Nothing else but a known fact. Compiling is where PPC can't produce good results. Heavy math? Completely different logic. Any CPU arch has its strong and its bad points. Compiling, JIT, CIL are the weak points of PPC, just as heavy math is the weak point of PC
Wow, that sounds just as Apple would be one of the main driving force behind gcc. No, they just made few extensions THEY needed, nothing more. GCC could exist and progress without Apple any day.
But on PC....? PC seriously lacks registers in 32-bit mode (face it Yonah is 32-bit so it suffers here, PPC had enough of those in any mode). And you can access those only running 64-bit OS when running 64-bit app inside. Believe me, I thought as you before, until real life tests proven me otherwise.
The power Macs but could never justify the price/performance ratio. Now I can ith the new Intel chips. A Unix based OS with a great GUI running on fast Intel hardware makes me a convert. I develop Java apps for a living so it really makes no difference to me as to what OS I use for development.
I was already wanting to say you don't know much about fast. But,... then the sad truth pops out. You develop Java applications. Yes, Java is faster on Intel. It can't be optimized for PPC and runs against PPC rules. I even agree, in any CIL or JIT world you're far better with Intel/AMD.
Hardcoded software (one example is Photoshop, where all Mac fans are proud) can be optimized for PPC, and this is why PPC can often leave any PC in the dust.
I think a lot of average consumers will be more willing to buy a mac with an Intel chip because it's about brand recognition. The more unfamiliar technology there is, the less people are going to want to learn it. If they recognize something, they might be more inclined to take a second look.
I call that BS
1. People could run Windows on their Macs before. Why didn't they jumped on that bandwagon? MS did make NT for PPC. Project failed. 2. OSX might be attractive to some, but still less attractive than cheap to average consumer. 3. Wine won't really help to run Windows software, I was hoping for that option for a long time and lost my interest nothing else. Wine just leaps behind MS, nothing else. Always some compatibility problems. 4. People will still hate to dualboot or run OS in a window. They could all run Linux, Windows, FreeBSD for a long time now if they would want it 5. OSX will still be just another world than Windows 6. Coders will still write Windows only software. Especially if they know you can install Windows on your Mac. They'll just inform you, that you have to install Windows. Meaning Apple computer will be just more expensive for Windows retail 7. Put another OS on same arch, it is still unfamiliar technology. Put same OS on two different architectures, it suddenly becomes familiar technology.
and I was responding to someone that was asking why Apple didn't just "leapfrog" Intel and go AMD. My point was, that Yonah currently beats any Turion out there, so it wouldn't be a 'leapfrog", and we're talking about MacOS X on Yonah, not Windows.
Woooow, my bad. I must've overlooked that post. Either was rated to low, i missed it or it got crossreferenced with the wrong post in another tab by accident.
If that was the question, you're right as much as 120%. I was relating it to other post, zealoting how Intel now rules and Apple Duo CPU is the best Duo ever, iMac rules and beats any PC CPU for the next decade.
Now to add on the real question: Second reason (why Intel and not AMD;) is that Intel is a win-win situation, AMD is a win-loose. In case Apple does not succed with computers because of that move, they know for sure Intel (which looses ground against AMD and this would be a very good PR stunt) would buy them. AMD wouldn't do that, not enough money and no interests.
Again, my sincere apologies on missing the parent post. Mea culpa:)
On the other hand I still think benchmarks you posted are valid for Windows and OSX users only as I said (if not else whole SW is 32-bit). In fact in my first post I was mentioning 64-bit environments only and how some of us aren't forced to use 32, which mekes benchmarks you posted rigged in Intels favour for us. But maybe it would help if you would point out the parent post sooner, since I was completely OT.
Seems you missed whole point of my comments. Some of us don't need to cripple Turion or Opteron to use it. For people like me your benchmarks are near to irrelevant. They are just singleminded benchmarks which come very valid for Windows users, nothing else. As I pointed out in my first posts. Some of us don't need to cripple our computer to use software we need. And if you don't superior can become something completely else. Correct benchmark would be some OSS tools (benchmarks, whatever), run on Win-32 or OSX-Duo and same OSS tools run on Linux-AMD64.
