First, overclocking works decent for a few people, but is not available to the masses for several reasons including technical difficulty and
noise issues
Ummmm.... How is overclocking going to make the system more loud? I mean, I have 700Mhz Duron with standard fairly standard heatsink/fan. I can push the CPU to about 900Mhz without changing anything, and the system does not make one bit more noise when compared to standard 700Mhz.
Or do you think that those clock-ticks in the CPU's make a noise, and therefore more clock-ticks = more noise?
For example, the vibration dampers and $1000 cables I bought for my Bose speakers aren't going to help that much when the source material is total shit.
You got ripped off. Plain and simple. Those 1000 dollar cables will do jack shit to the sound-quality, and whatever benefit you might get (due to placebo-effect), will be compensated by those "average at best" Bose-speakers
Why don't you just install green LED's in your CD-player? Or color your CD's with green magic-marked. It's alot cheaper, it's also popular among audiophiles and it gives you just as much benefit as those 1000 dollar cables do (read: none).
True, but I was comparing it to Intels CPU's since they are Athlons primary competitors. Right now PowerPC and x86 aren't really competitors. There is a wall between PowerPC (Macs), and x86 (Windows). Well, Linux can run on either, but for mainstrean, the two are separate.
If I'm not mistaken, AMD chips run hotter than just about anything out there.
A common claim. Unfortunately it's wrong. Athlon XP doesn't really run any hotter than Pentium 4 does for example. In fact, you coulöd say that XP runs cooler than P4 does.
so why is it so hard to prosecute these few individuals for abuse of the internet and indirect theft from business and government (taxpayer) coffers, especially if they are known?
I think the proper question is "So why is it so hard to track down these few individuals, break their knees with a baseball-bat and make them eat their own shit, espesially if they are known?"
You're still limited by the controller speed and the memory speed, both of which are considerably lower in Opteron than P4/Xeon.
You are wrong. Opteron can use DDR333 or DDR400. Same memories P4/Xeon use (that's what AMD has said, DDR400 is just not officially supported. It does seem that Athlon64 does fully support DDR400 as well). So there's exactly zero difference there. Opteron has 2x64bit memory-bus, same as P4. Again: zero difference between the two.
The fastest that the Opteron can read memory is 333 MHz. Period. End of story.
You can use DDR400 just fine. Period. End of story. And besides, fastest memory you can use on P4 is 400MHz, and the difference between 333Mhz and 400Mhz isn't that big.
The Xeon can read 2x64 533 million times per second.
You are (again) confusing FSB-speed with the speed of the RAM. Yes, the FSB on Xeon if 533Mhz. No, the RAM is NOT 533Mhz. The P4 that had best bandwidth-figures in Toms tests used DDR400.
Figured out yet why the Xeon has more bandwidth?
Yes. Second mem-channel was not enabled on the Opteron, whereas it was on P4. review at Aceshardware shows more realistic bandwidth-numbers.
Please, learn about this stuff before you start to "educate" others, OK?
The Xeon's have a 533 MHz FSB, while Opteron is running at 333 MHz FSB (Technically the P4/Xeon is 133 MHz quad pumped and the Opteron is 166 MHz double pumped).
1. "FSB" on Opteron is Hypertransport-link that is equivalent to 800Mhz regural FSB 2. FSB-speed on the Opteron is meaningless when talking about mem-bandwidth, since the memory does not use the FSB to talk with the CPU, memory talks directly with CPU.
Let me repeat: the "FSB" is NOT 333Mhz! That's the speed Athlon XP's FSB runs at! Both P4 and Opteron have 2x64bit memory-buses, so the mem-bandwidth should be close (with Opteron having alot less latency), but that is not the case, why?
and GPL bigots often do the same. Anyone who has downloaded a distribution without paying for it is doing so. There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of other people's work for free, in certain cases.
Of course you can take advantage of other peoples work for free if they let you do so. If Red Hat (for example) freely offers their distro for download, of course you can do so. But the whining about GPL somehow makes me think that some people believe that they have the right to do whatever they want with any piece of software, when in reality that is not the case. GPL does place some limitations on you, If you don't like those limitations, use non-GPL software. You might have a point if GPL was somehow forced on you, but it isn't. You are free to use alternative software, you are free to write your own software and license it as you wish.
Why does P4 with 2x64bit memory-bus get so much better results than opteron with 2x64bit memory-bus? One would think that since the mem-controller is integrated on the Opteron, it would get better results. Also, since each CPU has it's own memory-bank but they can still use other CPU's memory as well, the bandwidth should go up as number of CPU's increase. But still, P4 has more bandwidth than 2x Opterons! How can that be? IS there something wrong with the chip Tom benchmarked?
Make no mistake about it: The GPL restricts choice as much as an NDA would.
Nope. GPL only restricts the developers if they want to use GPL:ed software in their own works. Of course no-one is forcing them to use software that is under the GPL, they can always write their own software that is not under the GPL. In the MS-world, the developer would have NO chance to use code written by MS for example, in the GPL-world, they have that chance, but they must accept certain things before they do it.
