Please note that these are annual costs associated with each system.
If the hardware goes to hell it's so much easier to replace the single bad part than a mainframe.
The reason the mainframe costs so much per year is exactly this issue - first, if something breaks it likely cripples but does not disable the machine. Second, IBM fixes it within four hours or less.
Of course, they are still using IBM hardware, and the reason linux is so expensive (2.5M/Yr) is because they likely have the same type of contract with IBM to fix the Linux hardware. The CIO wouldn't have been able to sell the shareholders on such a system if they didn't have the same kind of hardware support.
Actually, bad grammer and obvious mistakes are more like a polished, young, eager, well dressed interviewee coming into your office. They smile and you notice that they have an obvious mouth hygiene problem - very, very bad from many years of neglect.
The person may be fine for the job, and the ensuing conversation will hopefully show you what kind of person they are despite the horror that is their mouth.
The problem is that you'll find it very difficult to pay attention to the message because your brain keeps snagging on this out of place feature. Why would this person go to all this trouble to look nice when it's apparant that they spent all these years neglecting their teeth? It would have taken very little time and effort over the years to keep themselves completely presentable.
This detracts fromt the message. No matter how good the message is, most people feel a nagging in the back of their mind when they run across obviously bad grammer or spelling - it's like snagging a fingernail on a sweater as you brush your fingers across it, and you have to focus on the words instead of the sentences and ideas.
Further, it tells us that the speaker has little respect for the audience and no respect for his message.
It's not just a cultural issue. It's a communications issue. The speaker should put at least as much effort into the conveyance of the message as he would like the audience to consider the message.
Lastly, most english readers read a word at a time - the brain processes words, not letters. When a word is incorrectly spelled the brain pauses on it, and the thought process is interrupted.
Chances are good it won't just be "Let's put coffe shops all over" but instead will be tragetted google ads base don your website content.
Have a website featuring bike trails? You'll have bike ads on the map - some may point to locations of bike shops, others to ice cream shops (biking and ice cream go hand in hand, for those who don't know)
A key to Google's strategy is to maximize advertising effectiveness by targetting the ads. This is one side effect to organizing the world's information - a powerful ability to discern user preferences by the page content and choosing ads wisely, while not getting in the way of the user.
Primarily because that's how it's always been done.
Secondarily because even if you munge the flash there is usually a very tiny portion of the BIOS that is difficult to corrupt which holds the code to boot a floppy and execute simple code fromt the floppy - meaning you can screw up your bios and still fix it with a floppy.
It takes a lot of bios code to start a motherboard, but very little to start a floppy drive to the point where a flash can happen.
There's no reason why this couldn't be done on a bootable flash drive, cdrom, or other device as long as you don't mess up the bios during the flash.
See, that's why most people don't understand the game software industry.
You neglected to include the extra four weeks of overtime the employees "donate" to the project. This may seem like a lot, but it only means 6 eleven hour workdays a week, leaving 13 hours every day, and all day sunday, for the employees to have fun.
Quite frankly this is an average 'ideal' schedule, as advertised by the author in the article. Just ask EA.
When they say "Cat ear shaped brakes" they are actually hinting at the Anime cat ear technology which includes super abilities when the train is in cat ear mode. See neko mimi modo.
The distances are too large and the riders too few.
If Amtrak had more riders, or if the cities were closer together (ie, Detroit to chicago on a fast train would still be over 2 hours) then they would have reason to do fast trains.
Maintaining 300 miles of high speed rail is a very expensive proposition, and the volume just isn't there to support the price people are willing to pay.
It's also a catch-22 type problem. We won't get the passengers until the railway is faster, and the railway isn't going to be faster until the demand is high enough.
Currently Amtrak is second priority on nearly all the tracks it uses. If a slow moving freight train needs to use a section of the track, it's the amtrack passenger train that gets to wait on a sidetrack until after the freight passes.
