Partly, IIRC, because they did a trick where although the 68xxx app itself ran emulated, when it made a call into the MacOS toolbox, that ran as native PPC.
Ie effectively they could link emulated apps against native libraries.
No because that assumes that both CPUs can do the same amount of work in one clock cycle -- which is not true.
Whilst it seems inevitable that the Itanium will not be able to emulate the Pentium IV at full speed in the short (and probably mid) term, ther is absolutely no reason to assume that an 800MHz Itanium emulation of a Pentium IV can't beat the performace of a 800MHz Pentium IV with a well-written emulator.
Because the Itanium has the potential to do more work in one clock cycle.
Attempting to compare different architecures of CPU MHz for MHz has always been and always will be meaningless.
You overestimate the brilliance of compiler writers.
Possibly, but the reverse mistake has been made in the past.
In the early days of superscalar chips, the general consensus was that it would take years to build compilers that would do the instruction scheduling well enough to even approach the potential of the new RISC chips such as PA-RISC and RS/6000.
Sun bet a whole lot on this in terms of the first SuperSPARC chips -- and pretty much lost.
The whole point of the SuperSPARC architecture was to make things easy for the compiler writers -- it was designed about being as flexible as possible in terms of combining instuctions, and did a limited form of instruction reordering on the fly -- which noone else bothered with in those days.
Net result -- by the time their more complex chip reached market, the compiler writers at HP and IBM had solved the instuction scheduling problem and in that year the SuperSPARC had lost the lead it was supposed to have had.
It's a really hard call to make, and not one you'd want to make, unless you're a betting man (or woman).
And how much has JVC sunk into D-VHS in recent years?
This one really is JVC versus everyone else (with everyone else backing recordable DVD). Except that everyone else is each backing a different standard for recordable DVD.
Regional coding aside, pretty much all players handle this one way or another, for the simple reason that there isn't really such a thing as a PAL DVD or an NTSC DVD. They're all just MPEG-2 DVDs.
The only difference is the frame rate (25fps/50i v 29.97fps/59.94i). And the same MPEG-2 chipset normally handles both rates. The PAL/NTSC terminology is just an invention because the companies involved (rightly) believe that these (incorrect) terms will be more familliar to consumers than the frame rate specifications.
The main issue is whether your TV can sync to the other frame rate (most European TV's can sync to the North American rate; the converse is less generally true).
Why would someone go out and buy a new video tape player (and let's not say VCR, do you think they'd be recordable;-)
Yes, D-VHS decks are recordable. And they can also record and playback S-VHS, as well as VHS. And no doubt SVHS-ET, since it's JVC pushing the technology.
I don't think it's going to go mainstream for pre-recorded stuff (except possibly HDTV), but I think it's very promising as a recordable media.
The main advantage over the myriad of recordable DVD wannabees (appart from the fact that the recordable DVD standards war is putting everyone off) is the high capacity of D-VHS.
HDTV is one application of that high capacity, sure, but the important one is being able to record several hours of TV on one tape.
No-one cares that they have to change DVD's to watch the next movie, but you want to be able to record more than that while you're out....
I *want* D-VHS to succeed. Mainly for selfish reasons: I want D-VHS deck prices to come down to a price I can afford:)
-roy
Re:What happens when Tuvalu no longer exists...?
on
VeriSign Buys .tv
·
· Score: 1
I don't know ICANN policy on this, but I would hope that no country code will ever be withdrawn. After all, historical data (and data about history) would continue to make use of these codes.
Country codes are withdrawn from ISO 3166-1 when a country no longer exists as such, or even (at the request of the country) when a country changes name.
There is a separate system (ISO 3166-3) of 4-letter 'codes for formerly used country names'.
What happens when Tuvalu no longer exists...?
on
VeriSign Buys .tv
·
· Score: 3, Funny
When the country of Tuvalu finally sinks under the sea (which may happen in 50 years, maybe sooner), I hope that ICANN doesn't bow to pressure to let the domain continue after the ISO3166 country code is withdrawn...
I'm rather taken aback that the British parliament recently launched a web site at www.parliamentlive.tv. The home page just says 'live webcasting of parliament' without even mentioning which parliament they broadcast.
I think it would be reasonable to assume that they must be broadcasting the parliament of Tuvalu...:)
I sometimes wonder whether most of the s'kiddies don't realize the magnitude of the harm they do...
