Re:Tsarkon WARNS: Eugenia is a Fat Fucking Pig
on
Mesa 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
And you think i'm a source of your amusement...
Childish? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Judging by your 'eloquent' response, it seems you are the source of your own amusement.
The only thing I can agree with you on is this - it's over. You can go back to AOL now, playing The Sims: Hot Date and fantasizing about your virtual girlfriends. Does your 'shield of intellect' give you a hard on?
Stylistically, you're a putz.
Re:Tsarkon WARNS: Eugenia is a Fat Fucking Pig
on
Mesa 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
You are my hero. Not only do you create 2 original replies (har har) to my message, but you're proficient at ASCII art too! You even reply to your own messages congratulating yourself!
PS. Goatse.cx? Are you a regular? Judging by your intelligent response, you sound like you might be the owner!
Yes, kernel 2.4.something apparently supports it. The only Microsoft OS which supports hyperthreading properly is Windows XP. Windows 2000 and below doesn't utilize it.
If Eolas loses then nothing changes. If Microsoft loses probably nothing will change for a while, but then people's websites will start changing and Eolas will still be a nobody.
Then Eolas files for Chapter 11, M$ buys Eolas and starts enforcing their newest intellectual property. No, none of this is good for consumers, regardless of who comes out on top. This kind of technology is not something that should be owned by one company.
"Over the years, we've received nearly 1,000 technical support calls from people that have accidentally started vi and couldn't figure out how to do anything -- or even how to quit."
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
They have already stated that there will be a option to turn it off, and to be honest all of those who say "Well yes, but what about when they remove that option?" are just scaramongering. Yes true they can remove it in the future, but will it be that easy? I dont think so, there will be too a big outcry, and there will still be large numbers of eastern computer manufacturers making PCs as we know them now.
If done right (and here is where MS may falter), there won't be a big outcry if they turn the option to disable Palladium off. Never underestimate the spinelessness of the average person.
The PC manufacturers (the ones who count, anyway) are already in their pocket. Both AMD and Intel have pledged support for Palladium. In the future there will be no PC manufacturers making "more free" PC's because doing so will prevent them from being profitable.
I'd rather "scare-monger" (as you call it) then leave people with a false sense of security by telling them things will be alright when they won't.
Nobody is going to force users of Palladium enabled systems to actually use Palladium.
While that MAY be the case for the short-term, i'm sure once it becomes part of the average users desktop M$ will find some excuse to "lock it down" further.
With Palladium, etc. it will become possible for programs to keep especially sensitive data safe from malicious programs operating on the same machine. Now an attacker will have to not only subvert one of the programs that I have trusted, it will also have to defeat the Palladium system.
What kinds of malicious programs? Define "malicious"? More importantly, how does MICROSOFT define "malicious"? Could Openoffice.org, a presumably "unauthorized" piece of software be considered malicious if it is able to open a Microsoft Word document? Food for thought.
I don't see how this can be a bad development. At worst its neutral. At best, Palladium will allow me to do all sorts of things on my computer that I wouldn't dream of doing today because of security concerns.
Microsoft? Neutral? Neutral EVIL, maybe!:)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you aren't able to do things on your PC that you won't be able to do with Palladium in place. I can think of MANY things that Microsoft would try to prevent you from doing with their implementation of Palladium (and not necessarily "illegal" acts such as copying and distributing movies and music.) Palladium is NOT about Freedom.
A couple of sites have benchmarked Xeons with HT enabled already (Anandtech and Aces Hardware spring to mind.) It provides a boost in some applications but can actually decrease performance in others. It's rumored that Intel has improved their implementation of hyperthreading but I wouldn't expect the 20-25% performance gains in most applications.
I know, I understand why it hasn't been included. My response was to the poster who mentioned that PCI bandwidth will be sufficient for the next 5-10 years so I was wondering why PCI-X was even necessary.
The board itself is nothing special, but it IS the first Hammer board.
In case you haven't noticed, there's a little bit of a recession going on here. Now, that's not to say that AMD isn't making some mistakes but that has a bit to do with it, don't you think?