Then there's the whole culture of public transportation in the US. We simply prefer our cars. In urban areas where public transportation works, it does so becuase it becomes prohibitively expensive to own, park, and drive a car around town. In most large US cities people live outside the city they work in, and having a car is a necessity since they may be more than a few miles from stores, etc. Most of us don't want to live in a cramped expensive apartment in the same high rise where we work.
Since drives are so cheap, it can often make more sense to go with a mirrored array. The reason mirror is often nor done is because you have to invest in twice as many drives as your ultimate storage space, which historically has been expensive. This is really not a big issue for most people who want reliability.
If one drive fails in RAID 5 of 4 or more drives you're fine. If two drives fail you're hosed.
If one drive fails in a mirrored solution (given 4 or more drives) you're fine. If two drives fail you may still be fine depending on the drive. Statistically mirroring is more reliable. If you monitor the array in either case, or have a spare drive in the array waiting for another drive to fail then it's much less of an issue.
Further, the performance of mirroring is much better than 5.
The complexity of 5 is often hidden in the controller, but can rear its head in adverse ways at unfortunate times, usually when a weird failure occurs, or a drive fails partially.
RAID 5 is a compromise due to expensive storage devices. There are more appropiate (not to mention less complex and easier to deal with) RAID arrays that are more suitable to the cheap availability of storage these days.
Throughout my life, technology has seemed a way around my limitations, but recently, I have become aware that it may not be.
A man's reach should exceed his grasp. Technology is an extension of ourself to the degree that we use it to further our progress, individually and collectively.
Is technology the ultimate panacea or does it, as Hamlet suggest, only seem to be so?
Panacea: A remedy claimed to be curative of all problems or disorders; a cure-all.
Technology is not a panacea, nevermind the ultimate panacea. With every technological solution comes a broad range of new problems. Just as each drug has its side effects one has to weigh the gain against the loss.
However, if no one pursued the goal of making technology the "Ultimate Panacea" then we wouldn't be where we are today. Depending on your perspective this may be good or bad.
I have lived all of my life with a physical disability, and have recently been beset by the typical claims that I am too obsessed by computers etc. This raises an important philosophical question for me.
It would be convenient, I suppose, to have a nice answer to the "Technology is/is not the ultimate panacea" question. But my suspicion is that the answer won't actually give you anything other than a good response to claims that you are obsessed by computers.
If you are using technology to make progress toward goals you desire to achieve, then the technology is likely as good as the goals you have set for yourself.
Technology, however, can also be used as a crutch or screen to hide behind when real progress may be better made using alternate methods.
This goes towards a whole discussion on goals, comfort zones, and what progress really means. Something which I suspect you've covered before.
Consider a person involved in a car accident who has to choose whether to go through physical rehabilitation to regain use of their legs, or simply become expert at wheelchair use. There are those who choose to go the wheechair route. If one becomes enchanted by and involved in wheelchair sports, to the point of competing professionally in wheelchair sports then one's goals may be achieved through the use of one technology (wheelchair) as an alternative to another technology (rehabilitation) and they may indeed become more "able" than if they had chosen otherwise.
If others continue to worry about your increasing involvement in computers then consider that they may merely be desiring more of your attention. If you have already identified your goals and made plans to achieve them, then discuss these with the concerned individuals to allay their fears that you may be pulling away from them. Of course, if you are pulling away intentionally then you may not care to explain, but it should prevent them from bothering you if you find their concern irritating.
The U.S is clearly the leading consumer of HPC systems with 294 of the 500 systems installed there
And we'd bomb anyone who tried to pass us back into the stone age, since the only reason to have a computer this powerful is obviously for nuclear simulations.
Of course, we prefer to simply stay in the lead, but when all else fails trip the other racer.
Now, where is that incendiary protection suit - I get the impression I'll need it soon...
He probably thought of it as a way to increase efficiency and ultimately reduce our workload.
How incredibly wrong he was.
