You are also not supposed to notice the complete lack of airplane parts in and around the pentagon.
really? And why do you think that there should be large pieces of debris all around the place, when there shouldn't be any in the first place? Take a look at this and this.
Why do I get the feeling that even though you have now been presented with plenty of pictures of airplane-parts in and around Pentagon, and with pictures that show that usually no large pieces of debris remain after such a crahs, you will simply decide to ingore them, and you will keep on believing that "there were no airplane-parts inside or around Pentagon!".? If you do change your mind, I would like you to say it aloud here. A simple "I was wrong" will do. If you don't reply, then I'll just assume that you didn't change your mind, and that would make you a moron.
Stop by the forums on Nekochan.net and ask around.
Ah, the Nekochan-forums.... I actually stumbled that place when I was looking for information on SGI-systems. I was interested in running Linux on SGI-hardware. I went to the forums, created an account, and mentioned that I'm interested in running Linux on SGI-hardware (well, I mentioned it in one of their "Linux sucks!"-threads). End-result? My post was deleted, my user-account was deleted, and I can't even access the website from the computer I posted the message from (accessing from another computer works just fine)! Apparently I have been totally banned from the website.
Well, to be honest, this isn't a problem with just Nekochan. It seems to me that SGI-users are EXTREMELY hostile towards anyone who uses Linux. they might tolerate someone who runs Linux on a PC, but if you mention that you want to run it on SGI-hardware, be prepared to receive A LOT of flak! Hell, they are worse than Mac-users, and Mac-users are pretty bas as it is!
What's my current choke point? Simply data bandwidth into the card.
So the bottleneck is PCI-Express. How would new vid-card help you there, since it would be using PCI-E as well? Well, maybe that SLI-setup could help, since it would have two PCI-E-channels...
In my mind an image popups of of powerfull, reliable and secure software. Not the best looking but something you can build your business on.
True that. Whenever I hear someone say that "this piece of software is rock-solid", I always think "rock solid, eh? I wonder how it compares to Netware?"
We moved from Netware to Active Directory some time ago. And comparing Windows-server with AD to Netware is.... Not nice. Everything seems to be more complex in with the MS-solution, we have all kinds of strange issues with it (nothing catastrophic, but things that make the whole system awkward to use, whereas Netware was a breeze). And while Windows has been reasonable stable, it's nowhere near as stable as Netware was. In the time I started working here, to the time we dumbed Netware (about three years), it went down once, and that was due to power-outage. During this year or so that we have been on Windows/AD, the server has been down... 3-4 times, due to patching, crashing, lockups and the like.
If I had to choose between Netware and Windows, I would choose Netware, no questions asked. And that sentiment is shared by just about all techies here. But since it's the PHB's that call the shots, and Microsoft had shinier PowerPoint-presentations than Novell did, we are stuck with AD.
No, what he is saying is that the early adopters, those who have legitimate imediate need and those who purchase simply because "it's better" have already bought one and that it won't be a conventional purpose for a couple more years.
There will be plenty of people buying dual-core chips even after the early-adopters have bought theirs. Some people simply didn't have the need/money to upgrade right after dual-cores were released, but they might upgrade a bit later. And new computers are being sold to companies/people all the time.
Of course dual-core CPU's wont be that common when compared to singles, reason being that they are hi-end parts, and hi-end parts always have slower sales than mainstream CPU's.
There are the geeks and early-adopters who must have the fastest CPU possible. And the dual-core CPU that was the fastest CPU last week, might not be the fastest next week.
How about making them run cooler and more efficiently
They are doing just that. And they are doing that because the excessive heat was killing performance. They couldn't make it faster because it was running so hot.
and hence quieter since they wont need 3 fans pointing at them?
My A64 3200+ has exactly ONE fan cooling it.
Also take a look at Via's new chips and boards, particularly the Epia series of boards. They're ideal for media centre applications, since the chips run very cool but quickly enough to do the necessary work.
But wouldn't you just love it if they doubled the performance (increasing it from "crap" to "OK-ish" while keeping the power-consumption at the same level? Of course you would.
