Despite what the parent poster says, yes, J2EE is currently free for any use (commercial or otherwise) until Sun changes its mind.
Hmmm, I thought Sun charged a J2EE license fee for those ISVs who incorporate it in their offerings (like IBM and BEA). There never has been a direct cost for end users that I know of. (It also may be possible to clean-room the APIs and not call it J2EE, I'm not sure.)
All right, I did some checking and here's the result. I doubt Sun has dropped these fees since, please cite a reference if you think so.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Re-read your comment about the evils of Microsoft and apply the same argument to Sun and Java. What is stopping Sun from charging huge fees for J2EE libraries? Nothing. Just because they are not presently doing it does not mean they will not in the future as their hardware revenue dwindles in light of the x86 chip's performance/price ratio.
Sun does charge fees for J2EE. What made you think otherwise? What makes you think Microsoft couldn't charge huge fees for Windows XP server? (Oh yeah they do...)
Remember - it was Sun that renegged on ISO and EMCA standardization - not Microsoft.
Right, except it wasn't "not Microsoft" it was "because of Microsoft".
Sun has always stated it won't opposed clones (including open source clones) of Java, as long as they aren't called "Java". Microsoft's Java escapades were completely different - it licensed Java from Sun then proceeded to release "embrace and extend" enhancements.
Sun's "Java Community Process" is a complete sham and everybody knows it. Sun's vote is the only one that matters.
This ignorant statement simply shows that you have no clue about the JCP. Do a little research.
Why are you posting anonymously anyhow...?;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
This just strikes me as overly hopeful optimism to think that Microsoft is going to give up their hard fought and long defeneded applications barrier to entry.
Yes, this is a key area where I think de Icaza has a problem. He's clearly planning on implementing Winforms (I checked on the Mono site) and those are not part of the ECMA C#/CLI/CLR spec. Microsoft will not permit those classes to be cloned - its already dropped strong hints about it.
An interesting thing to do would be to write a Java compiler (backend) for the CLR, and try to implement Swing or Eclipse in a Gnome environment...hmmmm. Of course, on the other hand I can just use one of the excellent Java runtimes for Linux, and get better performance. I can still use other languages through JNI (and DirectIO in JDK 1.4).
All that said though, competition is good. Perhaps.Net and Mono will do more to spur Sun to refine Java significantly further.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Good luck to them when the try to clone WinForms (or whatever the correct marketspeak is for the C# GUI stuff). Microsoft will sue in a heartbeat.
I hope the Gnome steering committee sees the light and slaps some sense into de Icaza. He's a threat to the success of Gnome in particular and Open Source in general. If he's so enamored of language independence, he should just stick with gcc. It supports plenty of languages, including a rapidly improving native Java compiler.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Re:complexity of supercomputers approaching brain
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
However, computers aren't programmed as well as a brain in many areas, so the software people have a long way to catch up.
The way around this is forced machine evolution (like a genetic algorithm). A similar approach has been used successfully to grow circuits.
The only downside to this is that once intelligent machines evolved, we wouldn't understand how they work (they don't fully understand how the vastly simpler analog circuits they've created using genetic algorithms work). The big differences between machine and organic evolution are that machine evolution would be non-random (more like animal husbandry to develop new breeds), and the time for a generation could be much less.
Then, of course, once intelligent machines evolve, no doubt they would begin a very focused redesign effort for several more generations. Human intelligence would be a long way from top dog at that point.
Bad things could happen very fast if such machines are given autonomy. Like all technologies, AI could be dangerous if misused. (This discussion has also avoided the ethical issues involved in creating a new intelligent race.)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Each one of the 4 dies takes up 400mm^2 on a.18um process. (Compare to 217mm^2 for the P4 on.18um, 145mm^2 on.13um. "Lower gate count" my ass.) The process is copper and SOI, which are quite a bit more expensive and lower-yielding in the case of SOI than the P4's bulk aluminum process on.18um. The ceramic substrate the thing sits in probably costs IBM considerably more than the cost of a new iMac.
All right, I'll concede on the gate count issue. I'd be interested to see how many are dedicated to cache as opposed to processor logic.