Is it just me or did you attribute a thought to someone else and then claim that they were wrong?
Wow. Were you simply not thinking, or do you do this all the time? I'm quite surprised. Perhaps you can demonstrate your technique by telling me what I'm thinking and how I'm so wrong about it.
"He did some glass-melting experiments, trying to pull thin fibers out of melts," recounts Day. "During the low-gravity portion of the plane's flight, when g was almost zero, the fibers came out with no trouble. But during the double-gravity portion of the plane's flight, the fiber that he was pulling totally crystallized."
Like, totally, dude.
I guess "that" generation finally made it to the real world.
The rate at which a kid aged 5 to 9 can spit out questions would amaze you. It's likely that the author had to deal with hundreds of questions, and we get the top 5%.
If the Mathmatica CEO can get called on Wednesday night the week before, asked to bring the source code to Apple, and turn around a native Intel program in two hours of changes, then your developers don't need a year advanced warning. Right?
Please note that the Mathematica code base is already machine independant, with a machine specific front end.
Chances are good that it will take FAR longer to port something that was only developed on and for the Mac, as opposed to the smaller percentage of programs which are available on both platforms.
The key difference here is scarcity. Unless the MP3 copyright holder can control distribution, the MP3 loses any value.
Decades ago the USA was one of the first nations to disconnect money from gold. US currency is now just as intangible as the MP3's bits, and is becoming moreso as transactions go electronic.
The value is due to the scarcity perpetuated by the control the Federal Reserve has over the creation of paper and coin currency, and further by the government "backing" the currency with a guarantee - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
It used to be that information was controlled simply by the fact that it was expensive to move it from place to place and process it. Now that information has become almost infinitely liquid, it has lost much of its value because it is no longer inherently difficult or expensive to deal with.
Just as currency no longer is backed by gold, information is no longer held back by cost.
This actually leads to stronger intellectual laws to provide the market with a crutch as we move forward. Obviously this will change over time, but if it were allowed to suddenly change too quickly the markets would suffer a minor collapse, instead of a slow fall that can be checked as people and businesses adjust.
The key difference here is that the MP3 is copied, not removed. The original owner didn't lose his copy of the file / song when the other person took it
The original owner and the purchasers did lose something, just not what some consider important.
A problem is that the sellers want to sell one copy to everyone, and remove any possibility of a secondary market. The buyers want to re-sell their property. This is being worked out by turning everything into a service, and the reason the market is going to a service economy is that the producers want it so badly. I suspect a middle ground will be found, but only after a consumer backlash/bubble.
I believe that's the practical half of your brain speaking.
My wife is very frugal and practical, which made the gift of the ring that much more special and romantic.
Perhaps you are the kind of person that either doesn't enjoy wearing fine jewelry, or it makes no emotional difference to you whether what you are wearing is real or fake, valuable, or cheap.
My (very) limited experience is that there is an emotional boost for women wearing jewelry that compliments them and highlights their attractiveness. There is a distinct difference, I've observed, in how a woman acts if she knows she's wearing exceptionally valuable jewelry compared to wearing pretty and attractive jewelry that is not costly.
Furthermore, gifted expensive jewelry can actually make some women more independant. I pay 2 months salary. Assuming the item keeps up with inflation, then she can sell it for perhaps 1 to 2 months worth of living expenses should she ever find the need to do so.
If you are looking for more resources for canadian diamonds, check out this Google Answers question, which is essentially the same as yours.
If you are serious about getting Debeers-free diamonds, well, good luck. Read up on them and you'll understand why, but know that those who claim to be selling you a non-DeBeers diamond may be selling you a story. However, most people are simply looking for (and willing to purchase) a story - a good feeling - so perhaps that's all you really need. There is no way you'll ever easily be sure the diamond you buy is real, artificial, fake, bloody, or monopoly controlled because you have to rely on other's expertise to assess these things.
Look, a large monitor is nice, but if you can't fit anything on it, why even try?
