I've thought about getting a MacMini to play around with OSX. I've also thought about getting one to play with LinuxPPC. The problem is that I already do everything I want, efficiently and well, with my Linux and Windows boxes. I don't really have any need to get a Mac of any kind and it won't let me do something I don't already do (or can't program if I can only find it on OSX).
The other main issue about the MacMini is processor speed. My slowest laptop is measurably 2X as fast crunching data as the PowerBooks and still 50% faster or more than the MacMini. Switching to a MacMini means I'll take 50% or longer to do the amount of work I do now and that doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.
Nice machine (the MacMini) for some folks but not nearly enough of a machine for many of us. I know some folks don't like to hear it but I can put together a comparable Athlon64 machine for $600 (that's the MacMini + the memory upgrade to 512M that is pretty much required to actually use the thing) that would be 2X or more faster at getting my work done. It just doesn't make sense for me to get one other than as a toy.
Style doesn't make my compiles faster. Style doesn't make my programs provide solutions faster. It doesn't do anything as far as my computing goes. If I think my box looks ugly for some reason, I'll put it under a desk or down the hall in a closet.
If "style" improves your computing experience, just think that some TypeR stickers will do for your car!
Unfortunately, console games, to me anyway, are hollow. Every once in a while, a game will come along like HALO that will be interesting enough for me to play to completion but only because I play it with friends cooperatively. Other than HALO, I haven't finished a single console game since... well... ever.
PCs tend to have much better games. Even the FPS games that come out on consoles and PCs are much better on the PCs because they are faster, have much better graphics, and even in the case of simultaneous console releases, have more storyline and replayability.
Console games just typically suck and are boring after an hour of play. Even FPS on PCs get boring to me after playing them for a few hours and that's even with the better graphics, easy online play, and everything else.
Before you go on about it, I have all the latest consoles... XBox, PS2, and GameCube. I haven't played a single game on them that was worth playing for a week. The only ones I've seen that are 'useful' are the DDR and Kareoke games we use to babysit kids when all of us get together to play PC games and someone brings their kids over.
This is/has been said every year for over a decade and it hasn't happened yet (much like LOTD!);)
It will happen when consoles become more general purpose. That's why there are still two markets. Lots of people want to just play games and lots of people want to play games and 'do stuff' and lots of people want to just 'do stuff'. That's why there are a *lot* of folks like me who have both game consoles and PCs. I tend to use my PC about 99.999% of the time and my console rarely ever even gets turned on. Only when a blockbuster game comes out that isn't also for the PC do I turn it on even, then, because most console games are, well, console games, they hold my attention for a couple weeks then it gets turned off again for a few months.
Until a machine comes out that is like a console (set top box) that can do 'everything' well, we'll continue to have both consoles and PCs. Consoles have a long way to go before they can do 'everything' well.
Well... people have said this same thing for at least a decade (I remember talking about exactly this in the very early 1990s). The console has always been poised to "take over the home" but hasn't yet. It's still a little to special purpose and lacking of standard input options (yes, you can get keyboards for them but how many people actually have them?) Top that with pretty low quality graphics for most people (how many people do you know with HDTVs?), little/no local storage, and the lack of a real general purpose OS (anyone plugged a USB printer into a console yet?) and no other apps (when can I run OpenOffice on the PS2 - not Linux on the PS2 - on the PS2) for the most part. As you said... development on embedded systems is a bit harder than on an OS with things like virtual memory.
PCs are making strides to get down to the sub-$200 home computers (where the console market lives). That's because many families will/can purchase a $200 machine (console) but can't afford a more expensive computer.
To contrast your HL2 and Halo2 numbers, go look up how many copies WoW, EQ, and EQ2 have sold. Also, instead of looking at the blockbusters, look at some of the lesser games. Crappy console games sell about the same as crappy PC games.
Anyway, consoles will be at a point to 'take over the home' when they become more general purpose. So far, there haven't been many attempts (especially successful attempts) to make them more general purpose (yet).
Nah... it's a bonding thing. Either will work for him but to make him feel more comfortable and fit into the family, the dad is being nice and is going to get him to do something for him. By praising his work that he did for his gf's grandmother, it'll bolster his self-confidence around the family.
There's 100s of variations on it. Invite your son's girlfriend to help out in the kitchen because she made some "delicious" cookies some time in the past. Get your daughter's boyfriend to help out in the garage with something to help him feel like he's fitting in, etc.
