Try looking at commercial quality, clear-channel T1. $1800-3500/month.
And you think that cablemodem and DSL service is EXPENSIVE?
It's barely more than the cost of a second phone line and a decent dialup ISP! And you have the ability to pull down data at rates rivalling T1 throughput. For what? 1/30th to 1/60th the price?
As they said, less than 1% of the user base is accounting for over 30% of total traffic.
Now I'm not suggesting they go per-megabyte or anything. Far from it.
But if they divided the service into 3-4 pricing tiers, it might go a long way towards, if not relieving the bandwidth consumption issues, at least getting it on a basis where they're not losing money hand over fist. AND, it should allow them to have more accurate data on hand for future capacity planning.
And I don't mind paying a premium for premium service levels.
Shakespeare wrote in Modern English. What you're commenting on is, in part, prose, and in part "slang" contemporary to Old Will's day.
Now travel back a bit further to Chaucer (another English author). Now THAT is Old English. And pretty much NOBODY nowadays can read the original text without lessons in how to actually read it. While it IS English, it's a form of it that is so different as to nearly comprise a completely separate language.
What about the money you throw away everytime you have to lose a hard drive?
Are you saying nobody EVER loses a SCSI drive?
Additionally, WHAT "lose a hard drive"?
I have disks in some of my systems that are 7-8 years old. No bad sectors. No physical problems. Nada.
the difference between the newest IDE and the newest SCSI is far more then marginal. And God elp you if you want to access more than 2 devices at a time.
Hence things like IDE RAID. Not to mention IDE drives with larger caches.
compare a 3.9 ms SCSI drive to a 3.9ms IDE drive
Tell me you're really and truly going to miss 5 thousandths of a second. Especially on a drive with an 8MB cache.
And exactly how many $200 120GB SCSI drives can you find?
Sure, you can get 10K and 15K SCSI disks. But 15K drives pretty much top out at 36GB right now and 10K drives top out at 73GB. Not to mention they that the 15K 36GB and 10K 72GB start around $450.
Anything larger (181.6GB drives are "speeding" along at 5400rpm and cost about $1000 a pop.
Or are you going to tell me the cache of the SCSI disks is faster than the cache of the IDE disks?
The cosr isn't that much higher, and if there were a lot of mobos manufactured with SCSI, there would be no price difference.
For a decent SCSI adapter onboard? I kinda doubt that the cost difference wouldn't be significant, even with ubiquitous production. And the REAL cost difference isn't the controller itself. It's the DRIVES.
Look at the prices
While I acknowledge that SCSI IS the superior format here, I think you should at least acknowledge that IDE isn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.
For most of the uses that this board will be put to, IDE is more than adequate.
I wish motherboard manufacturers would stop integrating all this useless stuff.
So, because YOU don't use the stuff, manufacturers simply shouldn't produce ANY products built in this fashion? A bit self-centered there neh?
I don't want integrated sound, IDE RAID, or any of that other junk. I don't even particularly care for integrated IDE.
Plain and simple. BUY ANOTHER BOARD THEN!
I know it sounds like I'm trolling. I'm not trying to really be abrasive (well, not TOO much). But you've got to understand, that simply because you're not in the market for a product like this doesn't mean there isn't a market for it. Unfortunately, there's a MASSIVE market for this kind of thing.
Sure, I'd like a bare board with maximum PCI slots, an AGP slot, and pretty much NOTHING else as well. Then I COULD slap tons of SCSI equipment on there and not have to worry about it.
The problem there is that most of the Big Names in commodity-class motherboards don't see a big enough market for it.
160GB x 12 = 1920GB (1.920TB) (Due to HD reporting, it'll actually be about 1.788TB for real.)
Disk System Price: $2400
Options?
The 160GB disks are only 5400rpm and have 2MB cache. Drop to 120GB disks and you can get a 7200rpm disk with 8MB of cache.
Use the IDE RAID
SCSI
181.6 x 30 = 5448GB (5.448 TB) (Due to HD reporting, it'll actually be about 5.073TB for real.)
Disk System Price: $30,230 (With DC controller.)
Options?