I'm certianly not buying a 19" monitor that only gets 1280x1024, nevermind two of them.
For that price you can nearly get an Apple 30".
What I'm holding out for is something that is large and has at least 100 pixels per inch for a middle monitor, then two smaller outboard monitors with the same pixel per inch rating. Ideally the middle monitor will have at least full 1080HD resolution (1920x1080 or larger).
I would really like Dell and others to take their high resolution laptop screens and put them in a desktop screen. The 17" 1920x1200 has 133 pixels per inch and I would like to use up my eyeballs as much as possible before they go bad...
Explains how Intel beat them to market, just do a cheap shortcut.
The article explains:
Although Intel was the first to launch its dual-core processor solution for desktop PCs, Richard commented that a real dual-core processor should be one that integrates two cores onto the same die.
Ah yes, that old trick.
1) Notice other company has beat you to market
2) Panic!
3) Define technology to exclude competitor's product
4) Indicate that you actually beat them to market with a "technically correct (according to our definition)" solution
There are two cores inside one chip package. Who cares whether they are on the same die?
Intel does, that's who. This increases output, since one bad core won't take out a whole chip. Further, the larger the single die, the more likely a problem will occur that ruins the chip.
Eventually it'll make economic and production sense to have them on one die.
Some may think of it as a "cheap trick", but the reality is that
1) The result is the same
2) They went to market first with a working dual-core processor.
AMD will have an easier time overall since their chips run cooler.
Slashdot Mirror
Please note that these are annual costs associated with each system.
If the hardware goes to hell it's so much easier to replace the single bad part than a mainframe.
The reason the mainframe costs so much per year is exactly this issue - first, if something breaks it likely cripples but does not disable the machine. Second, IBM fixes it within four hours or less.
Of course, they are still using IBM hardware, and the reason linux is so expensive (2.5M/Yr) is because they likely have the same type of contract with IBM to fix the Linux hardware. The CIO wouldn't have been able to sell the shareholders on such a system if they didn't have the same kind of hardware support.
-Adam
Actually, bad grammer and obvious mistakes are more like a polished, young, eager, well dressed interviewee coming into your office. They smile and you notice that they have an obvious mouth hygiene problem - very, very bad from many years of neglect.
The person may be fine for the job, and the ensuing conversation will hopefully show you what kind of person they are despite the horror that is their mouth.
The problem is that you'll find it very difficult to pay attention to the message because your brain keeps snagging on this out of place feature. Why would this person go to all this trouble to look nice when it's apparant that they spent all these years neglecting their teeth? It would have taken very little time and effort over the years to keep themselves completely presentable.
This detracts fromt the message. No matter how good the message is, most people feel a nagging in the back of their mind when they run across obviously bad grammer or spelling - it's like snagging a fingernail on a sweater as you brush your fingers across it, and you have to focus on the words instead of the sentences and ideas.
Further, it tells us that the speaker has little respect for the audience and no respect for his message.
It's not just a cultural issue. It's a communications issue. The speaker should put at least as much effort into the conveyance of the message as he would like the audience to consider the message.
Lastly, most english readers read a word at a time - the brain processes words, not letters. When a word is incorrectly spelled the brain pauses on it, and the thought process is interrupted.
-Adam
Chances are good it won't just be "Let's put coffe shops all over" but instead will be tragetted google ads base don your website content.
Have a website featuring bike trails? You'll have bike ads on the map - some may point to locations of bike shops, others to ice cream shops (biking and ice cream go hand in hand, for those who don't know)
A key to Google's strategy is to maximize advertising effectiveness by targetting the ads. This is one side effect to organizing the world's information - a powerful ability to discern user preferences by the page content and choosing ads wisely, while not getting in the way of the user.
-Adam
Primarily because that's how it's always been done.