Let me repeat: GPL does NOT limit in one way or the other. If you hate the GPl, use software that is not under the GPL or write your own software. Only way GPL could "limit" you, is when you want to use that software in your own projects, and no-one is forcing you to use GPL-software now!
FSF says free the source. I say free the developer.
Developers are perfectly free to write their own code. Don't want to be limited by the GPL? Fine, remove the parts that are under the GPL, write your own replacement-code. Problem solved.
The people who whine about GPL are people who want to take advantage of other peoples work for free.
I also believe that the USSR helped Finland building roads etc which later could be used in an attack on Sweden, but I'm not sure.
Part of the peace-treaty with Soviet Union (for those who do not know history: we fought two wars against them during WW2) was that Finland was required to build a railroad from the eastern-border to the Swedish border. Soviets wanted that in case there was a war with Sweden so they could use it as a supply-line.
As to the Soviet "aid". Well, we didn't really get any aid from them, quite the contrary: we had to pay huge war-repatations to them (not to mention cede large amounts of the country to them). Yes, later we did have big trade-agreements with them, and they did benefit Finnish economy. It was transito-trade, as in Finland provided Soviet Union with goods, and SU paid back with their own goods (usually oil).
I didn't say that. I just think they should focus on features that majority of users use, instead of features that have limited user-base. They have progressed though, ability to change resolution on the fly is a welcomed addition. But it kinda makes you wonder how Xfree was able to do remote desktop for a long time, but something as basic as changing the resolution took years and years to appear. It seems that they have/had their priorities backwards.
NVIDIA's Linux-drivers are kept up-to-date when compared to their Windows-drivers. They are propably the most actively developed vid-card drivers Linux has, and still I don't have those cool features that are available in some other OS'es. It seems that the drivers are not the fault. Hell, X only recently got true changing of resolution on the fly. A feature that has been standard for years and years in those other OS'es. And how about changing color-depth on the fly? Possible on those other OS'es, has been for years. But not on Linux/X. Or is that too a limitation of the drivers?
And I haven't had any problems with NV's Linux-drivers when it comes to stability
So, because YOU use it, everyone else uses it as well? Here's a newsflash for you: majority of computer-users (excluding corporate users) don't have separate workstations and servers. And even those that do, majority do not use remote X. I would bet that _at least_ 80% of all users runs X on their local workstation and not on the server. That figure is propably close to 90% in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm.... How is overclocking going to make the system more loud? I mean, I have 700Mhz Duron with standard fairly standard heatsink/fan. I can push the CPU to about 900Mhz without changing anything, and the system does not make one bit more noise when compared to standard 700Mhz.
Or do you think that those clock-ticks in the CPU's make a noise, and therefore more clock-ticks = more noise?
You got ripped off. Plain and simple. Those 1000 dollar cables will do jack shit to the sound-quality, and whatever benefit you might get (due to placebo-effect), will be compensated by those "average at best" Bose-speakers
Why don't you just install green LED's in your CD-player? Or color your CD's with green magic-marked. It's alot cheaper, it's also popular among audiophiles and it gives you just as much benefit as those 1000 dollar cables do (read: none).
...Does that mean that the Bazaar has Luke Skywalker?
And MS has copied their desktop and apps from others, so what's your point?
Guess what? I heard that Anakin Skywalker will become Darth Vader in ep3!
OK OK, I got you a spoiler... Ready? Here it goes: You will die alone!
I thought that went something like "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me twice... You can't get fooled again!"
Russia??? I assume you mean former Soviet Union.
There are plenty of guns in Finland
True, but I was comparing it to Intels CPU's since they are Athlons primary competitors. Right now PowerPC and x86 aren't really competitors. There is a wall between PowerPC (Macs), and x86 (Windows). Well, Linux can run on either, but for mainstrean, the two are separate.
A common claim. Unfortunately it's wrong. Athlon XP doesn't really run any hotter than Pentium 4 does for example. In fact, you coulöd say that XP runs cooler than P4 does.
For facts on this issue, go here:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=5000036
I think the proper question is "So why is it so hard to track down these few individuals, break their knees with a baseball-bat and make them eat their own shit, espesially if they are known?"
The "review" at Toms is crap. Review at Aceshardware is alot better. Opteron beats Xeon in several benchmarks, and in some cases, by a huge margin.
Yes, by the time Athlon64 is introduced, Intel will have faster chips. But AMD-chips will be faster as well.
You are wrong. Opteron can use DDR333 or DDR400. Same memories P4/Xeon use (that's what AMD has said, DDR400 is just not officially supported. It does seem that Athlon64 does fully support DDR400 as well). So there's exactly zero difference there. Opteron has 2x64bit memory-bus, same as P4. Again: zero difference between the two.