I fail to see why this turned in to discussion about clock-speeds. The GP was talking about "making the damn thing faster". That IMO means just what is sounds like: Making the CPU as fast as possible. It does not mean "squeeze as much Mhz from that thing as possible!" CPU's haven't been about Mhz in a long time already.
if there are not more fruitful ways to pump speed out of your CPU.
Yes there are, and Intel and AMD are pursuing them as we speak. But even that isn't good enough for the GP, who is now whiniong when they put more cores in to one die. Is he going to whine about the ever-growing caches next? And this isn't about clock-speed, this is about how fast (as in: how fast they carry out their tasks) the CPU's are. GP was apparently annoyed because Intel and AMD care only about performance. Well, what should they then care about? Should they be trying to make their CPU's as slow as possible? And before you say: "how about power-consumption?". Well, they are caring about that now, because the excessive power-consumption (and the heat that follows it) is killing performance. Now, when they are tackling power-consumption, they are also giving themselves more headroom to grow the performance of their chips in the future.
The dual-cores of this generation have been bought already, and the upgrade cycle won't start again until 2007-2008.
Dude, WTF?!? Are you saying that everybody who is going to buy a dual-core processor has already bought one, and next such CPU's wont be sold until 2007-2008?? What if someone decides to upgrade his computer in the summer (for example) to a dual-core machine? By your logic, he does not exist and/or he should wait until 2007/2008 because "that's when the next upgrade-sycle is in, you can't upgrade before that"?
People are upgrading their computer all the time. People are buying new computers all the time.
Multi-core processors require operating system (OS) support to make optimal use of the second computing resource.
And that support exists in just about all OS'es already
Also, making optimal use of multiprocessing in a desktop context requires application software support.
Not really. Your OS is already running several processos in the background. SMP allows for those processes to be evenly distributed to two cores. Also, if you run more than one app at the same time (like we all do, basically), you will benefit.
And I'm not talking about AMD, Intel is just as guilty for equaling innovation with "make that damn thing run faster".
If they made their processors slower, then they would be "innovating"? What do you want processors to do, really? EVERYBODY wants their CPU to be as fast as possible. If you could choose between two identical CPU's, but one of them were twice as fast as the other, which one would you choose? the slower one? I doubt it. So why are you then whining as if making CPU's faster is a bad thing, since everybody wants faster CPU's? What benefit would there be in having slow processors?
And they have been doing pretty interesting things in order to make it faster. Pentium Pro with the on-die cache, SIMD, multithreading etc. etc.. Hell, even Cell with it's SPU's was designed the way it is, so it would be as fast as possible. But according to you, that's not innovcation?
ow that the ceiling is more or less reached and enough waste heat is generated to heat a medium sized home, they change the measurement. Instead of length, we compare circumference. One core, 2 cores, 4 cores, 8.a
Uh, they are still comparing performance, the means to get performance has just been changed that's all. They are NOT adding cores for the sake of adding cores. They are adding cores in order to increase performance.
But since you apparently think that making CPU's faster is not the way to go, why not share ith us what YOU want processors to do?
In the past, when MS launched a new OS, Linux-folks (I use the term loosely.) scrambled to keep up. It took them a while, but then Linux surpassed Windows in looks, ease of use and the like, and the MS released new version of the OS, and the cycle started all over again. But not this time. I have seen previews and screenshots of Vista. And while they are clearly a step up from XP, it's nothing we haven't already seen in the various Linux-desktops. And Vista is still over 6 months away!
This seems to be the first time MS is releasing an OS, when Linux-folks are not thinking "Damn, I wish we had that particular feature" (I'm talking about the desktop here). There might be some minor things that are done better in Vista, and maybe some details in the UI are a bit more refined, but that's it. By the time Vista is available, we will be having 3D-accelerated X-servers, GNOME 2.16 and KDE4. And since Vista seems to be more or less equivalent to what we have right now, it seems to me that overall MS is falling behind, and fast. In the last few years both KDE and GNOME has improved A LOT, and that's starting to really show.
Why should I? Seriously? Have you studied the Qu'ran, and come up with an informed position regarding it's authenticity? How about Tripitaka? No? Why does the Bible then receive special handling? How can you tell people to "read the Bible and make up your own minds", when you haven't read those other holy books?