Secondarily because even if you munge the flash there is usually a very tiny portion of the BIOS that is difficult to corrupt which holds the code to boot a floppy and execute simple code fromt the floppy - meaning you can screw up your bios and still fix it with a floppy.
It takes a lot of bios code to start a motherboard, but very little to start a floppy drive to the point where a flash can happen.
There's no reason why this couldn't be done on a bootable flash drive, cdrom, or other device as long as you don't mess up the bios during the flash.
-Adam
Mixing movie quotes is like pinning the tail on the horse after it has left the barn.
-Adam
See, that's why most people don't understand the game software industry.
You neglected to include the extra four weeks of overtime the employees "donate" to the project. This may seem like a lot, but it only means 6 eleven hour workdays a week, leaving 13 hours every day, and all day sunday, for the employees to have fun.
Quite frankly this is an average 'ideal' schedule, as advertised by the author in the article. Just ask EA.
-Adam
When they say "Cat ear shaped brakes" they are actually hinting at the Anime cat ear technology which includes super abilities when the train is in cat ear mode. See neko mimi modo.
-Adam
The distances are too large and the riders too few.
If Amtrak had more riders, or if the cities were closer together (ie, Detroit to chicago on a fast train would still be over 2 hours) then they would have reason to do fast trains.
Maintaining 300 miles of high speed rail is a very expensive proposition, and the volume just isn't there to support the price people are willing to pay.
It's also a catch-22 type problem. We won't get the passengers until the railway is faster, and the railway isn't going to be faster until the demand is high enough.
Currently Amtrak is second priority on nearly all the tracks it uses. If a slow moving freight train needs to use a section of the track, it's the amtrack passenger train that gets to wait on a sidetrack until after the freight passes.
Then there's the whole culture of public transportation in the US. We simply prefer our cars. In urban areas where public transportation works, it does so becuase it becomes prohibitively expensive to own, park, and drive a car around town. In most large US cities people live outside the city they work in, and having a car is a necessity since they may be more than a few miles from stores, etc. Most of us don't want to live in a cramped expensive apartment in the same high rise where we work.
-Adam
Since drives are so cheap, it can often make more sense to go with a mirrored array. The reason mirror is often nor done is because you have to invest in twice as many drives as your ultimate storage space, which historically has been expensive. This is really not a big issue for most people who want reliability.
If one drive fails in RAID 5 of 4 or more drives you're fine. If two drives fail you're hosed.
If one drive fails in a mirrored solution (given 4 or more drives) you're fine. If two drives fail you may still be fine depending on the drive. Statistically mirroring is more reliable. If you monitor the array in either case, or have a spare drive in the array waiting for another drive to fail then it's much less of an issue.
Further, the performance of mirroring is much better than 5.
The complexity of 5 is often hidden in the controller, but can rear its head in adverse ways at unfortunate times, usually when a weird failure occurs, or a drive fails partially.
-Adam
RAID 5 is a compromise due to expensive storage devices. There are more appropiate (not to mention less complex and easier to deal with) RAID arrays that are more suitable to the cheap availability of storage these days.
-Adam
Throughout my life, technology has seemed a way around my limitations, but recently, I have become aware that it may not be.
A man's reach should exceed his grasp. Technology is an extension of ourself to the degree that we use it to further our progress, individually and collectively.
Is technology the ultimate panacea or does it, as Hamlet suggest, only seem to be so?
Panacea: A remedy claimed to be curative of all problems or disorders; a cure-all.
Technology is not a panacea, nevermind the ultimate panacea. With every technological solution comes a broad range of new problems. Just as each drug has its side effects one has to weigh the gain against the loss.
However, if no one pursued the goal of making technology the "Ultimate Panacea" then we wouldn't be where we are today. Depending on your perspective this may be good or bad.
I have lived all of my life with a physical disability, and have recently been beset by the typical claims that I am too obsessed by computers etc. This raises an important philosophical question for me.