Athlon, for instance, is already copper and is moving to SOI by 2004. I think Intel is already SOI, but is slower moving to copper. I guess what I'm saying is that neither of those two factors are likely to be an issue going forward.
The G5 is an upcoming 32-bit embedded chip made by Motorola (like the G4 and G4+), and does not resemble the (64-bit) Power4's internal architecture in the slightest. Whether this chip will be the basis of the next generation of Macs is of course not yet known.
According to the Motorola PowerPC roadmap, the G5 will be available in both 32 and 64 bit versions. How much it resembles Power4 isn't clear, but it's supposed to debut at up to 2 GHz. Are you still so confident it won't have world-class performance?
Because Apple does not have the integrity (nor, according to the oft-repeated excuse, the FORTRAN compiler) to submit SPEC runs for a G4-based computer, there are no official SPEC scores for the G4. However, we do have Motorola's *estimated* *SPEC95* scores for the 7450 (a.k.a. G4+) at 733MHz. (Here [motorola.com], second page, on the left.)
For what it's worth, I agree that Apple should do SPEC benchmarking itself. Especially now that MacOS is Unix.
I must say I'm surprised at how low that 'estimated SPECfp95 score' is. I'd really like to see more information on G4 fp capabilities. The Absoft compiler claims to have auto-vectorizing capabilities using Altivec, which might have considerable impact on some of the benchmarks. (The new dual-processor 1 GHz G4 is claimed to have 15+ GFlops of computing power, using Altivec I presume.) I guess my next step should be to actually purchase a Mac and get busy benchmarking.;-)
As to your estimated SPEC scores, I appreciate the effort but I doubt those are worth much.
Power4 is simply not a desktop chip design. Even using one of the 4 dies in the MCM as the basis for a desktop CPU is a shakey proposition, since they're too big (again, 400mm^2 on.18um), and include a bunch of integrated I/O stuff and the L3 TLBs, all stuff which would be worthless in a desktop machine. The actual datapaths are quite simple, and indeed are optimized to work in an 8-way MCM, not as the sole CPU of a desktop machine.
The integrated I/O might or might not be worthwhile, but Apple's current pro machines use L3 cache. What would really be of interest on the desktop, of course, is the execution efficiency that manages to retire so many instructions per clock. If that single Power4 CPU was really "optimized to work in an 8-way MCM", it truly did a stellar job as a uni-processor.
Rumor also has it, BTW, that the G5 will include an on-chip memory controller allowing memory bandwidth to scale in SMP systems, similar to the scheme used in Hammer. I wonder when Apple will release SMP boxes with more than two CPUs...
At any rate, thanks for a more interesting discussion than usual.:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
That Power4 also costs like $100,000 for each (4-way CMP) processor module alone, so, gee, it'd better be pretty awesome.
That $100,000 cost is fairly meaningless, since there is an extreme markup on server hardware, and the chip isn't in mass production. (Also this was a single-CPU system, so I don't think it was a multi-CPU module.) I'd venture to say that it can be mass-produced cheaper than P4, as I'll bet it has a lower gate count. The G5 will essentially be this architecture (though I doubt many G5 boxes will have 128 MB of L3 cache like the IBM box).
Regardless, SGI has no qualms about using high-end components or producing expensive systems. It would most likely be good for them to actually be somewhere near the top in performance...;-)
The 1 GHz G4+ that powers the current generation of Macs would probably score about the same as the R14k on SPEC, or a bit lower
Please cite some reference to support this (wild in my opinion) claim.
...but we don't know because Apple is too cowardly to submit themselves to legitimate benchmarks when they have a bunch of fools running around believing that a G4 is faster than a P4 or Athlon, and Motorola doesn't bother because they know the G4+ is actually designed for the embedded signal processing market, where SPEC scores are not too relevant.
Fine, buy yourself a Mac and generate you're own SPEC scores. No one is stopping you, including Apple. (Anyone know if there are high quality FORTRAN compilers for MacOS X?)
Just because the G4 and Power4 are both "in the PowerPC world" doesn't mean they have similar performance characteristics.
What makes you think that Power4 technology won't make it's way into desktop chips? IBM manufactures desktop PowerPC chips as well, and certainly shows no sign of giving up on PowerPC in general. There have recently been rumors of Apple switching from Motorola to IBM for it's chips...we'll see what happens.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Yes the CPU is probably a better performer than its Intel equivalent in MHz, but I just don't believe it'll get anywhere near the SPECfp and SPECint of the Athlon 2000 or Intel 2.2GHz CPUs.