I have glanced throught the Bible, and I have witnessed several discussion about it. There seems to be quite a bit of contradictions in the Bible (what were Jesus's last words on the cross before he died?), errors (the order in which species were created) and according to experts, several translation-errors have crept in there as well over the years. I would guess that if Bible is word of God, and god does not make mistakes, why are there errors and contradictions in the Bible? Besides, if God really wants me to be saved, he has the ways to do so, without needing me to go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb.
If Jesus ever did sin he couldn't be God, God is Holy and therefore sinless.
I thought that Jesus was not God, but _son_ of God? If Jesus was God, who was he talking to on the cross? Seriously, the whole idea of the Trinity makes my head spin....
If he did it to commit heresy than that's bad.
Why? I could understand complaints if some member of the clergy committed heresy, but how can normal layperson be committing heresy? Is this a case that we have some religious elite telling us how and what to believe, and if we disagree, we are committing a "heresy", and that's bad? Many of your ideas go against religious beliefs of others, so you are a heretic as well. is that "bad" as well?
I finally saw the "Last Temptation" about two years ago. And I thought that it was a really good and thought-provoking film. I'm agnostic myself, so maybe my opinion does not apply to believers. But then again, to me it seems that the complaints that the movie received were mainly due to the fact that people did not understand what they were seeing. It's like when people complained that "Life of Brian" makes fun of Jesus, when in fact Jesus only appears in one scene for about 10 seconds. And, ironically, his appearance on that scene is pretty accurate to the way it was described in the Bible.
Just about all historians. In Stalingrad Germany lost about one third of their manpower in the eastern front. That is absolutely huge, and after that they had no hope of defeating USSR. Had they been lucky, they might have forced a draw after Stalingrad (even that was very unlikely). But victory was out of their reach.
The Soviets were stretched damn thin as it was, and without American shipping, the Soviets would have been desperately short on materiel.
Overwhelming majority of their material was manufactured by themselves.
That's to say nothing of the number of troops Germany had to keep in the west to forestall invasion
Even AFTER the D-Day, something like 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern front. The amount of troops before the invasion was even smaller.
If Stalin thought he could have won without a Second Front, he wouldn't have badgered Churchill and FDR about it.
That's the stupidest argument I have ever heard! Of course he wanted the Western Allies to carry some of the weight of the war! That would mean less casualties for the Russians. If he had a choice of defeating Germany alone and sustaining X amount of casualties, as opposed to defeating Germany with Western Allied, and sustaining X - 30% casualties (I pulled that number from thin air), while Western Allied would also suffer casualties, he would choose the latter option. I bet that USA is more than capable of handling invasion of Iraq alone, then why did USA beg for other countries to send troops as well?
If Stalin decided to carry out the fighting alone, with West doing practically nothing, he knew that after the war he would have an army that had been battered in war, and a nation that had sustaines tens of million casualties, while their western opponents would be practically unharmed. That was an disadvantege he was not willing to have.
Stalin would have been perfectly happy to win the war himself and move the Iron Curtain that much further to the west, were it feasible.
Had he tried to do that, he would have faced fresh English and American troops in France, while his forces had been bleeding all through the war. And their plan was that rest of Europe would fall in to their hands through revolutions and popular uprisings. Luckily their plan failed.
And by the time US was REALLY involved in the war in Europe, Germany was already busy being defeated. Their defeat was all but certain full 18 months before D-Day and 6 months before invasion of Sicily.
Tell me why they would go to another company with supply problems?
Apple sells around 1 million computers a year, correct? So it takes a bit over 1 million CPU's to satisfy their demand (some of their machine are SMP-machines). In 2005, AMD had the capability to manufacture 45 million CPU's. in 2006, they can manufacture 60 million, and in 2008, 100 million.
AMD was and is more than capable of satisfying Apple's demand for CPU's. The reasons why Apple moved to Intel are elsewhere.
it's the law that a corporations first and only priority is to protect shareholder value.
Could you please cite the law that says this? Where in the law-books that handle corporations does it say "the purpose of corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Any corporation not maximizing the valua, will be severly punished"?
You mean like Intel's Slot 1 and AMD's Slot A designs from 5 years ago? Which put the processor on a card, which also contained high speed memory and was slotted into the motherboard?