It would be convenient, I suppose, to have a nice answer to the "Technology is/is not the ultimate panacea" question. But my suspicion is that the answer won't actually give you anything other than a good response to claims that you are obsessed by computers.
If you are using technology to make progress toward goals you desire to achieve, then the technology is likely as good as the goals you have set for yourself.
Technology, however, can also be used as a crutch or screen to hide behind when real progress may be better made using alternate methods.
This goes towards a whole discussion on goals, comfort zones, and what progress really means. Something which I suspect you've covered before.
Consider a person involved in a car accident who has to choose whether to go through physical rehabilitation to regain use of their legs, or simply become expert at wheelchair use. There are those who choose to go the wheechair route. If one becomes enchanted by and involved in wheelchair sports, to the point of competing professionally in wheelchair sports then one's goals may be achieved through the use of one technology (wheelchair) as an alternative to another technology (rehabilitation) and they may indeed become more "able" than if they had chosen otherwise.
If others continue to worry about your increasing involvement in computers then consider that they may merely be desiring more of your attention. If you have already identified your goals and made plans to achieve them, then discuss these with the concerned individuals to allay their fears that you may be pulling away from them. Of course, if you are pulling away intentionally then you may not care to explain, but it should prevent them from bothering you if you find their concern irritating.
-Adam
The U.S is clearly the leading consumer of HPC systems with 294 of the 500 systems installed there
And we'd bomb anyone who tried to pass us back into the stone age, since the only reason to have a computer this powerful is obviously for nuclear simulations.
Of course, we prefer to simply stay in the lead, but when all else fails trip the other racer.
Now, where is that incendiary protection suit - I get the impression I'll need it soon...
-Adam
He probably thought of it as a way to increase efficiency and ultimately reduce our workload.
How incredibly wrong he was.
Is it just me or did you attribute a thought to someone else and then claim that they were wrong?
Wow. Were you simply not thinking, or do you do this all the time? I'm quite surprised. Perhaps you can demonstrate your technique by telling me what I'm thinking and how I'm so wrong about it.
-Adam
"He did some glass-melting experiments, trying to pull thin fibers out of melts," recounts Day. "During the low-gravity portion of the plane's flight, when g was almost zero, the fibers came out with no trouble. But during the double-gravity portion of the plane's flight, the fiber that he was pulling totally crystallized."
Like, totally, dude.
I guess "that" generation finally made it to the real world.
-Adam
Have you tried the latest patched version of apple? You might like it better. Besides, I've heard that orange is a dead project. YMMV.
-Adam
Nah, it's sheer volume.
The rate at which a kid aged 5 to 9 can spit out questions would amaze you. It's likely that the author had to deal with hundreds of questions, and we get the top 5%.
-Adam
If the Mathmatica CEO can get called on Wednesday night the week before, asked to bring the source code to Apple, and turn around a native Intel program in two hours of changes, then your developers don't need a year advanced warning. Right?
Please note that the Mathematica code base is already machine independant, with a machine specific front end.
Chances are good that it will take FAR longer to port something that was only developed on and for the Mac, as opposed to the smaller percentage of programs which are available on both platforms.
-Adam
The key difference here is scarcity. Unless the MP3 copyright holder can control distribution, the MP3 loses any value.
Decades ago the USA was one of the first nations to disconnect money from gold. US currency is now just as intangible as the MP3's bits, and is becoming moreso as transactions go electronic.
The value is due to the scarcity perpetuated by the control the Federal Reserve has over the creation of paper and coin currency, and further by the government "backing" the currency with a guarantee - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
It used to be that information was controlled simply by the fact that it was expensive to move it from place to place and process it. Now that information has become almost infinitely liquid, it has lost much of its value because it is no longer inherently difficult or expensive to deal with.
Just as currency no longer is backed by gold, information is no longer held back by cost.
This actually leads to stronger intellectual laws to provide the market with a crutch as we move forward. Obviously this will change over time, but if it were allowed to suddenly change too quickly the markets would suffer a minor collapse, instead of a slow fall that can be checked as people and businesses adjust.