Well... I had to stop reading the Linux/OSX propaganda document when I read things like:
You can't restrict applications to only one user account.
and basically the complaint that Excel isn't bundled with Windows but the other distributions of Linux/OSX have OpenOffice or something bundled with it that can read an Excel document. Microsoft always gets blasted for *bundling* apps (ooo...ooo... the beeg eval monopoly!) -and at the same time- blasted for not bundling apps (ooo...ooo... basic functionality left out!).
That "report" is nothing more than propaganda to further someone's agenda. It's garbage.
Most people don't know what quantum computing is and/or what it's good for. There are some things that quantum computing won't do very well at all. It isn't the end-all/be-all of computing like some folks think.
Well... with a marketing campaign of "Focusing on Security", every security hole/bug found in it will be just that much more embarassing for them. It was that way with IE for a while with their security releases but it's happened to much that we've all become desensitized to it.
Well... I remember when the first mice came out with the scroll wheel on it. I remember thinking that this was really stupid. These days, I can't live without the dang thing.
I'm so used to right-clicking on everything these days, I dunno what I would do with a single button mouse other than be massively frustrated.
Haven't seen many benchmarks? Cinebench shows my other laptop (1.4GHz Banias) is flat 2X as fast across the board than a 1.25GHz PowerBook. The Dothan Celeron-M has the same L2 as the Banias and has the improvements of the Dothan core. So, unless the Mac mini is 2X as fast as a PowerBook, the Dell 600m is faster.
Netscape was bundled with some computers from certain large corporations. I used Netscrape on Suns for a long time (the only thing available) and I hated it. I couldn't use it for over 5 minutes without it coredumping on me *ever*. It was so bad that I usually used a PC sitting nearby to do any research that really needed web access while I did the rest of my work on the Suns.
As far as I'm concerned, Netscrape died because it was a piece of junk and no one would use it willingly.
It might have even been cheaper for Microsoft. Otherwise, they would have had to have two different pieces of software, one to browse the 'net and another to browse everything else on the machine (file manager and such). They moved to one thing that did them both.
YOu could fill out a requisition, wait for it to be approved, wait for it to be ordered, wait for it to arrive and then install it and use it. OR you could download open office and start using it today!
Not in any competant IT organization I've ever been in or seen. Users shouldn't be downloading and installing anything.
If by "scrambling to just get 64-bit" means "been working on it for a number of years, even before the Opterons were released, under the name Yamhill, and said they didn't want to release it until Windows64 was available in released form", then yes, I guess you'd be right.
The other thing that folks seem to forget is that since: 1. Nobody has made an auto-parallelizing compiler yet that works very well because it is *hard*. Compilers are out there that will use programmer directives and hints to parallelize sections of code, but this still requires a bit of work for the programmer to know what to parallelize. 2. Most programmers either don't know how to, or haven't written parallel code. It isn't trivial. 3. Most programmers either don't know how to, or haven't written code for resource constrained systems. It isn't trivial. 4. The Cell is the cross between parallel programming and parallel programming on resource constrained systems. 5. The guy that wrote that "explanation" seems to think that the OS somehow automagically knows what can be parallelized and such and that compilers will automagically produce the "right stuff" to make it all work.
The PS2 is a similar architecture and it took quite a while for programmers who are arguably experts in the field to get the performance out of it that is even close to the theoretical peaks. To do that, they've had to do a lot of "bare metal" type programming as well (gotta know your details).
When the PS2 came out, it was going to "take over the world" and was called a "supercomputer". I haven't seen its CPU in anything other than the PS2.
For similar resource constrained architectures, you can look to the DSPs that are out there. The description of all the vector units looks like SHARCs to some degree.
In the end, this isn't "revolutionary" hardware but it will rely on revolutionary software to achieve what they are promising.
The other novel thing about this architecture is that already, the vast majority of programmers have no clue about parallel processing OR resource constrained programming and the Cell, to get anything good done, is nothing but parallel processing in a resource constrained environment.
Slashdot Mirror
I've thought about getting a MacMini to play around with OSX. I've also thought about getting one to play with LinuxPPC. The problem is that I already do everything I want, efficiently and well, with my Linux and Windows boxes. I don't really have any need to get a Mac of any kind and it won't let me do something I don't already do (or can't program if I can only find it on OSX).
The other main issue about the MacMini is processor speed. My slowest laptop is measurably 2X as fast crunching data as the PowerBooks and still 50% faster or more than the MacMini. Switching to a MacMini means I'll take 50% or longer to do the amount of work I do now and that doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.
