Okay. My mobile phone USB adaptor. It stopped recognising it. I tried reinstalling it. No luck. It turns out that Windows does per-USB port driver installation, so you can't switch USB ports for a device. I'd changed my monitor, including USB hub. My phone's USB adaptor never worked again. I'm told I have to wipe and reinstall. Fuck that. An OS should just handle attached devices automatically.
There are no commercials on BBC TV or Radio stations, they are funded entirely from the TV license. It is like a mandatory subscription fee, although unlike Cable/Satellite companies you do get rid of the commercials at least in return.
Which is great until you need to make a coffee or take a piss.
that thing will have 8 cables just hanging there, on the side of the machine, with no support whatsoever.
Pretty much like any other computer then, silly!
Yeah, I agree that it will look tattier with the cables hanging down. There shouldn't be anything stopping you using the cable guide on the stand however as far as I can see.
IBM A50: Needs double the HD space, the graphics are poor and there is no upgrade option which is a worry, the TFT you listed isn't a widescreen, it is a huge hulking box, not an all-in-one system, it looks foul, it only comes with a basic CD-ROM drive, not a combo CDRW/DVD drive (which IBM charge $160 for). I'm within a whisker of the low-end G5 price already, and I've got a nest of cables and a computer I can't just walk to the lounge/garden with and use there if I want. Also, I'm sick and tired of Windows XP fucking up.
This is the best value iMac I've seen for years.
My TFT monitor (AG Neovo F-419 - budget 19" model) is 2" thick. This iMac is the same size, but adds a whole quite powerful computer! I'd get this if I was looking for a new computer. I suppose it also shows that Apple are 1" away from making a PowerBook G5.
Since when did something being shareware imply ownership?
I could package up GPL software and sell it any way I like, that's fine. The fact that the software is available elsewhere for free is besides the point. Maybe I put useful software together in a compilation for a certain type of computer... maybe I'm selling it to AOL users who don't know better. But I can sell it as long as I adhere to the GPL.
The problem is that he isn't giving out his alterations to the GPL code as the GPL license stipulates.
You cannot put the GPL portion of your application into a library and then create your own proprietary code that uses that library... only if the other code is LGPL, which in this case XChat isn't (AFAIK).
The whole point is that this person has taken GPL code, added in more code, and not given the changes back to the community. Which is the whole point of the GPL.
Now if the GPL code was done by a people that all had relicensed their code to the new application under a different license, then there would be no problem at all. There is nothing preventing the copyright holder of GPL code from relicensing under a different license.
People don't like seeing other people profit off their own hard work that they've done for free. The GPL prevents this.
The GPL is very clear on how it works. You can decide: I'll release very soon and use this GPL software, and deal with having to release my sourcecode alongside, OR I can spend a long time recreating the functionality before releasing without any issues, OR I can pay money/beer/sex to license the functionality from someone and release without issues.
Its a free project that no one is getting money from.
The word 'shareware' might be a clue (for this Windows version). Not that being shareware should be an issue for a GPL application, as long as you get the sourcecode.
I can't read the damn story so I don't know what the problem is.
First, I see that Transmeta are finally making 1.5GHz Efficeons, which is a good sign, they looked to be stuck at 1GHz for so long.
This merely looks like 12 computers on a single motherboard with a GigE switch connecting them together. Each computer is highly optimised of course, just a processor, memory, support chipset (GigE, IDE).
I do have to wonder how it compares with something similar made with Opterons or Pentium-Ms. Opteron has the advantage of being able to do SMP so the per-system processing power would be much higher, each board could have 4 low power 2GHz Opterons which will probably be close to the 12 Efficeons in terms of computing power and power consumption.
But still, this is a cool system. I wonder how fast it can do a kernel compile?
Please point me to a hard drive that can write at 1.2GB/s.
Even U640 SCSI can only transmit at half that rate, so even if you set up a large ass raid array you couldn't write quickly enough.
By 2014 I expect that hard drives will be between 2 and 20 TB in size on average, and probably can write at 600MB/s, each directly connected by SATA600 or faster, so it should just about be doable by then. What is more scary is the concept of being able to store 1000 High Definition movies on a single hard drive.
I imagine that the dual-core chip will still only have the single 128-bit memory controller.
That is very true. Still, there are some dual-Opteron motherboards with only one processor wired to memory and they perform pretty well still so it might not be that much of a problem.
Maybe AMD will have DDR2-800 support in the processor when it is launched next year. There are suggestions that the current S940 / S939 supports DDR2 if it was wired up, but it is disabled/notdone in current AMD64 processors. AMD will have to move to DDR2 at some point, when the price has dropped to reasonable. Hell, even dual-channel DDR2-666 will be more than enough bandwidth for a dual-core Opteron, and Intel's i925 supports this already (well, not officially but many websites have enabled it and shown it to work).