I think you're right. There are published results at the SPEC website for the R14000 at 500 MHz. Here's the bottom line (CPU / SPECint / SPECfp - all rates are base):
Why do all Linux users think that AMD is somehow more Linux friendly than Intel is? AMD is out to make the beaucoup bucks and the beaucoup bucks are in the Microsoft using populace, not a population that is smaller than a margin of error. AMD does not automagically become the friend of Linux simply because it is a competitor to Intel which Linux users see as the Great Satan Jr. It is in AMD's best interest to like Microsoft because they need Microsoft's users in order to make money. They've got a 64-bit chip coming out in the near future, they need an OS to stick on top of it that people have a desire for. Selling a handful of these processors to Linux users isn't exactly going to keep AMD in the black.
There will be a big demand for AMD 64 bit systems running Linux. Those (expensive) server processors and chipsets will actually provide more profit margin than the desktop chips, which are largely used for Windows (though you might be surprised at the actual percentage of Linux).
Linux is growing fast for both desktop and server use, and my guess is that AMD is used by lots of savvy Linux techies. AMD would do very well to court that crowd, since it is influential on buying decisions. I think AMD would be well advised to improve gcc optimizations for Athlon.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I couldn't agree more, though I have heard AMD supplies decent information. It would be nice if AMD donated some engineer time to the gcc team...especially for Hammer!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Was that the same earnings conference where AMD announced that they lost money yet again?
Sure, under extremely difficult circumstances (many great companies lost money over the last quarter), predatory pricing from Intel, and taking into account some large infrastructure investments.
I'm sure they'll handily beat estimates this quarter, just as they did last quarter. And yes, AMD will turn a profit this quarter (barring unforeseen disasters etc.).
I'm not sure what you mean by Intel being ripe for the plucking - AMD is selling 100% of fab capacity right now.
Haven't you heard about the 0.13 micron fab coming online this quarter?!? Also, AMD can farm out as much production as it wants to other fabs. This will first happen in the Far East as a way to get more Durons into the marketplace. We'll see later on...IBM has some very advanced fabs these days, and there has been cooperation with AMD on things like copper technology.
For the near term, they can only raise prices, not gain marketshare. Which considering their poor profitability, is probably something they should consider.
Not only are they considering it, they've already gotten a good start on it! Average selling prices were up 50% over the previous quarter, from $60 to $90.
Regardless, the real reason to buy AMD stock is to bet that Hammer will sample this year and ship in volume next year. If that happens the whole competitive landscape will be dramatically altered, and AMD stock will go through the ceiling. Shorting Intel will be the way to go then. =)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Why the hell does using DDR memory even the results? The Pentium 4 was designed for RDRAM for God's sake. A DDR platform for the P4 is just an economy decision.
Except that RDRAM hasn't been accepted well in the marketplace, and systems based on such RAM are more expensive. Most people buying a P4 are getting either PC-133 or DDR.
I'll grant you that it's silly, given that (according to Pricewatch) RDRAM is commanding only a 15% premium these days. I guess Rambus Inc. really did annoy just about everyone in the industry...RDRAM seems to be anathema.
It's pretty amazing that the Athlon so regularly beats higher-clocked P4s using RDRAM, given DDR's inferior bandwidth. Intel is ripe for the plucking! (Anyone happen to catch Jerry Sander's statement at the last AMD earnings conference call? "Intel is over", quoth Jerry. Now that's what I call confidence!)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I'd like to have see chips that incorporate the CPU, RAM and something equivalent to the North+South bridge. Motherboards should be designed to take 1-32 of these plugged into some godawfulfast bus. CPU and RAM should be one in the same and scale together. RAM co-located w/ the CPU would be much, much faster.
To some extent you're describing Hammer's architecture...it has an integrated memory controller, so as you add CPUs to an SMP system, you add memory bandwidth. The processors sit on a HyperTransport bus, so if Processor A need's Processor B's data, that is the route (a pretty efficient one!).