They're so isolated from the consequences. OK, this one made the headlines, but most of the time they'll just set their scripts running, and never really know what damage they've caused...
I kind of have to believe that, because I can't bring myself to believe that many of them do this kind of thing knowingly...
If a company is advertising [...] in a banner ad on a web page I like [...] they're starting out with an even trade. A little support for my interests in exchange for a little bit of my attention.
Well said. And shame on those who favour software that blocks banner ads, and expect their favourite web sites to provide them a service without any revenue
Journaling file systems have extra runtime overhead. If your system is disk bound, you lose more time on journaling while the system is up than you would over the rare fsck
On most Unix systems metadata journaling is likely to improve performance, because it eliminates synchronous metadata writes.
Linux is a bit of an exception, because ext2 doesn't do synchronous metadata writes anyway...
This is a difficult area, and I didn't want to get into this much detail, since it's somewhat off-topic -- though the Cancer Buster screensaver seems to be one of the most popular distibuter computing projects after SETI, so it does have some relevence to the discussion.
It's not at all clear to me that this project will reduce animal experimentation.
Most of the compounds tried by the screensaver would never have been tested on animals, perhaps because they didn't seem plausible enough candidates, or simply due to lack of resources.
In any case, it's a personal decision. I generally choose not to contribute to vivisectional research, and that decision hopefully reduces animal experimentation to some small extent. Others can choose to do otherwise (within the extent of the law, current and future).
In terms of toxicity tests, there is actually very little evidence for a good correlation between mouse/rat and human drug toxicity. There are many drugs that were non-toxic in rats and/or mice, but proved toxic in humans -- so who knows how any valuable drugs that were non-toxic to humans were rejected because of their rodent toxicity?
Far too little effort (and funding) goes to research into reducing and/or eliminating the need for vivisectional experimentation. Techniques using human tissue cultures very probably have the potential to replace a significant proportion of animal experiments and to give more accurate results as well.
I'd suggest that those in the UK interested in this area look at two charities that fund research that aims to ultimately replace vivisection.
Dr Hadwen Trust -- They are the dark green end, and all their research is strictly non-vivisectional
FRAME -- A somewhat lighter green organization that shares the same ultimate goal of the elimination of animal experimentaton, but sees the short to medium term means to that end as improving the animal techniques to reduce the number of animals that are harmed unnecessarily.
I believe that both approaches complement each other.
There are probably similar organizations in the US and elsewhere, but I have no references. (Both the above organizations have a links section on their website. FRAME's links page is particularly unusual in that it lists links both pro and contra vivisection, and lets the reader decide. The Dr Hadwen Trust also has a links page here)
-roy
And with all these people who claim to have seen UFO's and had encounters,
you'd think if SETI@HOME can't detect Alien life in our own back yard,
what makes'em think they can find it in someones elses back yerd?
Seti@Home may be the largest scale search for extra-teristrial inteligence currently in progress, but it's still prety limited.
The NASA SETI project would have been the first (and only) really serious attempt to see if there is any evidence of someone out there, but NASA's funding for the project was axed shortly after it started.
The fact that we've never found anything out there proves nothing. We've never seriously looked.
Curing cancer would be "close" enough I guess... MUCH closer than little green men, at any rate.
Maybe some of us aren't prepared to contribute to work that is essentially just prescreening drug candidates that will then be used in animal experimentation.
Perhaps the screensaver should give an estimate of the number of animals you have killed so far -- they must have an idea of the rate at which they expect to find suitable candidates, and the number of animals that will die in the initial investigation of a typical candidate drug (99% of which will turn out to be useless) is known, so this would be easy to calculate.
Perhaps the screensaver should feature a special animation every time you've killed a whole animal...:-/
Disclaimer: This is my own opinion based on my limited knowledge of the Intel/Oxford Cancer-Busting Project. It is based partly on assumption based on the contents of the website (which makes no mention of the research being non-vivisectional) but mainly on a question and answer that appeared in the website's user forum, in which a member of the Oxford team, responded to the concerns of one potential user by stating (to the best of my recollection) that any technique that allows drug candidates to be prescreened by computer will reduce the level of animal experimentation. I take this as fairly convincing evidence that the project is expected to include a vivisectional phase once suitable candidate drugs have been selected.