DDR2 does have higher latencies though, and Opteron/A64 does like low latencies... hopefully at 666 or 800 speeds this hit will be reduced, and Intel will still have the FSB latency issue as well.
IIRC AMD have stated that their dual-core processors will be socket compatible. As AMD has the important stuff on the northbridge inside their processor (memory controller, interconnect, crossbar and dual-core interface) this is possible as long as the dual core processor operates within the power envelope that AMD have specified for current systems (89W for current ones, maybe a higher ~105W for the future, probably to accomodate dual core).
Intel will probably introduce a new socket, their dual-core implementation is rumoured (and I think this was from the inquirer, so get your salt licks ready) to literally be two processors on the same die with all the limitations of Intel's Shared Bus architecture (i.e., the shared FSB is all that is connecting two separate processors on the same slab of silicon). OTOH that might mean that they can use the same old socket for the processor, but you won't be able to run dual dual-core processors because the chipset won't support it, it will see it as 4 processors connected, whereas with AMD it will see it as 2 processing devices connected via hypertransport.
The Opteron has always supported dual cores, and it isn't via "internal hypertransport", the internal crossbar connects to the SysReq that supports two cores attached directly. You cannot attach a shared cache dual core to this design. Each core must have its own individual L2 cache. This is why you could have an 8 processor Opteron system with dual-cores for 16 cores in total despite the fact that the current Opteron can only do 8 processors at the most glueless. Oh, and Hypertransport doesn't connect to memory either, the memory controller is something else connected to the internal crossbar.
And for the Opteron this is a good design. As the cores are on the same chip, cache coherency will be done at the speed of the processor and not be limited by inter-processor bandwidth. It really isn't a problem at all that the cores each have their own individual cache. At least they aren't competing with each other for cache bandwidth. The only bad point is that a core cannot have the option of using up to 2MB of shared cache - not as big a problem as it might sound, 1MB is doing very well for Opteron, and the on-die memory controllers negate a lot of the latency penalty for main memory access.
Thank god for Instant Message applications, otherwise I'd be lost.
Actually, one of my accounts only gets one or two spams a day, but my main business address gets 1000 - 3000 a day now (after spamassassin, however I need to enable some blacklists, sod the customers that get accidentally blocked) - earlier this year it was 100 - 300, and last year 10 - 50. So in my experience, volumes of bandwidth wasting time wasting productivity wasting SPAM has gone up ONE HUNDRED TIMES in a year or so. Where will it be in 3 years time? It will be unmanageable, enough is sent from compromised machines these days and it will only get worse.
The USA needs to sort out its spam problems, and soon.
I don't care about the HDTV thing myself, but it would be cool if somehow I could receive my digital cable straight into my computer. That or digital terrestrial in the UK. Anyone got any information about achieving this with NTL cable?
Thing is, Both MacOS and Linux have had numerous RELEASE updates in the time that Microsoft haven't changed anything with the default XP install CD. Which means that if you need to reinstall XP now, you run the risk of being pwned, but if you install Linux or MacOS, you will be doing it from a much more recent CD that is far less susceptible.
I don't know how often Mac users reinstall, but if they had to, and their hardware was good enough, I'm sure that they'd upgrade to the latest version at the same time. You simply can't do that with Windows, you have your 3 year old install CD. Of course, you didn't have to pay $120 each year since like with MacOS X, although you did get extra features with that as well as bug fixes.
I doubt that many people would burn a specialised SP2 CD and do it right. Human nature - their current system has it installed via Windows Update, why download it again as a whole? They probably wouldn't even know about it.
That's very odd, because if there is anything that anybody (i.e., reviews on most hardware sites) agrees on, it is that AMD is better than Intel for games, especially the Athlon 64 which whips Intel's butt.
Ah! Very true. In a similar way to how the latter Matrix films destroyed the excellent first one but not to the same extent. Of course, Matrix Revolutions destroyed an excellent first movie, and an average second movie. If Matrix scored 8/10, and Reloaded 5/10, then Revolutions scored around -13, which beats -8 for Highlander II.
Slashdot Mirror
and all the plus points are things that WinAMP has done for ages without a problem ... so what is great about WMP10?
I think it is a driver problem, I've had printers work fine with switching USB port, but this thing just doesn't want to work now.
Okay. My mobile phone USB adaptor. It stopped recognising it. I tried reinstalling it. No luck. It turns out that Windows does per-USB port driver installation, so you can't switch USB ports for a device. I'd changed my monitor, including USB hub. My phone's USB adaptor never worked again. I'm told I have to wipe and reinstall. Fuck that. An OS should just handle attached devices automatically.