The 181.6GB disks are 7200rpm (albeit with 16MB cache). You can drop to the 72/73GB disks and get 10K and 15K disks for half than HALF the price. Even though said drives will probably only mount half the cache, the average seek times will be approximately HALF that of the higher capacity drive.
Buy a DC SCSI >B>RAID controller instead of just a standard SCSI controller.
Basically, it all REALLY depends on what you want to do with the system. That and take a look at any of the recent comparisons between SCSI and IDE drives (especially the aforementioned 120GB WesDig JB drives).
YES, VIA may have the best performance for the Athlon platform right now.
And YES, the VIA chipset boards would be slightly cheaper than nForce boards with similar bells and whistles.
But nobody, and I mean NOBODY but the true DIY masochists WILLINGLY put up with a VIA chipset!
Their service history of the last few chipsets can't exactly be described as "rock solid" here.
k around the hardware message boards for a while. Look at the people who are having problems with their Athlon-based systems. The top three problems are:
User/Builder Error.
Dead component
Issues with a VIA chipset
Now don't get me wrong. Other chipsets have their own issues as well. But how many of the chipset makes have the high running tally of problems that VIA has had?
I, and many other builders, ESPECIALLY those building for other people's systems, would rather pay a little bit more, and settle for slightly lower performance than deal with a VIA product.
VIA simply needs to work on improving their track record for a while before any serious builders are comfortable with them again.
In the Marvel Universe, Adamantium isn't an element. It's an alloy. This is the same reason you don't see "steel" on a periodic table of elements IRL.
The only base component of adamantium that I know of is the comic book element known as Vibranium (basically it has the ability to absorb sound/vibration).
Two notable figures in the MU using Adamantium:
Captain America: His shield. Woverine: Short, Short, and Nasty's skeleton is coated in this.
you can't download ten gigs of bs in a month with a modem."
With a 28.8Kbps connection on full draw, you can pull down approximately 8.89 Gigabytes of transfer in a month.
With a 32Kbps connection you can pull down approximately 9.88 Gigabytes in a month.
With a 44Kbps connection, you can pull down approximately 13.59 Gigabytes in a month.
Yes, this isn't considering overhead and any upstream things you might want to do.
But if I have to worry about going over a cap, and paying a fee (which I can't really PLAN on), I'd rather stick to dialup (as much as it kills me to say that).
I'd much rather go to tiered service, with an "unlimited" tier in there somewhere. As I wouldn't have a problem dropping ~$100/month for a much higher bandwidth ration/unlimited ration.
If your OS's GUI does font anti-aliasing, crank the
resoloution up and then just increase the screen font size
(as the font antialiasing will look better at high
resoloution (and possibly be more readable) than a monitor
set to a lower resoloution just to keep the default
font looking big.
Look into larger LCD screens.
And here's my contributions.
If you decide to stick with a large CRT(usually a MUCH
cheaper (though heavier) choice than large LCD), DEFINITELY
look into the professional-grade monitors (most consumer-
grade monitors run their max resolutions at 60 Hertz, many
of the pro-grade ones will run higher resoloutions (at a
given screen size) than a consumer-grade will, and will do
max resolution at 70+ Hertz).
Lighting. The fluorescent lighting used in many places
is actually NOT ideal for computing areas. Reason, the
fluorescent lights flicker. Usually it's fairly
imperceptible. However, when combined with even a high
refresh rate on a monitor, it can contribute to significant
amounts of eye strain.
Stay with standard incandescent bulbs. In some places,
you can actually buy bulbs that are intended for use in
computing areas. Otherwise, stick with the standard soft-
white/readingbulbs.
Avoid the halogen bulbs, since they tend to be a bit
brighter than standard incandescent bulbs, and produce a
somewhat harsher light. They also run a bit hotter than
standard incandescent bulbs, and can pose a problem in
lamps/fixtures intended for standard incandescent.
Avoid those long-life or low-power "bulbs" that look like
tubes instead of the standard bulb shape. Those are merely
fluorescent lights.
TAKE REGULAR BREAKS AWAY FROM THE MONITOR/COMPUTER!
Now many people (especially us computer junkies) tend to
forget to occasionally get away from the thing for a little
while (MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSS!) to give your eyes a rest.