Nice machine (the MacMini) for some folks but not nearly enough of a machine for many of us. I know some folks don't like to hear it but I can put together a comparable Athlon64 machine for $600 (that's the MacMini + the memory upgrade to 512M that is pretty much required to actually use the thing) that would be 2X or more faster at getting my work done. It just doesn't make sense for me to get one other than as a toy.
Style doesn't make my compiles faster. Style doesn't make my programs provide solutions faster. It doesn't do anything as far as my computing goes. If I think my box looks ugly for some reason, I'll put it under a desk or down the hall in a closet.
If "style" improves your computing experience, just think that some TypeR stickers will do for your car!
Unfortunately, console games, to me anyway, are hollow. Every once in a while, a game will come along like HALO that will be interesting enough for me to play to completion but only because I play it with friends cooperatively. Other than HALO, I haven't finished a single console game since... well... ever.
PCs tend to have much better games. Even the FPS games that come out on consoles and PCs are much better on the PCs because they are faster, have much better graphics, and even in the case of simultaneous console releases, have more storyline and replayability.
Console games just typically suck and are boring after an hour of play. Even FPS on PCs get boring to me after playing them for a few hours and that's even with the better graphics, easy online play, and everything else.
Before you go on about it, I have all the latest consoles... XBox, PS2, and GameCube. I haven't played a single game on them that was worth playing for a week. The only ones I've seen that are 'useful' are the DDR and Kareoke games we use to babysit kids when all of us get together to play PC games and someone brings their kids over.
This is/has been said every year for over a decade and it hasn't happened yet (much like LOTD!) ;)
It will happen when consoles become more general purpose. That's why there are still two markets. Lots of people want to just play games and lots of people want to play games and 'do stuff' and lots of people want to just 'do stuff'. That's why there are a *lot* of folks like me who have both game consoles and PCs. I tend to use my PC about 99.999% of the time and my console rarely ever even gets turned on. Only when a blockbuster game comes out that isn't also for the PC do I turn it on even, then, because most console games are, well, console games, they hold my attention for a couple weeks then it gets turned off again for a few months.
Until a machine comes out that is like a console (set top box) that can do 'everything' well, we'll continue to have both consoles and PCs. Consoles have a long way to go before they can do 'everything' well.
Well... people have said this same thing for at least a decade (I remember talking about exactly this in the very early 1990s). The console has always been poised to "take over the home" but hasn't yet. It's still a little to special purpose and lacking of standard input options (yes, you can get keyboards for them but how many people actually have them?) Top that with pretty low quality graphics for most people (how many people do you know with HDTVs?), little/no local storage, and the lack of a real general purpose OS (anyone plugged a USB printer into a console yet?) and no other apps (when can I run OpenOffice on the PS2 - not Linux on the PS2 - on the PS2) for the most part. As you said... development on embedded systems is a bit harder than on an OS with things like virtual memory.
PCs are making strides to get down to the sub-$200 home computers (where the console market lives). That's because many families will/can purchase a $200 machine (console) but can't afford a more expensive computer.
To contrast your HL2 and Halo2 numbers, go look up how many copies WoW, EQ, and EQ2 have sold. Also, instead of looking at the blockbusters, look at some of the lesser games. Crappy console games sell about the same as crappy PC games.
Anyway, consoles will be at a point to 'take over the home' when they become more general purpose. So far, there haven't been many attempts (especially successful attempts) to make them more general purpose (yet).
Dance Dance Revolution
My condolences.
It couldn't possibly be that Gnome has a superior UI to Windows XP oh no...
100% Subjective statement. Personally, I don't like Gnome and think Windows XP's UI is better.
Nah... it's a bonding thing. Either will work for him but to make him feel more comfortable and fit into the family, the dad is being nice and is going to get him to do something for him. By praising his work that he did for his gf's grandmother, it'll bolster his self-confidence around the family.
There's 100s of variations on it. Invite your son's girlfriend to help out in the kitchen because she made some "delicious" cookies some time in the past. Get your daughter's boyfriend to help out in the garage with something to help him feel like he's fitting in, etc.
Well... I had to stop reading the Linux/OSX propaganda document when I read things like:
You can't restrict applications to only one user account.
and basically the complaint that Excel isn't bundled with Windows but the other distributions of Linux/OSX have OpenOffice or something bundled with it that can read an Excel document. Microsoft always gets blasted for *bundling* apps (ooo...ooo... the beeg eval monopoly!) -and at the same time- blasted for not bundling apps (ooo...ooo... basic functionality left out!).