The economy is slow. IT budgets are being cut. People aren't spending. I know! Let's make the fastest chips available and charge a mint for them! I'm sure people are REALLY going to go for that.
AMD is obviously having yield problems with their current line of CPU's. Does that have anything to do with Hammer being pushed back? Not really. If they were able to keep up with Intel with their CURRENT line of CPU's, which they are doing with unreleased Athlon (not Hammer) CPU's then pushing back Hammer doesn't really hurt them at all right now, does it? You think Barton and Thoroughbred-B will be able to remain competitive until Hammer gets here (with good yields, of course) Judging by the benchmarks of samples sent to a few review sites, I think so.
Clawhammer is based on a microprocessor architecture meant for SERVERS. It's not going to be another Athlon (that is, a leader in price/performance)... it is designed for high-end workstations and enthusiasts with money to spend. NOT The majority of people buying PC's. That has always been the case, delays notwithstanding. Why do you think AMD is changing their strategy?
The main difference between the two is that an in-depth study of LOTR will reveal a richly textured and very interesting character, while an in-depth study of Ep1 will not only underscore how inane Jar Jar really is, but reveal the poverty of the story as a whole.
While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.
Still, I don't believe most people hated Jar Jar because he wasn't really an interesting character. They hate him because he's too "cutesy" and annoying. This, to me, is Tom Bombadil in a nutshell, despite how fleshed out either character is (or isn't)
I was glad to see that the TB storyline was not in the movie. It really would have ruined the dark, erious mood of the movie.
There are no margins in the value market. Heck, I think AMD may sell more "value" procs than Intel does, but that doesn't make them profitable. The money is in high end business servers where people pay 1k+/proc. This is where Intel makes a ton of its money and it is where AMD wants/needs to be. AMD needs companies like Dell building poweredge servers around their proc in order to survive
Of course the margins are small in the value market. However, they are the products which actually sell a significant amount (compared to the high-end products)... do you think that Intel sells a lot of P4 2.8 GHz machines? Not really. Are businesses lining up in droves to buy dual Xeons for their normal users workstations? It seems that what you're essentially saying here is that there is no money in the corporate desktop market (or, by proxy, the home desktop market)
Sure, there is a significant amount of money to be made in the high-end server market. Is that the only market worth considering? How did AMD even get to where they are right now? By selling high-priced processors aimed at the server market? How many servers are you aware of which use Athlon CPU's (before the MP's)? Were Athlon CPU's known for being best-of-breed CPU's at a lower price point or extremely cost-effective CPU's which were competitive with Intels latest and greatest? And this was when the economy wasn't in the shitter like it is now.
These are also different times for AMD. AMD didn't have a significant share of the market with the K6 line of CPU's. The K6 series of CPU's were not nearly as competitive with Intels offerings in price OR performance compared to the Athlons (even now)
I believe, however, that PCI-X will be used in the mainstream, rather than just servers? I could be wrong in this, however, but a lot of companies are going to be backing the PCI-X standard.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. However, the entire design screams "minimalist" (notice it only has 3 PCI slots)... but 3 DIMM slots.
Either way, if it has that audio it's obviously not meant for the server market (so it's a Clawhammer board? An Opteron board?) I don't think the article mentions whether it is a reference board or a final retail board either.
If we are talking about the same thing, I believe they have stated they are DE-EMPHASIZING the Clawhammer... in other words, its still on track for release in the first half of 2003 (still way off compared to their roadmap, of course) with Opteron in the 2H03.
Right now AMD is working towards profitability, meaning going after markets which are stronger (which are, right now, the value microprocessor market) thus the de-emphasizing of the latest and greatest.
Hollywood going under? That brings a tear to my eye. Really, it does.
Holy crap, batman! Will Hollywood actually have to find NEW ways of making money now? Will they finally have to (gasp!) become innovative and develop a new business model! The horror!
(I wonder if Hollywood could even DO that at this point...)
I'm surprised nobody has said it yet... (or at least, I couldn't find anyone that could... there are probably a bunch below my current threshold which will make this post look idiotic, but I digress...) but an open source solution to this problem would be relevant here, especially considering they are using older file formats anyway and Office compatibility isn't a must right now. Go open source!