It doesn't need to be 2-hours on, one hour off or
anything stupid like that. But every couple hours, get up,
move around, and get your eyes off the screen for a little
while. Get a Coke, take a leak, have a smoke, etc. Or if
you're chained to your cubicle, turn the monitor off for
about 10-15 minutes and just look around.
Visit your optometrist. Ask about eyeglass/contact
prescriptions for your visual problems AND inquire about
eyeglasses that are made especially for those working with
computers (IIRC they use specially coated glass/plastic that
helps reduce glare and minimized eye strain.
Hope this helps you a little.
This post formatted especially to avoid being stretched off
the side of the page by morons deliberately trying to
break the formatting on Slashdot.
"Seems to me that the problem with the state is they have a problem with speeding that they can't control and they're not willing to let it be done privately," Brunswick said. "We're saving lives on the highway. The people complaining about it are the people who want to speed."
WHAT?
How is their draining someone's bank account going to deter someone from speeding? And what is it going to do if they speed anyhow and kill themselves or someone else?
So basically:
The dead man has an empty bank account.
Any possible victims or their families are deprived of real assets if they want to sue the driver.
The rental agency is getting between 3 and 10 times the cost of a days' car rental from a single instance of excessive speed.
They don't limit the fine to $150 for speeding. It's per sustained instance where the speed of the vehicle exceeds limits. (So if you go up to 90, drop back to 70, it's still one instance. But if you go up to 90, drop back to 55, then go up to 70, that's two instances.)
Imagine driving cross-country (Chicago to Vegas for instance). Assume 3 pit stops per day. And 6 appreciable speed changes that could take you above the speed limit.
On a 3 day trip, you could rack up as much $1500/day ($4500 total) in addition to the car rental fees!
For that kind of money you could fly out there round-trip, non-stop, FIRST CLASS, hire a limousine for the entire time, and stay in a 5 star hotel on the strip.
Not only that, you'd still have a couple grand in gambling money!
Also, I don't see how their profiting from speeders helps curb speeding in any way. It doesn't go to civil authorities to help put more cops out on the road. It doesn't go towards any awareness-type programs that inform people about the problems of speeding.
Well look at it this way. If you were pulling 56 kilobits/sec on a dialup, every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day for a month, you'd use approximately 18 Gigabytes of transfer. For a 1.5Mbit connection, that's just over 1 day at full draw.
Even for bulk pricing, this would cost about $18-22/month.
Now, people who do light surfing, and check e-mail on occasion are likely to NEVER bump into an 18 gig limit (some may not even get close to a 3 gig limit).
3 gigs of transfer is roughly equal to a 300,000 5-kilobyte e-mails (most never get this big) AND over 3000 500-kilobyte webpage, if split evenly.
Only those doing file-sharing, LOTS of IRC, heavy gaming, and pulling massive files are going to likely use more than that.
If I were a light user, a $20/USC plan with 3-4GB of transfer would be mighty appealing.
For a moderate user, a $30-40/USC plan for 18-20GB would be just as appealing.
And if I were a heavy user, a $50-60/USC plan for 40GB would be very nice. Especially if it came with a higher throughput.
And if I were a "bandwidth hog", I could see my way to paying $70-80/USC for 60-70GB/month, though a higher throughput would be necessary, and some form of "minimum bandwidth" agreement would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Try looking at commercial quality, clear-channel T1. $1800-3500/month.
And you think that cablemodem and DSL service is EXPENSIVE?
It's barely more than the cost of a second phone line and a decent dialup ISP! And you have the ability to pull down data at rates rivalling T1 throughput. For what? 1/30th to 1/60th the price?
As they said, less than 1% of the user base is accounting for over 30% of total traffic.
Now I'm not suggesting they go per-megabyte or anything. Far from it.
But if they divided the service into 3-4 pricing tiers, it might go a long way towards, if not relieving the bandwidth consumption issues, at least getting it on a basis where they're not losing money hand over fist. AND, it should allow them to have more accurate data on hand for future capacity planning.
And I don't mind paying a premium for premium service levels.
That the incumbent carrier, as they add new capacity, turns over the older and sub-optimal lines to the competitive carrier.
So yeah, you're getting cheap service. However, you're getting it through older, noisier lines.