Yes. However, in those cases, the memory was L2-cache, not system RAM (or L3-cache for that matter).
Of course the reason for it then was because they couldn't get the enough L2 cache on the chip itself so they built an external cache at 1/2 CPU speed. As soon as they could fit the L2 cache they wanted onto the chip they moved away from the slot design because it's far more expensive to make.
True, but the ability to cram L2-cache to the CPU is not an issue anymore (well, I bet that AMD and Intel would just love to cost-effectively cram 16 megs of cache on the chip....). What IS an issue is the speed of the main memory when compared to the CPU. If the bus to the memory was doubled (from 128bits to 256bits) and speed almost doubled (to around 1GHz), the problem would be eased quite nicely.
Of course this kind of CPU would be more expensive. But then again, hi-end vid-cards with similar RAM cost around 500 bucks, so I don't think these CPU's would ahve to be that much more expensive. And it could be that the performance would be quite a bit better than what we have today. Having over four times as much memory-bandwidth than we do today should help quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
really? And why do you think that there should be large pieces of debris all around the place, when there shouldn't be any in the first place? Take a look at this and this.
Why do I get the feeling that even though you have now been presented with plenty of pictures of airplane-parts in and around Pentagon, and with pictures that show that usually no large pieces of debris remain after such a crahs, you will simply decide to ingore them, and you will keep on believing that "there were no airplane-parts inside or around Pentagon!".? If you do change your mind, I would like you to say it aloud here. A simple "I was wrong" will do. If you don't reply, then I'll just assume that you didn't change your mind, and that would make you a moron.
Ah, the Nekochan-forums.... I actually stumbled that place when I was looking for information on SGI-systems. I was interested in running Linux on SGI-hardware. I went to the forums, created an account, and mentioned that I'm interested in running Linux on SGI-hardware (well, I mentioned it in one of their "Linux sucks!"-threads). End-result? My post was deleted, my user-account was deleted, and I can't even access the website from the computer I posted the message from (accessing from another computer works just fine)! Apparently I have been totally banned from the website.
Well, to be honest, this isn't a problem with just Nekochan. It seems to me that SGI-users are EXTREMELY hostile towards anyone who uses Linux. they might tolerate someone who runs Linux on a PC, but if you mention that you want to run it on SGI-hardware, be prepared to receive A LOT of flak! Hell, they are worse than Mac-users, and Mac-users are pretty bas as it is!
So the bottleneck is PCI-Express. How would new vid-card help you there, since it would be using PCI-E as well? Well, maybe that SLI-setup could help, since it would have two PCI-E-channels...
Good god! The man writes articles for computer-magazines, he invented a new keyboard-layout AND he composes music! Is there no end to his talent?!?
True that. Whenever I hear someone say that "this piece of software is rock-solid", I always think "rock solid, eh? I wonder how it compares to Netware?"
We moved from Netware to Active Directory some time ago. And comparing Windows-server with AD to Netware is.... Not nice. Everything seems to be more complex in with the MS-solution, we have all kinds of strange issues with it (nothing catastrophic, but things that make the whole system awkward to use, whereas Netware was a breeze). And while Windows has been reasonable stable, it's nowhere near as stable as Netware was. In the time I started working here, to the time we dumbed Netware (about three years), it went down once, and that was due to power-outage. During this year or so that we have been on Windows/AD, the server has been down... 3-4 times, due to patching, crashing, lockups and the like.
If I had to choose between Netware and Windows, I would choose Netware, no questions asked. And that sentiment is shared by just about all techies here. But since it's the PHB's that call the shots, and Microsoft had shinier PowerPoint-presentations than Novell did, we are stuck with AD.
"SuSE is redhat based" is it, really? Or do you think that since SUSE uses RPM's, it's "based on Red Hat"?
There will be plenty of people buying dual-core chips even after the early-adopters have bought theirs. Some people simply didn't have the need/money to upgrade right after dual-cores were released, but they might upgrade a bit later. And new computers are being sold to companies/people all the time.
Of course dual-core CPU's wont be that common when compared to singles, reason being that they are hi-end parts, and hi-end parts always have slower sales than mainstream CPU's.