Of course, they won't do it. Bush LOOOOVES his widdle baby Bill so it's probably M$ for everyone! But it would be nice...
Slashdot Mirror
And you think i'm a source of your amusement...
Childish? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Judging by your 'eloquent' response, it seems you are the source of your own amusement.
The only thing I can agree with you on is this - it's over. You can go back to AOL now, playing The Sims: Hot Date and fantasizing about your virtual girlfriends. Does your 'shield of intellect' give you a hard on?
Stylistically, you're a putz.
You are my hero. Not only do you create 2 original replies (har har) to my message, but you're proficient at ASCII art too! You even reply to your own messages congratulating yourself!
PS. Goatse.cx? Are you a regular? Judging by your intelligent response, you sound like you might be the owner!
I think most of those things already exist. Oh, except for the 'cheap' part. :)
Whoa, hold on a second! I wasn't talking about your mom!
Hey, I think she's cute!
Yes, kernel 2.4.something apparently supports it. The only Microsoft OS which supports hyperthreading properly is Windows XP. Windows 2000 and below doesn't utilize it.
So it's either Linux or XP, as far as I know.
Then Eolas files for Chapter 11, M$ buys Eolas and starts enforcing their newest intellectual property. No, none of this is good for consumers, regardless of who comes out on top. This kind of technology is not something that should be owned by one company.
Down with stupid patents.
"Over the years, we've received nearly 1,000 technical support calls from people that have accidentally started vi and couldn't figure out how to do anything -- or even how to quit."
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
If done right (and here is where MS may falter), there won't be a big outcry if they turn the option to disable Palladium off. Never underestimate the spinelessness of the average person.
The PC manufacturers (the ones who count, anyway) are already in their pocket. Both AMD and Intel have pledged support for Palladium. In the future there will be no PC manufacturers making "more free" PC's because doing so will prevent them from being profitable.
I'd rather "scare-monger" (as you call it) then leave people with a false sense of security by telling them things will be alright when they won't.
While that MAY be the case for the short-term, i'm sure once it becomes part of the average users desktop M$ will find some excuse to "lock it down" further.
With Palladium, etc. it will become possible for programs to keep especially sensitive data safe from malicious programs operating on the same machine. Now an attacker will have to not only subvert one of the programs that I have trusted, it will also have to defeat the Palladium system.
What kinds of malicious programs? Define "malicious"? More importantly, how does MICROSOFT define "malicious"? Could Openoffice.org, a presumably "unauthorized" piece of software be considered malicious if it is able to open a Microsoft Word document? Food for thought.
I don't see how this can be a bad development. At worst its neutral. At best, Palladium will allow me to do all sorts of things on my computer that I wouldn't dream of doing today because of security concerns.
Microsoft? Neutral? Neutral EVIL, maybe! :)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you aren't able to do things on your PC that you won't be able to do with Palladium in place. I can think of MANY things that Microsoft would try to prevent you from doing with their implementation of Palladium (and not necessarily "illegal" acts such as copying and distributing movies and music.) Palladium is NOT about Freedom.
A couple of sites have benchmarked Xeons with HT enabled already (Anandtech and Aces Hardware spring to mind.) It provides a boost in some applications but can actually decrease performance in others. It's rumored that Intel has improved their implementation of hyperthreading but I wouldn't expect the 20-25% performance gains in most applications.
Except for the fact that it DOESN'T actually run on DOS. That's just like saying someone who boots Linux using Loadlin runs Linux on DOS...
I know, I understand why it hasn't been included. My response was to the poster who mentioned that PCI bandwidth will be sufficient for the next 5-10 years so I was wondering why PCI-X was even necessary.
The board itself is nothing special, but it IS the first Hammer board.
Well it was made by AOpen. What do you expect? :)
In case you haven't noticed, there's a little bit of a recession going on here. Now, that's not to say that AMD isn't making some mistakes but that has a bit to do with it, don't you think?