You can use DDR400 just fine. Period. End of story. And besides, fastest memory you can use on P4 is 400MHz, and the difference between 333Mhz and 400Mhz isn't that big.
You are (again) confusing FSB-speed with the speed of the RAM. Yes, the FSB on Xeon if 533Mhz. No, the RAM is NOT 533Mhz. The P4 that had best bandwidth-figures in Toms tests used DDR400.
Yes. Second mem-channel was not enabled on the Opteron, whereas it was on P4. review at Aceshardware shows more realistic bandwidth-numbers.
Please, learn about this stuff before you start to "educate" others, OK?
1. "FSB" on Opteron is Hypertransport-link that is equivalent to 800Mhz regural FSB
2. FSB-speed on the Opteron is meaningless when talking about mem-bandwidth, since the memory does not use the FSB to talk with the CPU, memory talks directly with CPU.
Let me repeat: the "FSB" is NOT 333Mhz! That's the speed Athlon XP's FSB runs at! Both P4 and Opteron have 2x64bit memory-buses, so the mem-bandwidth should be close (with Opteron having alot less latency), but that is not the case, why?
Of course you can take advantage of other peoples work for free if they let you do so. If Red Hat (for example) freely offers their distro for download, of course you can do so. But the whining about GPL somehow makes me think that some people believe that they have the right to do whatever they want with any piece of software, when in reality that is not the case. GPL does place some limitations on you, If you don't like those limitations, use non-GPL software. You might have a point if GPL was somehow forced on you, but it isn't. You are free to use alternative software, you are free to write your own software and license it as you wish.
Like I said, I really fail to see the problem.
Why does P4 with 2x64bit memory-bus get so much better results than opteron with 2x64bit memory-bus? One would think that since the mem-controller is integrated on the Opteron, it would get better results. Also, since each CPU has it's own memory-bank but they can still use other CPU's memory as well, the bandwidth should go up as number of CPU's increase. But still, P4 has more bandwidth than 2x Opterons! How can that be? IS there something wrong with the chip Tom benchmarked?
Nope. GPL only restricts the developers if they want to use GPL:ed software in their own works. Of course no-one is forcing them to use software that is under the GPL, they can always write their own software that is not under the GPL. In the MS-world, the developer would have NO chance to use code written by MS for example, in the GPL-world, they have that chance, but they must accept certain things before they do it.
Let me repeat: GPL does NOT limit in one way or the other. If you hate the GPl, use software that is not under the GPL or write your own software. Only way GPL could "limit" you, is when you want to use that software in your own projects, and no-one is forcing you to use GPL-software now!
Developers are perfectly free to write their own code. Don't want to be limited by the GPL? Fine, remove the parts that are under the GPL, write your own replacement-code. Problem solved.
The people who whine about GPL are people who want to take advantage of other peoples work for free.
Part of the peace-treaty with Soviet Union (for those who do not know history: we fought two wars against them during WW2) was that Finland was required to build a railroad from the eastern-border to the Swedish border. Soviets wanted that in case there was a war with Sweden so they could use it as a supply-line.
As to the Soviet "aid". Well, we didn't really get any aid from them, quite the contrary: we had to pay huge war-repatations to them (not to mention cede large amounts of the country to them). Yes, later we did have big trade-agreements with them, and they did benefit Finnish economy. It was transito-trade, as in Finland provided Soviet Union with goods, and SU paid back with their own goods (usually oil).
Real-time CGI? Haven't we had that for years and years in 3D-accelerated games? The graphics in those sure seem real-time to me.
Can you make BSD look identical to like Mac OS X? Could you run OS X Doppelganger of x86-machine running BSD for example?
And you must install green LEDs under the CD in the CD-player because it "makes it sound better"
I didn't say that. I just think they should focus on features that majority of users use, instead of features that have limited user-base. They have progressed though, ability to change resolution on the fly is a welcomed addition. But it kinda makes you wonder how Xfree was able to do remote desktop for a long time, but something as basic as changing the resolution took years and years to appear. It seems that they have/had their priorities backwards.
NVIDIA's Linux-drivers are kept up-to-date when compared to their Windows-drivers. They are propably the most actively developed vid-card drivers Linux has, and still I don't have those cool features that are available in some other OS'es. It seems that the drivers are not the fault. Hell, X only recently got true changing of resolution on the fly. A feature that has been standard for years and years in those other OS'es. And how about changing color-depth on the fly? Possible on those other OS'es, has been for years. But not on Linux/X. Or is that too a limitation of the drivers?
And I haven't had any problems with NV's Linux-drivers when it comes to stability
So, because YOU use it, everyone else uses it as well? Here's a newsflash for you: majority of computer-users (excluding corporate users) don't have separate workstations and servers. And even those that do, majority do not use remote X. I would bet that _at least_ 80% of all users runs X on their local workstation and not on the server. That figure is propably close to 90% in reality.
What drivers? Vid-card-drivers? Aren't the vid-card drivers in Linux written specifically for Linux? I fail to see your point.