Clawhammer, the lowest-end version is set up for 2-way clustering. Sledgehammer will go much higher. I sure hope the rumored 3400+ processor rating is real!:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I don't think AOL-T-W are a good corporate culture match for Red Hat...I think Red Hat should stay true to it's current approach. Ultimately, Red Hat has a great chance to define "the next standard computing platform".
Maybe this time, it'll actually be based on real standards!:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
As a long-time Red Hat user, I hope it stays a useful distribution. I hope the Time-Warner side of things will realize the insanity of trying to control content playback at the OS or device level. Perhaps this will mean that Linux will get some real playback software for DVDs etc. - even if it is proprietary and for use only with Red Hat's distribution.
The good news is that Red Hat will either retain it's commitment to open source for all core system functionality, or it will die. The Linux community won't tolerate too much closed source.
Here's to hoping that one way or the other Red Hat will retain it's current focus. I've been happy with the progress Red Hat is making...
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Well, since the new imac is not on the market yet, I would consider the "old" imac to still be the "current" imac.
I think they're shipping now from Apple's online store.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with who the current chip supplier is. ATI hasn't sold any desktop graphics chips to Apple for awhile now. It's all been NVIDIA (actually it's all on 3rd party OEM AGP 4x graphics boards, except for iMac). They're going into new machines that still need to go through the distribution pipeline.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I believe overall sales are higher for ipaq than palms because ipaqs are more expensive. The link is here [internetnews.com]
You said "more iPaqs", which most would interpret as more units, not dollar volume. Also, you're not counting Sony or the other Palm licensees. I'm sure Clie took a lot of market share this year.
I do think that the Palm community better get on to StrongArm and xScale soon. I interpret Handspring's "we're not going to make organizers, just communicators" comment to mean that wireless Internet will be key. If so, perhaps the Linux PDAs will do well, like the new Sharp Zaurus. I'm eyeing that one myself...Linux, Qtopia, and Java. Should be a tasty combination.
PalmOS is currently primitive by comparison. It'll be interesting to see what route Palm takes to improve it. Will it be warmed-over BeOS?
I'd also like to see QNX succeed as a small device OS. It's very lean and mean. Maybe QNX will go into the hardware business...;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
They used to have 100%. I'd say having a fifth of your marketshare taken by competitors is "getting killed".
I'd call it "moderate competition". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's nothing to say that WinCE will keep making inroads over time... If I were Palm, I'd be more concerned about the burgeoning crop of Linux PDAs.:-)
I think Handspring is on the right track with it's "Communicator" strategy, since wireless Internet is key to the PDA marketplace.
Let me know if Palm hits 20% marketshare...then we'll talk about 'getting killed'. I don't expect it to happen, myself.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Palm and PalmOS suppliers are hurting. Microsoft is killing them. And the funny thing is that they are being killed by a better product.
I find it amusing that you think that the OS with 80% marketshare is getting 'killed'. Right.
None of that "unfair bundling" crap to complain about.
No, I'll just complain about Microsoft using existing monopolies to create a new one in the PDA OS sector (which is illegal). Microsoft is leveraging Windows by virtue of developer lockin, and is leveraging Office by virtue of proprietary file formats ("view Word and Excel e-mail attachments right on your iPaq!"). I hope Microsoft gets slammed for it.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
The powerbook G4 has an ATi radeon. The current imac (not the new one) has an ATi rage 128 pro. The ibook has an ATi rage mobility.
Now, what were you saying?
Er, I was saying that now (as in it changed recently) NVIDIA is the sole supplier of desktop Mac graphics chips. I was not referring to discontinued iMacs or notebooks. There was an press release circulated by NVIDIA to that effect not long ago.
I hope that clears things up...;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, I thought Sun charged a J2EE license fee for those ISVs who incorporate it in their offerings (like IBM and BEA). There never has been a direct cost for end users that I know of. (It also may be possible to clean-room the APIs and not call it J2EE, I'm not sure.)
All right, I did some checking and here's the result. I doubt Sun has dropped these fees since, please cite a reference if you think so.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Sun does charge fees for J2EE. What made you think otherwise? What makes you think Microsoft couldn't charge huge fees for Windows XP server? (Oh yeah they do...)
Remember - it was Sun that renegged on ISO and EMCA standardization - not Microsoft.