In the UK the TV license is per-household, not per-TV.
I haven't seen a black and white TV for around 20 years, and that was an old TV that someone had.
You don't need a TV license for battery operated portable TVs.
There are no commercials on BBC TV or Radio stations, they are funded entirely from the TV license. It is like a mandatory subscription fee, although unlike Cable/Satellite companies you do get rid of the commercials at least in return.
Which is great until you need to make a coffee or take a piss.
that thing will have 8 cables just hanging there, on the side of the machine, with no support whatsoever.
Pretty much like any other computer then, silly!
Yeah, I agree that it will look tattier with the cables hanging down. There shouldn't be anything stopping you using the cable guide on the stand however as far as I can see.
IBM A50: Needs double the HD space, the graphics are poor and there is no upgrade option which is a worry, the TFT you listed isn't a widescreen, it is a huge hulking box, not an all-in-one system, it looks foul, it only comes with a basic CD-ROM drive, not a combo CDRW/DVD drive (which IBM charge $160 for). I'm within a whisker of the low-end G5 price already, and I've got a nest of cables and a computer I can't just walk to the lounge/garden with and use there if I want. Also, I'm sick and tired of Windows XP fucking up.
This is the best value iMac I've seen for years.
My TFT monitor (AG Neovo F-419 - budget 19" model) is 2" thick. This iMac is the same size, but adds a whole quite powerful computer! I'd get this if I was looking for a new computer. I suppose it also shows that Apple are 1" away from making a PowerBook G5.
Since when did something being shareware imply ownership?
... maybe I'm selling it to AOL users who don't know better. But I can sell it as long as I adhere to the GPL.
I could package up GPL software and sell it any way I like, that's fine. The fact that the software is available elsewhere for free is besides the point. Maybe I put useful software together in a compilation for a certain type of computer
The problem is that he isn't giving out his alterations to the GPL code as the GPL license stipulates.
You cannot put the GPL portion of your application into a library and then create your own proprietary code that uses that library ... only if the other code is LGPL, which in this case XChat isn't (AFAIK).
The whole point is that this person has taken GPL code, added in more code, and not given the changes back to the community. Which is the whole point of the GPL.
Now if the GPL code was done by a people that all had relicensed their code to the new application under a different license, then there would be no problem at all. There is nothing preventing the copyright holder of GPL code from relicensing under a different license.
People don't like seeing other people profit off their own hard work that they've done for free. The GPL prevents this.
The GPL is very clear on how it works. You can decide: I'll release very soon and use this GPL software, and deal with having to release my sourcecode alongside, OR I can spend a long time recreating the functionality before releasing without any issues, OR I can pay money/beer/sex to license the functionality from someone and release without issues.
Its a free project that no one is getting money from.
The word 'shareware' might be a clue (for this Windows version). Not that being shareware should be an issue for a GPL application, as long as you get the sourcecode.
I can't read the damn story so I don't know what the problem is.
The former ... hehe ... which implies the latter I suppose
First, I see that Transmeta are finally making 1.5GHz Efficeons, which is a good sign, they looked to be stuck at 1GHz for so long.
This merely looks like 12 computers on a single motherboard with a GigE switch connecting them together. Each computer is highly optimised of course, just a processor, memory, support chipset (GigE, IDE).
I do have to wonder how it compares with something similar made with Opterons or Pentium-Ms. Opteron has the advantage of being able to do SMP so the per-system processing power would be much higher, each board could have 4 low power 2GHz Opterons which will probably be close to the 12 Efficeons in terms of computing power and power consumption.
But still, this is a cool system. I wonder how fast it can do a kernel compile?
Oh the fun that could be had by sticking these magnets into random people's pockets! I must do that one day.
...
Right, it looks like I need a funny shaped screwdriver to open this duff IBM deskstar
Will arrive at the same time as flying cars and DNF.
Please point me to a hard drive that can write at 1.2GB/s.
Even U640 SCSI can only transmit at half that rate, so even if you set up a large ass raid array you couldn't write quickly enough.
By 2014 I expect that hard drives will be between 2 and 20 TB in size on average, and probably can write at 600MB/s, each directly connected by SATA600 or faster, so it should just about be doable by then. What is more scary is the concept of being able to store 1000 High Definition movies on a single hard drive.
I imagine that the dual-core chip will still only have the single 128-bit memory controller.
... hopefully at 666 or 800 speeds this hit will be reduced, and Intel will still have the FSB latency issue as well.
That is very true. Still, there are some dual-Opteron motherboards with only one processor wired to memory and they perform pretty well still so it might not be that much of a problem.