At least that's SOP for Ameritech out here. And this info comes straight from my uncle the line-technicians.
Oh-Shit situations:
Acts of defiance in "Oh Shit" situation:
MUST I go on?
Shakespeare wrote in Modern English. What you're commenting on is, in part, prose, and in part "slang" contemporary to Old Will's day.
Now travel back a bit further to Chaucer (another English author). Now THAT is Old English. And pretty much NOBODY nowadays can read the original text without lessons in how to actually read it. While it IS English, it's a form of it that is so different as to nearly comprise a completely separate language.
I understand this.
What you missed is that the scripting engine is the one that begins executing JAVASCRIPTED LINKS.
Simple solution. TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT.
*Pause*
*DEEP BREATH!*
*SIGH!*
And people wonder why the hell I turn off Java and Javascript....
And it will until the dubious day that M$ gets its "shiznatz" straight.
But NOOO! It's SO much "cooler" to have a bunch of javascript crap in your page just to make it that much harder to browse!
Security my 3X wide, high-arched, hairy-toed, bunioned FOOT!
Sure. I'd simply have to replace all the disks in the IDE system twelve times over before I'd achieve the cost of the SCSI system.
Do the SCSI disks last 12x as long?
And what happens if none of the IDE disks break the bathtub curve (usually hardware fails either very early in it's lifetime or near the end of it)?
What about the money you throw away everytime you have to lose a hard drive?
Are you saying nobody EVER loses a SCSI drive?
Additionally, WHAT "lose a hard drive"?
I have disks in some of my systems that are 7-8 years old. No bad sectors. No physical problems. Nada.
the difference between the newest IDE and the newest SCSI is far more then marginal. And God elp you if you want to access more than 2 devices at a time.
Hence things like IDE RAID. Not to mention IDE drives with larger caches.
compare a 3.9 ms SCSI drive to a 3.9ms IDE drive
Tell me you're really and truly going to miss 5 thousandths of a second. Especially on a drive with an 8MB cache.
And exactly how many $200 120GB SCSI drives can you find?
Sure, you can get 10K and 15K SCSI disks. But 15K drives pretty much top out at 36GB right now and 10K drives top out at 73GB. Not to mention they that the 15K 36GB and 10K 72GB start around $450.
Anything larger (181.6GB drives are "speeding" along at 5400rpm and cost about $1000 a pop.
Or are you going to tell me the cache of the SCSI disks is faster than the cache of the IDE disks?
The cosr isn't that much higher, and if there were a lot of mobos manufactured with SCSI, there would be no price difference.
For a decent SCSI adapter onboard? I kinda doubt that the cost difference wouldn't be significant, even with ubiquitous production. And the REAL cost difference isn't the controller itself. It's the DRIVES. Look at the prices
While I acknowledge that SCSI IS the superior format here, I think you should at least acknowledge that IDE isn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.
For most of the uses that this board will be put to, IDE is more than adequate.
I wish motherboard manufacturers would stop integrating all this useless stuff.
So, because YOU don't use the stuff, manufacturers simply shouldn't produce ANY products built in this fashion? A bit self-centered there neh?
I don't want integrated sound, IDE RAID, or any of that other junk. I don't even particularly care for integrated IDE.
Plain and simple. BUY ANOTHER BOARD THEN!
I know it sounds like I'm trolling. I'm not trying to really be abrasive (well, not TOO much). But you've got to understand, that simply because you're not in the market for a product like this doesn't mean there isn't a market for it. Unfortunately, there's a MASSIVE market for this kind of thing.
Sure, I'd like a bare board with maximum PCI slots, an AGP slot, and pretty much NOTHING else as well. Then I COULD slap tons of SCSI equipment on there and not have to worry about it.
The problem there is that most of the Big Names in commodity-class motherboards don't see a big enough market for it.
IDE
160GB x 12 = 1920GB (1.920TB) (Due to HD reporting, it'll actually be about 1.788TB for real.)
Disk System Price: $2400
Options?
SCSI
181.6 x 30 = 5448GB (5.448 TB) (Due to HD reporting, it'll actually be about 5.073TB for real.)
Disk System Price: $30,230 (With DC controller.)
Options?