Right, except it wasn't "not Microsoft" it was "because of Microsoft".
Sun has always stated it won't opposed clones (including open source clones) of Java, as long as they aren't called "Java". Microsoft's Java escapades were completely different - it licensed Java from Sun then proceeded to release "embrace and extend" enhancements.
Sun's "Java Community Process" is a complete sham and everybody knows it. Sun's vote is the only one that matters.
This ignorant statement simply shows that you have no clue about the JCP. Do a little research.
Why are you posting anonymously anyhow...? ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Yes, this is a key area where I think de Icaza has a problem. He's clearly planning on implementing Winforms (I checked on the Mono site) and those are not part of the ECMA C#/CLI/CLR spec. Microsoft will not permit those classes to be cloned - its already dropped strong hints about it.
An interesting thing to do would be to write a Java compiler (backend) for the CLR, and try to implement Swing or Eclipse in a Gnome environment...hmmmm. Of course, on the other hand I can just use one of the excellent Java runtimes for Linux, and get better performance. I can still use other languages through JNI (and DirectIO in JDK 1.4).
All that said though, competition is good. Perhaps .Net and Mono will do more to spur Sun to refine Java significantly further.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Good luck to them when the try to clone WinForms (or whatever the correct marketspeak is for the C# GUI stuff). Microsoft will sue in a heartbeat.
I hope the Gnome steering committee sees the light and slaps some sense into de Icaza. He's a threat to the success of Gnome in particular and Open Source in general. If he's so enamored of language independence, he should just stick with gcc. It supports plenty of languages, including a rapidly improving native Java compiler.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
The way around this is forced machine evolution (like a genetic algorithm). A similar approach has been used successfully to grow circuits.
The only downside to this is that once intelligent machines evolved, we wouldn't understand how they work (they don't fully understand how the vastly simpler analog circuits they've created using genetic algorithms work). The big differences between machine and organic evolution are that machine evolution would be non-random (more like animal husbandry to develop new breeds), and the time for a generation could be much less.
Then, of course, once intelligent machines evolve, no doubt they would begin a very focused redesign effort for several more generations. Human intelligence would be a long way from top dog at that point.
Bad things could happen very fast if such machines are given autonomy. Like all technologies, AI could be dangerous if misused. (This discussion has also avoided the ethical issues involved in creating a new intelligent race.)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
All right, I'll concede on the gate count issue. I'd be interested to see how many are dedicated to cache as opposed to processor logic.
Athlon, for instance, is already copper and is moving to SOI by 2004. I think Intel is already SOI, but is slower moving to copper. I guess what I'm saying is that neither of those two factors are likely to be an issue going forward.
The G5 is an upcoming 32-bit embedded chip made by Motorola (like the G4 and G4+), and does not resemble the (64-bit) Power4's internal architecture in the slightest. Whether this chip will be the basis of the next generation of Macs is of course not yet known.
According to the Motorola PowerPC roadmap, the G5 will be available in both 32 and 64 bit versions. How much it resembles Power4 isn't clear, but it's supposed to debut at up to 2 GHz. Are you still so confident it won't have world-class performance?
Because Apple does not have the integrity (nor, according to the oft-repeated excuse, the FORTRAN compiler) to submit SPEC runs for a G4-based computer, there are no official SPEC scores for the G4. However, we do have Motorola's *estimated* *SPEC95* scores for the 7450 (a.k.a. G4+) at 733MHz. (Here [motorola.com], second page, on the left.)
For what it's worth, I agree that Apple should do SPEC benchmarking itself. Especially now that MacOS is Unix.
On the compiler front, I did find a seemingly decent FORTRAN compiler for MacOS X, so that issue is addressed at least. ;-) (Absoft is a respected compiler company.)
I must say I'm surprised at how low that 'estimated SPECfp95 score' is. I'd really like to see more information on G4 fp capabilities. The Absoft compiler claims to have auto-vectorizing capabilities using Altivec, which might have considerable impact on some of the benchmarks. (The new dual-processor 1 GHz G4 is claimed to have 15+ GFlops of computing power, using Altivec I presume.) I guess my next step should be to actually purchase a Mac and get busy benchmarking. ;-)
As to your estimated SPEC scores, I appreciate the effort but I doubt those are worth much.