Maybe AMD will have DDR2-800 support in the processor when it is launched next year. There are suggestions that the current S940 / S939 supports DDR2 if it was wired up, but it is disabled/notdone in current AMD64 processors. AMD will have to move to DDR2 at some point, when the price has dropped to reasonable. Hell, even dual-channel DDR2-666 will be more than enough bandwidth for a dual-core Opteron, and Intel's i925 supports this already (well, not officially but many websites have enabled it and shown it to work).
DDR2 does have higher latencies though, and Opteron/A64 does like low latencies
IIRC AMD have stated that their dual-core processors will be socket compatible. As AMD has the important stuff on the northbridge inside their processor (memory controller, interconnect, crossbar and dual-core interface) this is possible as long as the dual core processor operates within the power envelope that AMD have specified for current systems (89W for current ones, maybe a higher ~105W for the future, probably to accomodate dual core).
Intel will probably introduce a new socket, their dual-core implementation is rumoured (and I think this was from the inquirer, so get your salt licks ready) to literally be two processors on the same die with all the limitations of Intel's Shared Bus architecture (i.e., the shared FSB is all that is connecting two separate processors on the same slab of silicon). OTOH that might mean that they can use the same old socket for the processor, but you won't be able to run dual dual-core processors because the chipset won't support it, it will see it as 4 processors connected, whereas with AMD it will see it as 2 processing devices connected via hypertransport.
No no no no.
That's all wrong.
The Opteron has always supported dual cores, and it isn't via "internal hypertransport", the internal crossbar connects to the SysReq that supports two cores attached directly. You cannot attach a shared cache dual core to this design. Each core must have its own individual L2 cache. This is why you could have an 8 processor Opteron system with dual-cores for 16 cores in total despite the fact that the current Opteron can only do 8 processors at the most glueless. Oh, and Hypertransport doesn't connect to memory either, the memory controller is something else connected to the internal crossbar.
And for the Opteron this is a good design. As the cores are on the same chip, cache coherency will be done at the speed of the processor and not be limited by inter-processor bandwidth. It really isn't a problem at all that the cores each have their own individual cache. At least they aren't competing with each other for cache bandwidth. The only bad point is that a core cannot have the option of using up to 2MB of shared cache - not as big a problem as it might sound, 1MB is doing very well for Opteron, and the on-die memory controllers negate a lot of the latency penalty for main memory access.
Thank god for Instant Message applications, otherwise I'd be lost.
Actually, one of my accounts only gets one or two spams a day, but my main business address gets 1000 - 3000 a day now (after spamassassin, however I need to enable some blacklists, sod the customers that get accidentally blocked) - earlier this year it was 100 - 300, and last year 10 - 50. So in my experience, volumes of bandwidth wasting time wasting productivity wasting SPAM has gone up ONE HUNDRED TIMES in a year or so. Where will it be in 3 years time? It will be unmanageable, enough is sent from compromised machines these days and it will only get worse.
The USA needs to sort out its spam problems, and soon.
I don't care about the HDTV thing myself, but it would be cool if somehow I could receive my digital cable straight into my computer. That or digital terrestrial in the UK. Anyone got any information about achieving this with NTL cable?
Proving my point! I can't be bothered to do it, and I KNOW that I can do it. Most computer uses don't know they can do it.
Thing is, Both MacOS and Linux have had numerous RELEASE updates in the time that Microsoft haven't changed anything with the default XP install CD. Which means that if you need to reinstall XP now, you run the risk of being pwned, but if you install Linux or MacOS, you will be doing it from a much more recent CD that is far less susceptible.
I don't know how often Mac users reinstall, but if they had to, and their hardware was good enough, I'm sure that they'd upgrade to the latest version at the same time. You simply can't do that with Windows, you have your 3 year old install CD. Of course, you didn't have to pay $120 each year since like with MacOS X, although you did get extra features with that as well as bug fixes.
I doubt that many people would burn a specialised SP2 CD and do it right. Human nature - their current system has it installed via Windows Update, why download it again as a whole? They probably wouldn't even know about it.
Cool. Do Microsoft include this in their latest retail packaged Windows XP or current OEM install disks?
because that is the only workable solution, none of this "get it off a friend/work/garage/best buy" rubbish, because people wont.
That's very odd, because if there is anything that anybody (i.e., reviews on most hardware sites) agrees on, it is that AMD is better than Intel for games, especially the Athlon 64 which whips Intel's butt.
... that is very Intel optimised.
Maybe Quake III
Ah! Very true. In a similar way to how the latter Matrix films destroyed the excellent first one but not to the same extent. Of course, Matrix Revolutions destroyed an excellent first movie, and an average second movie. If Matrix scored 8/10, and Reloaded 5/10, then Revolutions scored around -13, which beats -8 for Highlander II.