Basically, it all REALLY depends on what you want to do with the system. That and take a look at any of the recent comparisons between SCSI and IDE drives (especially the aforementioned 120GB WesDig JB drives).
YES, VIA may have the best performance for the Athlon platform right now.
And YES, the VIA chipset boards would be slightly cheaper than nForce boards with similar bells and whistles.
But nobody, and I mean NOBODY but the true DIY masochists WILLINGLY put up with a VIA chipset!
Their service history of the last few chipsets can't exactly be described as "rock solid" here.
k around the hardware message boards for a while. Look at the people who are having problems with their Athlon-based systems. The top three problems are:
Now don't get me wrong. Other chipsets have their own issues as well. But how many of the chipset makes have the high running tally of problems that VIA has had?
I, and many other builders, ESPECIALLY those building for other people's systems, would rather pay a little bit more, and settle for slightly lower performance than deal with a VIA product.
VIA simply needs to work on improving their track record for a while before any serious builders are comfortable with them again.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on ME!
In the Marvel Universe, Adamantium isn't an element. It's an alloy. This is the same reason you don't see "steel" on a periodic table of elements IRL.
The only base component of adamantium that I know of is the comic book element known as Vibranium (basically it has the ability to absorb sound/vibration).
Two notable figures in the MU using Adamantium:
Captain America: His shield.
Woverine: Short, Short, and Nasty's skeleton is coated in this.
With a 28.8Kbps connection on full draw, you can pull down approximately 8.89 Gigabytes of transfer in a month.
With a 32Kbps connection you can pull down approximately 9.88 Gigabytes in a month.
With a 44Kbps connection, you can pull down approximately 13.59 Gigabytes in a month.
Yes, this isn't considering overhead and any upstream things you might want to do.
But if I have to worry about going over a cap, and paying a fee (which I can't really PLAN on), I'd rather stick to dialup (as much as it kills me to say that).
I'd much rather go to tiered service, with an "unlimited" tier in there somewhere. As I wouldn't have a problem dropping ~$100/month for a much higher bandwidth ration/unlimited ration.
With cable, you only need the box for the so-called premium channels.
Some people buy one box and put it on their main tv just to watch movie and PPV channels.
With the rest of them, they just plug the cable right into the coax port on the back of the tv and watch all the standard channels.
Most people have said it already.
resoloution up and then just increase the screen font size
(as the font antialiasing will look better at high
resoloution (and possibly be more readable) than a monitor
set to a lower resoloution just to keep the default
font looking big.
And here's my contributions.
cheaper (though heavier) choice than large LCD), DEFINITELY
look into the professional-grade monitors (most consumer-
grade monitors run their max resolutions at 60 Hertz, many
of the pro-grade ones will run higher resoloutions (at a
given screen size) than a consumer-grade will, and will do
max resolution at 70+ Hertz).
is actually NOT ideal for computing areas. Reason, the
fluorescent lights flicker. Usually it's fairly
imperceptible. However, when combined with even a high
refresh rate on a monitor, it can contribute to significant
amounts of eye strain.
Stay with standard incandescent bulbs. In some places,
you can actually buy bulbs that are intended for use in
computing areas. Otherwise, stick with the standard soft-
white/readingbulbs.
Avoid the halogen bulbs, since they tend to be a bit
brighter than standard incandescent bulbs, and produce a
somewhat harsher light. They also run a bit hotter than
standard incandescent bulbs, and can pose a problem in
lamps/fixtures intended for standard incandescent.
Avoid those long-life or low-power "bulbs" that look like
tubes instead of the standard bulb shape. Those are merely
fluorescent lights.
Now many people (especially us computer junkies) tend to
forget to occasionally get away from the thing for a little
while (MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSS!) to give your eyes a rest.
It doesn't need to be 2-hours on, one hour off or
anything stupid like that. But every couple hours, get up,
move around, and get your eyes off the screen for a little
while. Get a Coke, take a leak, have a smoke, etc. Or if
you're chained to your cubicle, turn the monitor off for
about 10-15 minutes and just look around.
prescriptions for your visual problems AND inquire about
eyeglasses that are made especially for those working with
computers (IIRC they use specially coated glass/plastic that
helps reduce glare and minimized eye strain.
Hope this helps you a little.