Power4 is simply not a desktop chip design. Even using one of the 4 dies in the MCM as the basis for a desktop CPU is a shakey proposition, since they're too big (again, 400mm^2 on .18um), and include a bunch of integrated I/O stuff and the L3 TLBs, all stuff which would be worthless in a desktop machine. The actual datapaths are quite simple, and indeed are optimized to work in an 8-way MCM, not as the sole CPU of a desktop machine.
The integrated I/O might or might not be worthwhile, but Apple's current pro machines use L3 cache. What would really be of interest on the desktop, of course, is the execution efficiency that manages to retire so many instructions per clock. If that single Power4 CPU was really "optimized to work in an 8-way MCM", it truly did a stellar job as a uni-processor.
Rumor also has it, BTW, that the G5 will include an on-chip memory controller allowing memory bandwidth to scale in SMP systems, similar to the scheme used in Hammer. I wonder when Apple will release SMP boxes with more than two CPUs...
At any rate, thanks for a more interesting discussion than usual. :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
That $100,000 cost is fairly meaningless, since there is an extreme markup on server hardware, and the chip isn't in mass production. (Also this was a single-CPU system, so I don't think it was a multi-CPU module.) I'd venture to say that it can be mass-produced cheaper than P4, as I'll bet it has a lower gate count. The G5 will essentially be this architecture (though I doubt many G5 boxes will have 128 MB of L3 cache like the IBM box).
Regardless, SGI has no qualms about using high-end components or producing expensive systems. It would most likely be good for them to actually be somewhere near the top in performance... ;-)
The 1 GHz G4+ that powers the current generation of Macs would probably score about the same as the R14k on SPEC, or a bit lower
Please cite some reference to support this (wild in my opinion) claim.
Fine, buy yourself a Mac and generate you're own SPEC scores. No one is stopping you, including Apple. (Anyone know if there are high quality FORTRAN compilers for MacOS X?)
Just because the G4 and Power4 are both "in the PowerPC world" doesn't mean they have similar performance characteristics.
What makes you think that Power4 technology won't make it's way into desktop chips? IBM manufactures desktop PowerPC chips as well, and certainly shows no sign of giving up on PowerPC in general. There have recently been rumors of Apple switching from Motorola to IBM for it's chips...we'll see what happens.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I think you're right. There are published results at the SPEC website for the R14000 at 500 MHz. Here's the bottom line (CPU / SPECint / SPECfp - all rates are base):
Looks like SGI should consider joining Apple in the PowerPC world...that Power4 looks pretty awesome!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
There will be a big demand for AMD 64 bit systems running Linux. Those (expensive) server processors and chipsets will actually provide more profit margin than the desktop chips, which are largely used for Windows (though you might be surprised at the actual percentage of Linux).
Linux is growing fast for both desktop and server use, and my guess is that AMD is used by lots of savvy Linux techies. AMD would do very well to court that crowd, since it is influential on buying decisions. I think AMD would be well advised to improve gcc optimizations for Athlon.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
My secret wish would be for Apple to support AMD x86-64 processors with MacOS X...not that it'll happen. That would be a great combination.
On the other hand, if they can really hit 1.5+ GHz. with the G5, that'll be OK too. Just a lot more expensive.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I vote for a +5 Informative mod. :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Sure, under extremely difficult circumstances (many great companies lost money over the last quarter), predatory pricing from Intel, and taking into account some large infrastructure investments.
I'm sure they'll handily beat estimates this quarter, just as they did last quarter. And yes, AMD will turn a profit this quarter (barring unforeseen disasters etc.).
I'm not sure what you mean by Intel being ripe for the plucking - AMD is selling 100% of fab capacity right now.
Haven't you heard about the 0.13 micron fab coming online this quarter?!? Also, AMD can farm out as much production as it wants to other fabs. This will first happen in the Far East as a way to get more Durons into the marketplace. We'll see later on...IBM has some very advanced fabs these days, and there has been cooperation with AMD on things like copper technology.
For the near term, they can only raise prices, not gain marketshare. Which considering their poor profitability, is probably something they should consider.
