I sit next to a guy who runs 2.6 on his Ubuntu machine and I laugh everytime he has to reboot.
Strange. I'm running BETA-version of Ubuntu on this machine, and I have yet to see it crash. I have been running this beta for three weeks now, and it has been very, very solid indeed. In that three weeks, it reached uptime of two week, until I simply decided to turn it off for the night. Before that I ran stable version of (K)Ubuntu for months, and I had zero crashes or "strange behavior" with it.
Anecdotal evidence: Don't you just love it?
And besides: what makes you think your co-workers problems are due to the kernel, and not something else?
"2: Utility. A modern PDA doubles as either an iPod, a camera, a GPS, or all of the three."
Get a smartphone that also acts as a PDA, Camera and mp3-player. They can also act as GPS-devices if you get an external bluetooth-GPS (which you could leave at the car). And drop that "backup-phone". So instead of having PDA, Laptop and two cell-phones, you would just have a laptop and a smartphone.
"New gospels must be approved by the college of cardinals and, ultimately, the pope to be legitimate Christian scripture. The real gospels are more holy because they have been thus certified by the official arbiter of such descisions. Things that aren't so approved aren't scripture, and things that are considered for approval and rejected are called "Apocrypha" and also aren't scripture, i.e. they aren't holy"
Cardinals and Pope? Since when did Catholics have the authority to decide what are "Christian" scriptures and what are not? There are other Christians besides Catholics you know. And before you give me that "Catholic Church is the direct descendant of the original Church"-argument... Well, I would place that title upon the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Western Catholic Church.
And why do I get the feeling that those Cardinals and the Pope would select texts that they would personally agree with and which supported the Catholic Church and it's teachings? Nothing is free from politics and personal bias. Espesially religion.
I don't know what's the situation in USA, but in Finand a similar system is used with heating. Basically there are lots of homes being heated with electricity. And many (a 40% maybe) use this kind of setup. Tey use the electricity to heat a tank of water if off-peak hours, and the water stores the heat. During the day, the water is circulated around the house, heating it up.
Why is it that companies never mention the names of their competitors? Even when some analyst asks point-blank (for example) "How do you feel about AMD's recent gains in market-share?", they will NOT mention the name of the competitor, even though they were mentioned in the question. They will just say something like "Our competitor has been executing well, and we intent to catch up soon". And I'm not talking about just Intel here, everyone does it.
"So your not sure if he is joking? In a movie where in 10 hours, one man with a Macintosh Laptop can code a virus in C++ that will take down a completely alien computer system?
sheesh"
Heh, I remember when I watched the movie in the theater. The moment I saw the "Uploading Virus", I _almost_ stood up in the theater and shouted "oh come on!"
Well, take your pick. If I wanted to REALLY mention realistic (more or less) portrayal of IT-systems in a major Hollywood-movie, I would have propably picked Matrix Reloaded. And it deserves a mention for mere 5 seconds of footage.
That "education" would take a lot of time and money. And while they did that, the carriers would be buying their competitors phones. maybe after few years the public would "see the light" (doubtful, people in general are dumb), their competitors could just as well switch to selling uncrippled phones.
And I doubt that Nokia has spent lots of money of helping carriers cripple their phones. It's propably just few checkboxes that enable/disable certain features.
"The Pocket PC 6700 from Sprint and other carriers already does all this and it's based on Windows Mobile 5.0 instead of the presumably new or limited market share OS that Nokia will use."
N93 uses Symbian. In Q1 2005 Symbian had 61.4% market-share (up from 40.5% a year before). Microsoft had 18.3% share (down from 23.1% year before). So what on EARTH are you blabbering about "limited market share"?
And then the carriers would buy competitors phones instead. The carriers want to cripple the phones, and they will buy from the company that lets them do that.
From Nokia alone: 1100, 1101, 1110, 1112, 2310, 2610. Sure, some of those might have some features that you do not need. But would the phone be REALLY one bit better if they dropped those features? I bet that those "unneeded" features don't drive the price up all that much. It's like RAM these days: embedded devices re getting more and more RAM, because having more RAM does not cost one bit more than having less RAM, and it's getting harder and harder to buy small RAM-modules. I have had phones with features I don't need. I simply don't use them, and they don't get in my way.
Yep. I find it rather strange that people stare at specs of some multimedia-phones, and then complain that it has (shock and horror!) multimedia-features. Nokia has plenty of phones for business, like the e-series (which are meant specificly for business) or Communicators.
IIRC, individual memory-chips (like in vid-cards) can be clocked higher than DIMM-modules can. And besides, we currently have 800Mhz (effective) RAM. How about leaving it at 800Mhz, but doubling the bus? latency would be reasonable, but bandwidth would be twice as big.