That "report" is nothing more than propaganda to further someone's agenda. It's garbage.
Most people don't know what quantum computing is and/or what it's good for. There are some things that quantum computing won't do very well at all. It isn't the end-all/be-all of computing like some folks think.
Well... with a marketing campaign of "Focusing on Security", every security hole/bug found in it will be just that much more embarassing for them. It was that way with IE for a while with their security releases but it's happened to much that we've all become desensitized to it.
There's a term you might want to become familiar with: "vocal minority"
Yup, I like SuSE as well. I use it on both x86 and AMD64 machines.
are probably nothing more than variations of the $ sign... =)
Well... I remember when the first mice came out with the scroll wheel on it. I remember thinking that this was really stupid. These days, I can't live without the dang thing.
I'm so used to right-clicking on everything these days, I dunno what I would do with a single button mouse other than be massively frustrated.
HEY, MAC FOLK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE MOTHER SHIP TELLS YOU! THINK DIFFERENTly! THINK FOR YOURSELVES!
Heh... and I thought the whole shtick about Macs was "thinking outside of the box". Really, it's "think inside the box that steve built". =)
Haven't seen many benchmarks? Cinebench shows my other laptop (1.4GHz Banias) is flat 2X as fast across the board than a 1.25GHz PowerBook. The Dothan Celeron-M has the same L2 as the Banias and has the improvements of the Dothan core. So, unless the Mac mini is 2X as fast as a PowerBook, the Dell 600m is faster.
For $100 more I can get a nice Dell laptop that is much faster. In fact, I did... Dell 600m Celeron-M 1.3GHz.
Looks like a perfect match for the Fisher-Price Windows XP default GUI scheme...
Netscape was bundled with some computers from certain large corporations. I used Netscrape on Suns for a long time (the only thing available) and I hated it. I couldn't use it for over 5 minutes without it coredumping on me *ever*. It was so bad that I usually used a PC sitting nearby to do any research that really needed web access while I did the rest of my work on the Suns.
As far as I'm concerned, Netscrape died because it was a piece of junk and no one would use it willingly.
It might have even been cheaper for Microsoft. Otherwise, they would have had to have two different pieces of software, one to browse the 'net and another to browse everything else on the machine (file manager and such). They moved to one thing that did them both.
Supports which 64-bit architecture? Last time I looked, Linux supports both as does Windows (both x86-64/EM64T and EPIC/Itanium).
YOu could fill out a requisition, wait for it to be approved, wait for it to be ordered, wait for it to arrive and then install it and use it. OR you could download open office and start using it today!
Not in any competant IT organization I've ever been in or seen. Users shouldn't be downloading and installing anything.
If by "scrambling to just get 64-bit" means "been working on it for a number of years, even before the Opterons were released, under the name Yamhill, and said they didn't want to release it until Windows64 was available in released form", then yes, I guess you'd be right.
The other thing that folks seem to forget is that since:
1. Nobody has made an auto-parallelizing compiler yet that works very well because it is *hard*. Compilers are out there that will use programmer directives and hints to parallelize sections of code, but this still requires a bit of work for the programmer to know what to parallelize.
2. Most programmers either don't know how to, or haven't written parallel code. It isn't trivial.
3. Most programmers either don't know how to, or haven't written code for resource constrained systems. It isn't trivial.
4. The Cell is the cross between parallel programming and parallel programming on resource constrained systems.
5. The guy that wrote that "explanation" seems to think that the OS somehow automagically knows what can be parallelized and such and that compilers will automagically produce the "right stuff" to make it all work.
The PS2 is a similar architecture and it took quite a while for programmers who are arguably experts in the field to get the performance out of it that is even close to the theoretical peaks. To do that, they've had to do a lot of "bare metal" type programming as well (gotta know your details).
When the PS2 came out, it was going to "take over the world" and was called a "supercomputer". I haven't seen its CPU in anything other than the PS2.
For similar resource constrained architectures, you can look to the DSPs that are out there. The description of all the vector units looks like SHARCs to some degree.
In the end, this isn't "revolutionary" hardware but it will rely on revolutionary software to achieve what they are promising.
The other novel thing about this architecture is that already, the vast majority of programmers have no clue about parallel processing OR resource constrained programming and the Cell, to get anything good done, is nothing but parallel processing in a resource constrained environment.