Not only are they considering it, they've already gotten a good start on it! Average selling prices were up 50% over the previous quarter, from $60 to $90.
Regardless, the real reason to buy AMD stock is to bet that Hammer will sample this year and ship in volume next year. If that happens the whole competitive landscape will be dramatically altered, and AMD stock will go through the ceiling. Shorting Intel will be the way to go then. =)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Except that RDRAM hasn't been accepted well in the marketplace, and systems based on such RAM are more expensive. Most people buying a P4 are getting either PC-133 or DDR.
I'll grant you that it's silly, given that (according to Pricewatch) RDRAM is commanding only a 15% premium these days. I guess Rambus Inc. really did annoy just about everyone in the industry...RDRAM seems to be anathema.
It's pretty amazing that the Athlon so regularly beats higher-clocked P4s using RDRAM, given DDR's inferior bandwidth. Intel is ripe for the plucking! (Anyone happen to catch Jerry Sander's statement at the last AMD earnings conference call? "Intel is over", quoth Jerry. Now that's what I call confidence!)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
To some extent you're describing Hammer's architecture...it has an integrated memory controller, so as you add CPUs to an SMP system, you add memory bandwidth. The processors sit on a HyperTransport bus, so if Processor A need's Processor B's data, that is the route (a pretty efficient one!).
Clawhammer, the lowest-end version is set up for 2-way clustering. Sledgehammer will go much higher. I sure hope the rumored 3400+ processor rating is real! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I don't think AOL-T-W are a good corporate culture match for Red Hat...I think Red Hat should stay true to it's current approach. Ultimately, Red Hat has a great chance to define "the next standard computing platform".
Maybe this time, it'll actually be based on real standards! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
The good news is that Red Hat will either retain it's commitment to open source for all core system functionality, or it will die. The Linux community won't tolerate too much closed source.
Here's to hoping that one way or the other Red Hat will retain it's current focus. I've been happy with the progress Red Hat is making...
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
NVIDIA Graphics Technology Now Standard in All Apple Desktops
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I think they're shipping now from Apple's online store.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with who the current chip supplier is. ATI hasn't sold any desktop graphics chips to Apple for awhile now. It's all been NVIDIA (actually it's all on 3rd party OEM AGP 4x graphics boards, except for iMac). They're going into new machines that still need to go through the distribution pipeline.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
You said "more iPaqs", which most would interpret as more units, not dollar volume. Also, you're not counting Sony or the other Palm licensees. I'm sure Clie took a lot of market share this year.
I do think that the Palm community better get on to StrongArm and xScale soon. I interpret Handspring's "we're not going to make organizers, just communicators" comment to mean that wireless Internet will be key. If so, perhaps the Linux PDAs will do well, like the new Sharp Zaurus. I'm eyeing that one myself...Linux, Qtopia, and Java. Should be a tasty combination.
PalmOS is currently primitive by comparison. It'll be interesting to see what route Palm takes to improve it. Will it be warmed-over BeOS?
I'd also like to see QNX succeed as a small device OS. It's very lean and mean. Maybe QNX will go into the hardware business... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I seriously doubt that. Please provide a reference.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I'd call it "moderate competition". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's nothing to say that WinCE will keep making inroads over time... If I were Palm, I'd be more concerned about the burgeoning crop of Linux PDAs. :-)
I think Handspring is on the right track with it's "Communicator" strategy, since wireless Internet is key to the PDA marketplace.
Let me know if Palm hits 20% marketshare...then we'll talk about 'getting killed'. I don't expect it to happen, myself.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I find it amusing that you think that the OS with 80% marketshare is getting 'killed'. Right.
None of that "unfair bundling" crap to complain about.
No, I'll just complain about Microsoft using existing monopolies to create a new one in the PDA OS sector (which is illegal). Microsoft is leveraging Windows by virtue of developer lockin, and is leveraging Office by virtue of proprietary file formats ("view Word and Excel e-mail attachments right on your iPaq!"). I hope Microsoft gets slammed for it.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Now, what were you saying?
Er, I was saying that now (as in it changed recently) NVIDIA is the sole supplier of desktop Mac graphics chips. I was not referring to discontinued iMacs or notebooks. There was an press release circulated by NVIDIA to that effect not long ago.
I hope that clears things up... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!