There are the geeks and early-adopters who must have the fastest CPU possible. And the dual-core CPU that was the fastest CPU last week, might not be the fastest next week.
They are doing just that. And they are doing that because the excessive heat was killing performance. They couldn't make it faster because it was running so hot.
My A64 3200+ has exactly ONE fan cooling it.
But wouldn't you just love it if they doubled the performance (increasing it from "crap" to "OK-ish" while keeping the power-consumption at the same level? Of course you would.
Yes there are, and Intel and AMD are pursuing them as we speak. But even that isn't good enough for the GP, who is now whiniong when they put more cores in to one die. Is he going to whine about the ever-growing caches next? And this isn't about clock-speed, this is about how fast (as in: how fast they carry out their tasks) the CPU's are. GP was apparently annoyed because Intel and AMD care only about performance. Well, what should they then care about? Should they be trying to make their CPU's as slow as possible? And before you say: "how about power-consumption?". Well, they are caring about that now, because the excessive power-consumption (and the heat that follows it) is killing performance. Now, when they are tackling power-consumption, they are also giving themselves more headroom to grow the performance of their chips in the future.
Dude, WTF?!? Are you saying that everybody who is going to buy a dual-core processor has already bought one, and next such CPU's wont be sold until 2007-2008?? What if someone decides to upgrade his computer in the summer (for example) to a dual-core machine? By your logic, he does not exist and/or he should wait until 2007/2008 because "that's when the next upgrade-sycle is in, you can't upgrade before that"?
People are upgrading their computer all the time. People are buying new computers all the time.
And that support exists in just about all OS'es already
Not really. Your OS is already running several processos in the background. SMP allows for those processes to be evenly distributed to two cores. Also, if you run more than one app at the same time (like we all do, basically), you will benefit.
If they made their processors slower, then they would be "innovating"? What do you want processors to do, really? EVERYBODY wants their CPU to be as fast as possible. If you could choose between two identical CPU's, but one of them were twice as fast as the other, which one would you choose? the slower one? I doubt it. So why are you then whining as if making CPU's faster is a bad thing, since everybody wants faster CPU's? What benefit would there be in having slow processors?
And they have been doing pretty interesting things in order to make it faster. Pentium Pro with the on-die cache, SIMD, multithreading etc. etc.. Hell, even Cell with it's SPU's was designed the way it is, so it would be as fast as possible. But according to you, that's not innovcation?
Uh, they are still comparing performance, the means to get performance has just been changed that's all. They are NOT adding cores for the sake of adding cores. They are adding cores in order to increase performance.
But since you apparently think that making CPU's faster is not the way to go, why not share ith us what YOU want processors to do?
In the past, when MS launched a new OS, Linux-folks (I use the term loosely.) scrambled to keep up. It took them a while, but then Linux surpassed Windows in looks, ease of use and the like, and the MS released new version of the OS, and the cycle started all over again. But not this time. I have seen previews and screenshots of Vista. And while they are clearly a step up from XP, it's nothing we haven't already seen in the various Linux-desktops. And Vista is still over 6 months away!
This seems to be the first time MS is releasing an OS, when Linux-folks are not thinking "Damn, I wish we had that particular feature" (I'm talking about the desktop here). There might be some minor things that are done better in Vista, and maybe some details in the UI are a bit more refined, but that's it. By the time Vista is available, we will be having 3D-accelerated X-servers, GNOME 2.16 and KDE4. And since Vista seems to be more or less equivalent to what we have right now, it seems to me that overall MS is falling behind, and fast. In the last few years both KDE and GNOME has improved A LOT, and that's starting to really show.
Why should I? Seriously? Have you studied the Qu'ran, and come up with an informed position regarding it's authenticity? How about Tripitaka? No? Why does the Bible then receive special handling? How can you tell people to "read the Bible and make up your own minds", when you haven't read those other holy books?
I have glanced throught the Bible, and I have witnessed several discussion about it. There seems to be quite a bit of contradictions in the Bible (what were Jesus's last words on the cross before he died?), errors (the order in which species were created) and according to experts, several translation-errors have crept in there as well over the years. I would guess that if Bible is word of God, and god does not make mistakes, why are there errors and contradictions in the Bible? Besides, if God really wants me to be saved, he has the ways to do so, without needing me to go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb.