This post formatted especially to avoid being stretched off
the side of the page by morons deliberately trying to
break the formatting on Slashdot.
Go into a store. Look at the shelf devoted to Mac software.
Then go look at the shelves devoted to PC software.
As to the more expensive....that's merely an exercise in sophistry from both points of view.
Windows supporters will argue the price based on the cheapest OEM version they can find.
Mac supporters will try to set limits, as you have, to exclude OEM versions from consideration.
All it speaks to is the fact that Apple one way of obtaining their software and Microsoft has multiple ways.
Since when does the existence of the GPL and software licensed underneath it threaten anyone's attempts to commercialize software?
You merely cannot hijack someone else's software and commercialize it.
How many times did he have to slam his head off a brick wall to come up with THIS pointless rant?
It's quite GOOD entertainment for all of us who've been damning RAMBUS as the Anti-Christ of litigation-happy companies for the past few years now.
And now we fiddle whilst RAMBUS burns.
Yes. All the rage with disgraced businessmen in Japan, cordless bungee jumping has become the "in" thing at RAMBUS.
In other news, bookmakers have opened wagers on what augers in first at RAMBUS. Their business leaders, their lawyers, or their stock prices.
WHAT?
How is their draining someone's bank account going to deter someone from speeding? And what is it going to do if they speed anyhow and kill themselves or someone else?
So basically:
They don't limit the fine to $150 for speeding. It's per sustained instance where the speed of the vehicle exceeds limits. (So if you go up to 90, drop back to 70, it's still one instance. But if you go up to 90, drop back to 55, then go up to 70, that's two instances.)
Imagine driving cross-country (Chicago to Vegas for instance). Assume 3 pit stops per day. And 6 appreciable speed changes that could take you above the speed limit.
On a 3 day trip, you could rack up as much $1500/day ($4500 total) in addition to the car rental fees!
For that kind of money you could fly out there round-trip, non-stop, FIRST CLASS, hire a limousine for the entire time, and stay in a 5 star hotel on the strip.
Not only that, you'd still have a couple grand in gambling money!
Also, I don't see how their profiting from speeders helps curb speeding in any way. It doesn't go to civil authorities to help put more cops out on the road. It doesn't go towards any awareness-type programs that inform people about the problems of speeding.
The money simply goes into the company's coffers.
Only if you assume that those using Mac spend ZERO time tinkering with their own beasties.
Note: I didn't say that Futurama wasn't as good as The Simpsons.
I merely said that every Groening series can't necessarily duplicate The Simpsons success. No matter how good it is.
Thanks for reacting instead of actually responding.
Well. I guess Groening can't have every series mirror 'The Simpsons'.
Well look at it this way. If you were pulling 56 kilobits/sec on a dialup, every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day for a month, you'd use approximately 18 Gigabytes of transfer. For a 1.5Mbit connection, that's just over 1 day at full draw.
Even for bulk pricing, this would cost about $18-22/month.
Now, people who do light surfing, and check e-mail on occasion are likely to NEVER bump into an 18 gig limit (some may not even get close to a 3 gig limit).
3 gigs of transfer is roughly equal to a 300,000 5-kilobyte e-mails (most never get this big) AND over 3000 500-kilobyte webpage, if split evenly.
Only those doing file-sharing, LOTS of IRC, heavy gaming, and pulling massive files are going to likely use more than that.
If I were a light user, a $20/USC plan with 3-4GB of transfer would be mighty appealing.
For a moderate user, a $30-40/USC plan for 18-20GB would be just as appealing.
And if I were a heavy user, a $50-60/USC plan for 40GB would be very nice. Especially if it came with a higher throughput.
And if I were a "bandwidth hog", I could see my way to paying $70-80/USC for 60-70GB/month, though a higher throughput would be necessary, and some form of "minimum bandwidth" agreement would be nice.
Well. They could pull an iPlanet and eviscerate the project through heavy-handed management.
OR
They could do something like they've done with Nullsoft and the Mozilla projects and take a more hands-off approach.
RH's R&D projects might receive better funding than they can currently manage.
Then AOL would be able to step in and cull some of the free software releases into name-brand products the way they do with Mozilla/Netscape.
AOL
Americans
Operating
Linux?