The key difference here is that the MP3 is copied, not removed. The original owner didn't lose his copy of the file / song when the other person took it
The original owner and the purchasers did lose something, just not what some consider important.
A problem is that the sellers want to sell one copy to everyone, and remove any possibility of a secondary market. The buyers want to re-sell their property. This is being worked out by turning everything into a service, and the reason the market is going to a service economy is that the producers want it so badly. I suspect a middle ground will be found, but only after a consumer backlash/bubble.
-Adam
Beware the programmer that carries a screwdriver. Retreat quickly if they carry a soldering iron.
-Adam
I believe that's the practical half of your brain speaking.
My wife is very frugal and practical, which made the gift of the ring that much more special and romantic.
Perhaps you are the kind of person that either doesn't enjoy wearing fine jewelry, or it makes no emotional difference to you whether what you are wearing is real or fake, valuable, or cheap.
My (very) limited experience is that there is an emotional boost for women wearing jewelry that compliments them and highlights their attractiveness. There is a distinct difference, I've observed, in how a woman acts if she knows she's wearing exceptionally valuable jewelry compared to wearing pretty and attractive jewelry that is not costly.
Furthermore, gifted expensive jewelry can actually make some women more independant. I pay 2 months salary. Assuming the item keeps up with inflation, then she can sell it for perhaps 1 to 2 months worth of living expenses should she ever find the need to do so.
And lastly, there's always the Johnny Lingo effect.
-Adam
Canadian diamonds are controlled by DeBeers.
If you are looking for more resources for canadian diamonds, check out this Google Answers question, which is essentially the same as yours.
If you are serious about getting Debeers-free diamonds, well, good luck. Read up on them and you'll understand why, but know that those who claim to be selling you a non-DeBeers diamond may be selling you a story. However, most people are simply looking for (and willing to purchase) a story - a good feeling - so perhaps that's all you really need. There is no way you'll ever easily be sure the diamond you buy is real, artificial, fake, bloody, or monopoly controlled because you have to rely on other's expertise to assess these things.
-Adam
Wire wrap is usualy 30awg wire
30 awg wire is usually good to 2A of current.
I feel sad for the molten slag that represents thousands of hours of work. Poor thing.
-Adam
Look, a large monitor is nice, but if you can't fit anything on it, why even try?
I'm certianly not buying a 19" monitor that only gets 1280x1024, nevermind two of them.
For that price you can nearly get an Apple 30".
What I'm holding out for is something that is large and has at least 100 pixels per inch for a middle monitor, then two smaller outboard monitors with the same pixel per inch rating. Ideally the middle monitor will have at least full 1080HD resolution (1920x1080 or larger).
I would really like Dell and others to take their high resolution laptop screens and put them in a desktop screen. The 17" 1920x1200 has 133 pixels per inch and I would like to use up my eyeballs as much as possible before they go bad...
-Adam
Explains how Intel beat them to market, just do a cheap shortcut.
The article explains:
Although Intel was the first to launch its dual-core processor solution for desktop PCs, Richard commented that a real dual-core processor should be one that integrates two cores onto the same die.
Ah yes, that old trick.
1) Notice other company has beat you to market
2) Panic!
3) Define technology to exclude competitor's product
4) Indicate that you actually beat them to market with a "technically correct (according to our definition)" solution
There are two cores inside one chip package. Who cares whether they are on the same die?
Intel does, that's who. This increases output, since one bad core won't take out a whole chip. Further, the larger the single die, the more likely a problem will occur that ruins the chip.
Eventually it'll make economic and production sense to have them on one die.
Some may think of it as a "cheap trick", but the reality is that
1) The result is the same
2) They went to market first with a working dual-core processor.
AMD will have an easier time overall since their chips run cooler.
-Adam
Similar article (since the link is slashdotted) here.
-Adam