If someone from the project wishes to correct me, I would be only too willing to retract the above remarks (in part or in whole, as appropriate) as well as to support the project by running the screensaver if the research project is completely non-vivisectional.
Slashdot Mirror
Even for Intel, a single bad product cycle could spell doom.
:)
At least enough doom for Intel to allow the prospect of serious competition...
Partly, IIRC, because they did a trick where although the 68xxx app itself ran emulated, when it made a call into the MacOS toolbox, that ran as native PPC.
Ie effectively they could link emulated apps against native libraries.
No because that assumes that both CPUs can do the same amount of work in one clock cycle -- which is not true.
Whilst it seems inevitable that the Itanium will not be able to emulate the Pentium IV at full speed in the short (and probably mid) term, ther is absolutely no reason to assume that an 800MHz Itanium emulation of a Pentium IV can't beat the performace of a 800MHz Pentium IV with a well-written emulator.
Because the Itanium has the potential to do more work in one clock cycle.
Attempting to compare different architecures of CPU MHz for MHz has always been and always will be meaningless.
Possibly, but the reverse mistake has been made in the past.
In the early days of superscalar chips, the general consensus was that it would take years to build compilers that would do the instruction scheduling well enough to even approach the potential of the new RISC chips such as PA-RISC and RS/6000.
Sun bet a whole lot on this in terms of the first SuperSPARC chips -- and pretty much lost.
The whole point of the SuperSPARC architecture was to make things easy for the compiler writers -- it was designed about being as flexible as possible in terms of combining instuctions, and did a limited form of instruction reordering on the fly -- which noone else bothered with in those days.
Net result -- by the time their more complex chip reached market, the compiler writers at HP and IBM had solved the instuction scheduling problem and in that year the SuperSPARC had lost the lead it was supposed to have had.
It's a really hard call to make, and not one you'd want to make, unless you're a betting man (or woman).
Oh wait, if it can be described in a patent application then it can be described by means of words and diagrams alone.
Oh dear, those are representable by means of digital media. Therefore they shouldn't be patentable.
Methinks it is your argument that is specious.
Hey, they used to be. Look at all those old cathedrals that were built long before anyone knew how to analyze structures.
They just learnt from what stayed up...
And how much has JVC sunk into D-VHS in recent years?
This one really is JVC versus everyone else (with everyone else backing recordable DVD). Except that everyone else is each backing a different standard for recordable DVD.
Regional coding aside, pretty much all players handle this one way or another, for the simple reason that there isn't really such a thing as a PAL DVD or an NTSC DVD. They're all just MPEG-2 DVDs.
The only difference is the frame rate (25fps/50i v 29.97fps/59.94i). And the same MPEG-2 chipset normally handles both rates. The PAL/NTSC terminology is just an invention because the companies involved (rightly) believe that these (incorrect) terms will be more familliar to consumers than the frame rate specifications.
The main issue is whether your TV can sync to the other frame rate (most European TV's can sync to the North American rate; the converse is less generally true).
I'm pretty sure that the JVC D-VHS decks have a pretty neat library system.
You get random access, you just don't get lightning fast random access. I can live with that.
-roy
Glad to see someone pushing D-VHS.
:)
I don't think it's going to go mainstream for pre-recorded stuff (except possibly HDTV), but I think it's very promising as a recordable media.
The main advantage over the myriad of recordable DVD wannabees (appart from the fact that the recordable DVD standards war is putting everyone off) is the high capacity of D-VHS.
HDTV is one application of that high capacity, sure, but the important one is being able to record several hours of TV on one tape.
No-one cares that they have to change DVD's to watch the next movie, but you want to be able to record more than that while you're out....
I *want* D-VHS to succeed. Mainly for selfish reasons: I want D-VHS deck prices to come down to a price I can afford
-roy
Country codes are withdrawn from ISO 3166-1 when a country no longer exists as such, or even (at the request of the country) when a country changes name.
There is a separate system (ISO 3166-3) of 4-letter 'codes for formerly used country names'.
When the country of Tuvalu finally sinks under the sea (which may happen in 50 years, maybe sooner), I hope that ICANN doesn't bow to pressure to let the domain continue after the ISO3166 country code is withdrawn...
