in three weeks.
Tom
Yeah, how shameful of them for doing the speed limits!!! I love doing that. I hit the limit as close as I can then stick on cruise and watch the faces in the rear view mirror. Seeing people get angry for doing what's expected of yourself is just awesome. Watching them fly passed me only to have to slow down and stop at the same red light is priceless.
again, is this highway or not? My trip to work is 6km, during rush hour. It's mostly stop and go. So I'm not doing 65mph the entire distance.
Getting 23mpg in those conditions I think compares very favourably to most other V6/V8 cars.
Tom