And some people refuse to accept the Bible as fact, so....
I thought that Jesus was not God, but _son_ of God? If Jesus was God, who was he talking to on the cross? Seriously, the whole idea of the Trinity makes my head spin....
Why? I could understand complaints if some member of the clergy committed heresy, but how can normal layperson be committing heresy? Is this a case that we have some religious elite telling us how and what to believe, and if we disagree, we are committing a "heresy", and that's bad? Many of your ideas go against religious beliefs of others, so you are a heretic as well. is that "bad" as well?
I finally saw the "Last Temptation" about two years ago. And I thought that it was a really good and thought-provoking film. I'm agnostic myself, so maybe my opinion does not apply to believers. But then again, to me it seems that the complaints that the movie received were mainly due to the fact that people did not understand what they were seeing. It's like when people complained that "Life of Brian" makes fun of Jesus, when in fact Jesus only appears in one scene for about 10 seconds. And, ironically, his appearance on that scene is pretty accurate to the way it was described in the Bible.
Just about all historians. In Stalingrad Germany lost about one third of their manpower in the eastern front. That is absolutely huge, and after that they had no hope of defeating USSR. Had they been lucky, they might have forced a draw after Stalingrad (even that was very unlikely). But victory was out of their reach.
Overwhelming majority of their material was manufactured by themselves.
Even AFTER the D-Day, something like 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern front. The amount of troops before the invasion was even smaller.
That's the stupidest argument I have ever heard! Of course he wanted the Western Allies to carry some of the weight of the war! That would mean less casualties for the Russians. If he had a choice of defeating Germany alone and sustaining X amount of casualties, as opposed to defeating Germany with Western Allied, and sustaining X - 30% casualties (I pulled that number from thin air), while Western Allied would also suffer casualties, he would choose the latter option. I bet that USA is more than capable of handling invasion of Iraq alone, then why did USA beg for other countries to send troops as well?
If Stalin decided to carry out the fighting alone, with West doing practically nothing, he knew that after the war he would have an army that had been battered in war, and a nation that had sustaines tens of million casualties, while their western opponents would be practically unharmed. That was an disadvantege he was not willing to have.
Had he tried to do that, he would have faced fresh English and American troops in France, while his forces had been bleeding all through the war. And their plan was that rest of Europe would fall in to their hands through revolutions and popular uprisings. Luckily their plan failed.
"Heer", not "Hehr"
And by the time US was REALLY involved in the war in Europe, Germany was already busy being defeated. Their defeat was all but certain full 18 months before D-Day and 6 months before invasion of Sicily.
IBM, not Motorola (or rather, Freescale). G4 was a Moto-chip, G5 was IBM's.
Apple sells around 1 million computers a year, correct? So it takes a bit over 1 million CPU's to satisfy their demand (some of their machine are SMP-machines). In 2005, AMD had the capability to manufacture 45 million CPU's. in 2006, they can manufacture 60 million, and in 2008, 100 million.
AMD was and is more than capable of satisfying Apple's demand for CPU's. The reasons why Apple moved to Intel are elsewhere.
Could you please cite the law that says this? Where in the law-books that handle corporations does it say "the purpose of corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Any corporation not maximizing the valua, will be severly punished"?
VLC on OS X seems to work just fine :)
Yes. However, in those cases, the memory was L2-cache, not system RAM (or L3-cache for that matter).
True, but the ability to cram L2-cache to the CPU is not an issue anymore (well, I bet that AMD and Intel would just love to cost-effectively cram 16 megs of cache on the chip....). What IS an issue is the speed of the main memory when compared to the CPU. If the bus to the memory was doubled (from 128bits to 256bits) and speed almost doubled (to around 1GHz), the problem would be eased quite nicely.
Of course this kind of CPU would be more expensive. But then again, hi-end vid-cards with similar RAM cost around 500 bucks, so I don't think these CPU's would ahve to be that much more expensive. And it could be that the performance would be quite a bit better than what we have today. Having over four times as much memory-bandwidth than we do today should help quite a bit.