:)
I'm rather taken aback that the British parliament recently launched a web site at www.parliamentlive.tv. The home page just says 'live webcasting of parliament' without even mentioning which parliament they broadcast.
I think it would be reasonable to assume that they must be broadcasting the parliament of Tuvalu...
(Un?)fortunately, giving out an address like that would be illegal here in Europe.
-roy
Hey, you mean 169.254.0.0/16 (IPv4 stateless autoconfiguration addresses)
169.127.0.0/16 looks like part of a legitimate netblock to me...
-roy
I sometimes wonder whether most of the s'kiddies don't realize the magnitude of the harm they do...
They're so isolated from the consequences. OK, this one made the headlines, but most of the time they'll just set their scripts running, and never really know what damage they've caused...
I kind of have to believe that, because I can't bring myself to believe that many of them do this kind of thing knowingly...
The RIAA sets CD prices? Do you mean that? Wouldn't that be a violation of anti-trust law?
I'm pretty sure OpenSSH now has SSH v2 host-based authentication (it's always had SSH v1.5 host-based authentication).
On most Unix systems metadata journaling is likely to improve performance, because it eliminates synchronous metadata writes.
Linux is a bit of an exception, because ext2 doesn't do synchronous metadata writes anyway...
SETI@Home can only process frequencies that are recorded in the original data.
As I understand it the HP data recorder will allow them to digitize a wider frequency band.
But Stanford is always observing you data.
:)
So run SETI@Home to make sure your computer always exists
It's not at all clear to me that this project will reduce animal experimentation.
Most of the compounds tried by the screensaver would never have been tested on animals, perhaps because they didn't seem plausible enough candidates, or simply due to lack of resources.
In any case, it's a personal decision. I generally choose not to contribute to vivisectional research, and that decision hopefully reduces animal experimentation to some small extent. Others can choose to do otherwise (within the extent of the law, current and future).
In terms of toxicity tests, there is actually very little evidence for a good correlation between mouse/rat and human drug toxicity. There are many drugs that were non-toxic in rats and/or mice, but proved toxic in humans -- so who knows how any valuable drugs that were non-toxic to humans were rejected because of their rodent toxicity?
Far too little effort (and funding) goes to research into reducing and/or eliminating the need for vivisectional experimentation. Techniques using human tissue cultures very probably have the potential to replace a significant proportion of animal experiments and to give more accurate results as well.
I'd suggest that those in the UK interested in this area look at two charities that fund research that aims to ultimately replace vivisection.
I believe that both approaches complement each other.
There are probably similar organizations in the US and elsewhere, but I have no references. (Both the above organizations have a links section on their website. FRAME's links page is particularly unusual in that it lists links both pro and contra vivisection, and lets the reader decide. The Dr Hadwen Trust also has a links page here) -roy
Seti@Home may be the largest scale search for extra-teristrial inteligence currently in progress, but it's still prety limited.
The NASA SETI project would have been the first (and only) really serious attempt to see if there is any evidence of someone out there, but NASA's funding for the project was axed shortly after it started.
The fact that we've never found anything out there proves nothing. We've never seriously looked.
Maybe some of us aren't prepared to contribute to work that is essentially just prescreening drug candidates that will then be used in animal experimentation.
Perhaps the screensaver should give an estimate of the number of animals you have killed so far -- they must have an idea of the rate at which they expect to find suitable candidates, and the number of animals that will die in the initial investigation of a typical candidate drug (99% of which will turn out to be useless) is known, so this would be easy to calculate.
Perhaps the screensaver should feature a special animation every time you've killed a whole animal... :-/
Disclaimer: This is my own opinion based on my limited knowledge of the Intel/Oxford Cancer-Busting Project. It is based partly on assumption based on the contents of the website (which makes no mention of the research being non-vivisectional) but mainly on a question and answer that appeared in the website's user forum, in which a member of the Oxford team, responded to the concerns of one potential user by stating (to the best of my recollection) that any technique that allows drug candidates to be prescreened by computer will reduce the level of animal experimentation. I take this as fairly convincing evidence that the project is expected to include a vivisectional phase once suitable candidate drugs have been selected.
If someone from the project wishes to correct me, I would be only too willing to retract the above remarks (in part or in whole, as appropriate) as well as to support the project by running the screensaver if the research project is completely non-vivisectional.