... it is designed for high-end workstations and enthusiasts with money to spend. NOT The majority of people buying PC's. That has always been the case, delays notwithstanding. Why do you think AMD is changing their strategy?
The economy is slow. IT budgets are being cut. People aren't spending. I know! Let's make the fastest chips available and charge a mint for them! I'm sure people are REALLY going to go for that.
AMD is obviously having yield problems with their current line of CPU's. Does that have anything to do with Hammer being pushed back? Not really. If they were able to keep up with Intel with their CURRENT line of CPU's, which they are doing with unreleased Athlon (not Hammer) CPU's then pushing back Hammer doesn't really hurt them at all right now, does it? You think Barton and Thoroughbred-B will be able to remain competitive until Hammer gets here (with good yields, of course) Judging by the benchmarks of samples sent to a few review sites, I think so.
Clawhammer is based on a microprocessor architecture meant for SERVERS. It's not going to be another Athlon (that is, a leader in price/performance)
While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.
Still, I don't believe most people hated Jar Jar because he wasn't really an interesting character. They hate him because he's too "cutesy" and annoying. This, to me, is Tom Bombadil in a nutshell, despite how fleshed out either character is (or isn't)
I was glad to see that the TB storyline was not in the movie. It really would have ruined the dark, erious mood of the movie.
Of course the margins are small in the value market. However, they are the products which actually sell a significant amount (compared to the high-end products) ... do you think that Intel sells a lot of P4 2.8 GHz machines? Not really. Are businesses lining up in droves to buy dual Xeons for their normal users workstations? It seems that what you're essentially saying here is that there is no money in the corporate desktop market (or, by proxy, the home desktop market)
Sure, there is a significant amount of money to be made in the high-end server market. Is that the only market worth considering? How did AMD even get to where they are right now? By selling high-priced processors aimed at the server market? How many servers are you aware of which use Athlon CPU's (before the MP's)? Were Athlon CPU's known for being best-of-breed CPU's at a lower price point or extremely cost-effective CPU's which were competitive with Intels latest and greatest? And this was when the economy wasn't in the shitter like it is now.
These are also different times for AMD. AMD didn't have a significant share of the market with the K6 line of CPU's. The K6 series of CPU's were not nearly as competitive with Intels offerings in price OR performance compared to the Athlons (even now)
I believe, however, that PCI-X will be used in the mainstream, rather than just servers? I could be wrong in this, however, but a lot of companies are going to be backing the PCI-X standard.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. However, the entire design screams "minimalist" (notice it only has 3 PCI slots) ... but 3 DIMM slots.
Either way, if it has that audio it's obviously not meant for the server market (so it's a Clawhammer board? An Opteron board?) I don't think the article mentions whether it is a reference board or a final retail board either.
I am teh pusher robot! I come to push humans away to protect from terrible secret of space!
PAK CHOOIE UNF
If we are talking about the same thing, I believe they have stated they are DE-EMPHASIZING the Clawhammer ... in other words, its still on track for release in the first half of 2003 (still way off compared to their roadmap, of course) with Opteron in the 2H03.
Right now AMD is working towards profitability, meaning going after markets which are stronger (which are, right now, the value microprocessor market) thus the de-emphasizing of the latest and greatest.
This is probably only a reference board, and one for a desktop user at that. 64-bit PCI slots are of marginal utility for a workstation user.
Interesting diversion? I found him to be the Jar Jar Binks of Lord of the Rings...
Hollywood going under? That brings a tear to my eye. Really, it does.
Holy crap, batman! Will Hollywood actually have to find NEW ways of making money now? Will they finally have to (gasp!) become innovative and develop a new business model! The horror!
(I wonder if Hollywood could even DO that at this point...)
No more free lunch, I guess.
I'm surprised nobody has said it yet... (or at least, I couldn't find anyone that could... there are probably a bunch below my current threshold which will make this post look idiotic, but I digress...) but an open source solution to this problem would be relevant here, especially considering they are using older file formats anyway and Office compatibility isn't a must right now. Go open source!
Of course, they won't do it. Bush LOOOOVES his widdle baby Bill so it's probably M$ for everyone! But it would be nice...