Instead of that, how about having some REALLY fast RAM right next to the CPU? Take a look at modern vid-card. Hi-end models have 256-512MB of uber-fast DDR3-RAM on 256bit bus. And the GPU's are usually bigger than CPU's are. And still, they can seel the entire package (GPU, card and RAM) for about $500. What if we did something similar with CPU's? Instead of selling CPU's as chips, sell them as modules (like SGI and Sun do). Attached to that module would be the CPU, and attached to the CPU would be 256-512MB of ~1GHz RAM on a 256 bit bus.
And before you say that that is too little RAM.... Other CPU's in the system would have such RAM-setup as well. There could also be traditional memory-banks attached to the Nortbridge as well. So each CPU in the system would have 256-512MB of VERY fast RAM attached directly to the CPU. In addition to that, they could also access the RAM on other CPU's (like AMD64-machines do today). AND in addition to that, there would also be traditional memory-banks attached to the northbridge, for memory-expansion. The Northbridge-RAM would be shared with all the CPU's in the system (naturally).
Of course, such a system would cost a bit more than current systems do. But it would have a metric assload of bandwidth. Would such system make any sense at all? Considering that vid-card makers can sell such RAM attached to relatively large GPU for around 500 bucks, why couldn't CPU-makers sell a smaller CPU with similar RAM for about same price?
"I've been thinking about upgrading my old G4 powerbook for sometime, but have not been able to find a notebook from any vendor with 3 usb ports"
Dude, WTF? We just got bunch of HP nc6220. Three USB-port (one on the left, two on the right). We also got a bunch of tc4200 tablet-PC's: three USB-ports (one on the right, one on the left, and one in the back). You obviously haven't been looking very hard.
The point of AM2 is to ensure smooth transition to dual and quad-core CPU's. Having four cores struggling for the bandwidth 128bit DDR400 provides is.... not nice. Each of those cores would have half as much bandwidth as the original S754 A64's did! Having them struggle over 128bit 800Mhz DDR2 is a lot more feasible. Add to that some L3-cache (on future moidels) to mask the higher latency, and you are all set.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange. I'm running BETA-version of Ubuntu on this machine, and I have yet to see it crash. I have been running this beta for three weeks now, and it has been very, very solid indeed. In that three weeks, it reached uptime of two week, until I simply decided to turn it off for the night. Before that I ran stable version of (K)Ubuntu for months, and I had zero crashes or "strange behavior" with it.
Anecdotal evidence: Don't you just love it?
And besides: what makes you think your co-workers problems are due to the kernel, and not something else?
"Doesn't sound quite so exciting now that the Bugatti Veyron is a "production" car with 1000 bhp."
That's 1001bhp! Sheesh!
"2: Utility. A modern PDA doubles as either an iPod, a camera, a GPS, or all of the three."
Get a smartphone that also acts as a PDA, Camera and mp3-player. They can also act as GPS-devices if you get an external bluetooth-GPS (which you could leave at the car). And drop that "backup-phone". So instead of having PDA, Laptop and two cell-phones, you would just have a laptop and a smartphone.
"New gospels must be approved by the college of cardinals and, ultimately, the pope to be legitimate Christian scripture. The real gospels are more holy because they have been thus certified by the official arbiter of such descisions. Things that aren't so approved aren't scripture, and things that are considered for approval and rejected are called "Apocrypha" and also aren't scripture, i.e. they aren't holy"
Cardinals and Pope? Since when did Catholics have the authority to decide what are "Christian" scriptures and what are not? There are other Christians besides Catholics you know. And before you give me that "Catholic Church is the direct descendant of the original Church"-argument... Well, I would place that title upon the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Western Catholic Church.
And why do I get the feeling that those Cardinals and the Pope would select texts that they would personally agree with and which supported the Catholic Church and it's teachings? Nothing is free from politics and personal bias. Espesially religion.
Speaking as a non-Christian here.
I don't know what's the situation in USA, but in Finand a similar system is used with heating. Basically there are lots of homes being heated with electricity. And many (a 40% maybe) use this kind of setup. Tey use the electricity to heat a tank of water if off-peak hours, and the water stores the heat. During the day, the water is circulated around the house, heating it up.
Why is it that companies never mention the names of their competitors? Even when some analyst asks point-blank (for example) "How do you feel about AMD's recent gains in market-share?", they will NOT mention the name of the competitor, even though they were mentioned in the question. They will just say something like "Our competitor has been executing well, and we intent to catch up soon". And I'm not talking about just Intel here, everyone does it.
"They prefer to buy other companies' overhyped leaders, just like they buy other companies' overhyped projects instead of doing their own R&D."
:)?
Like NeXT
"So your not sure if he is joking? In a movie where in 10 hours, one man with a Macintosh Laptop can code a virus in C++ that will take down a completely alien computer system?
sheesh"
Heh, I remember when I watched the movie in the theater. The moment I saw the "Uploading Virus", I _almost_ stood up in the theater and shouted "oh come on!"
"I've never used Apeture, but wasn't it supposed to compete directly with Adobe Photoshop?"
Short answer: no.
Well, take your pick. If I wanted to REALLY mention realistic (more or less) portrayal of IT-systems in a major Hollywood-movie, I would have propably picked Matrix Reloaded. And it deserves a mention for mere 5 seconds of footage.
"name me one major hollywood movie with more realistic IT in it"
ID4?
The amount of doing that is miniscule when compared to other areas they spend money on. besides, the work is already done.
Which was mighty nice of them, but they weren't required to do so.
That "education" would take a lot of time and money. And while they did that, the carriers would be buying their competitors phones. maybe after few years the public would "see the light" (doubtful, people in general are dumb), their competitors could just as well switch to selling uncrippled phones.
And I doubt that Nokia has spent lots of money of helping carriers cripple their phones. It's propably just few checkboxes that enable/disable certain features.
...they are made by Uwe Boll
"The Pocket PC 6700 from Sprint and other carriers already does all this and it's based on Windows Mobile 5.0 instead of the presumably new or limited market share OS that Nokia will use."
N93 uses Symbian. In Q1 2005 Symbian had 61.4% market-share (up from 40.5% a year before). Microsoft had 18.3% share (down from 23.1% year before). So what on EARTH are you blabbering about "limited market share"?
And then the carriers would buy competitors phones instead. The carriers want to cripple the phones, and they will buy from the company that lets them do that.
From Nokia alone: 1100, 1101, 1110, 1112, 2310, 2610. Sure, some of those might have some features that you do not need. But would the phone be REALLY one bit better if they dropped those features? I bet that those "unneeded" features don't drive the price up all that much. It's like RAM these days: embedded devices re getting more and more RAM, because having more RAM does not cost one bit more than having less RAM, and it's getting harder and harder to buy small RAM-modules. I have had phones with features I don't need. I simply don't use them, and they don't get in my way.
Why not go straight to the source?
Pics at Nokia.com
Yep. I find it rather strange that people stare at specs of some multimedia-phones, and then complain that it has (shock and horror!) multimedia-features. Nokia has plenty of phones for business, like the e-series (which are meant specificly for business) or Communicators.
IIRC, individual memory-chips (like in vid-cards) can be clocked higher than DIMM-modules can. And besides, we currently have 800Mhz (effective) RAM. How about leaving it at 800Mhz, but doubling the bus? latency would be reasonable, but bandwidth would be twice as big.
Instead of that, how about having some REALLY fast RAM right next to the CPU? Take a look at modern vid-card. Hi-end models have 256-512MB of uber-fast DDR3-RAM on 256bit bus. And the GPU's are usually bigger than CPU's are. And still, they can seel the entire package (GPU, card and RAM) for about $500. What if we did something similar with CPU's? Instead of selling CPU's as chips, sell them as modules (like SGI and Sun do). Attached to that module would be the CPU, and attached to the CPU would be 256-512MB of ~1GHz RAM on a 256 bit bus.
And before you say that that is too little RAM.... Other CPU's in the system would have such RAM-setup as well. There could also be traditional memory-banks attached to the Nortbridge as well. So each CPU in the system would have 256-512MB of VERY fast RAM attached directly to the CPU. In addition to that, they could also access the RAM on other CPU's (like AMD64-machines do today). AND in addition to that, there would also be traditional memory-banks attached to the northbridge, for memory-expansion. The Northbridge-RAM would be shared with all the CPU's in the system (naturally).
Of course, such a system would cost a bit more than current systems do. But it would have a metric assload of bandwidth. Would such system make any sense at all? Considering that vid-card makers can sell such RAM attached to relatively large GPU for around 500 bucks, why couldn't CPU-makers sell a smaller CPU with similar RAM for about same price?
"I've been thinking about upgrading my old G4 powerbook for sometime, but have not been able to find a notebook from any vendor with 3 usb ports"
Dude, WTF? We just got bunch of HP nc6220. Three USB-port (one on the left, two on the right). We also got a bunch of tc4200 tablet-PC's: three USB-ports (one on the right, one on the left, and one in the back). You obviously haven't been looking very hard.
"An FPGA doesn't equal dedicated hardware. It takes a performance hit (in some domains, a huge hit) in exchange for flexibility."
Well, Cray is using FPGA's as dedicated co-processors in some of their supercomputers. So they can be quite fast indeed.
The point of AM2 is to ensure smooth transition to dual and quad-core CPU's. Having four cores struggling for the bandwidth 128bit DDR400 provides is.... not nice. Each of those cores would have half as much bandwidth as the original S754 A64's did! Having them struggle over 128bit 800Mhz DDR2 is a lot more feasible. Add to that some L3-cache (on future moidels) to mask the higher latency, and you are all set.