As far as I know, Turion isn't dual core.
Yes, it is not. I tried to point out that few times already to you. It just confirms my saying that Duo is far from being superior tech as Apple would like you to believe it is. On one side you're perfectly allright with crippling AMD, in fact you actualy enforce crippling AMD while keeping as optimistic as possible benchmarks for Duo.
You might be implying that Turion single core would beat out Yonah single core, but that's really beside the point.
As I said, I'm willing to wait dualcore. I won't buy Apple. I even said I would prefer current Turion over Duo for the 64-bit sake.
Apple has to ship a product, and can't wait around for AMD to catch up.
No, not really. These tasks are typically handled by SSE instructions, which haven't change between 32 and 64 bits. Large integer operations are far less common.
But still depending on the number of registers when more complex math is involved.
386 kernels are still VERY common. I just installed Kubuntu 5.10 and it defaulted to a 386 kernel, for instance.
I can't even remember when I saw last one.
You seem to completley misunderstand. I said nothing about how MUCH memory or disk space. I was talking about memory bandwidth, and the amount of throughput. When you double the data without doubling your throughput, you lose performance. Now, granted, the AMD's integrated memory controller really reduces memory latency, but currently that's limited to DDR400. Intel systems can run at DDR2-667 speeds (though Yonah is significantly below that right now, being 32 bit).
Fact is that you're more guessing by the papers than relying on actual tests
p.s. Just to rub it in once more. Singlecore, dualcore? Low diff?
I should have been a bit clearer. Yes, if you're doing large math, like PKI encryption/decryption, then you're going to see very good results with 64 bit, but that's not a common task for most people.
Image manipulation, video, audio, archiving... all rely on large math. Or do you find nowadays computers not being responsive in notepad? So, yes it is common. Look at standards, cheap cameras now ship with 8MPixels. It is not really conservative. DV cameras, cheap scanner scanning high resolutions, cheap printers with higher resolution. Face it, multimedia needs grow in drastic steps. More and more relying on heavy math because no op can still be simple, it is just geting larger and more intensive
I really doubt you would see that great an improvement in responsiveness between 32 and 64 bit, unless the 32 bit version were optimized for 386 rather than 686 (which is pretty common). If you're going to benchmark, you should at least make sure you're using a kernel that's optimized for the 32 bit version of the CPU you're using.
There are two kernels amd and amd64 optimized. You can't find i386 kernel practicaly in any distro. So, yes after seeing that diff I become almost religious 64-bit user. I don't go to museum. And gain is more than noticeable, yes. It is realy enjoyable.
Tests I pointed you were done on Windows. What are Windows 32-bit optimized for? If you say i386 than you are just discrediting any benchmark until now where Intel and AMD64 were tested because in that case 64-bit were always severly crippled.
This difference is not common for PPC arch. PPC already had enough regs from before 64-bit.
One reason I doubt the improvement is that you also have a tradeoff of nearly doubling your memory load. 64 bit pointers are all twice as large, and ints will be 64 bit by default, which will mean the average unit of storage is also double.
Very, very bad arguments. It almost seems like you lost all your sane arguments
1. Memory is cheap. Very cheap. And you only need to double (or better percentage gets higher with segmentation) it when data is segmented, meaning 100% data consisting of only pointers or ints. Images, videos, audio, (any larger format), etc are not segmented, mostly few block allocations, which means pointer is 64-bit (taking whole sum of 8 bytes instead of 4), data inside memory can be 8,16...-bit. RGB values when opening picture are the same size in 32 and 64 bit system 2. Hard disks are cheap. Even cheaper than RAM. Again does not count for any standard format like audio, video... If it would count, you couldn't load for example mp3 made on 64-bit when using 32-bit arch. It only counts for some internal formats where you wrote int to output file, but those are very rare. 3. You forgot dualcore, singlecore diff:) Now that is not really fair of me:) 4. In measuring performance, factor of your hope does not count;)
64 bit doesn't improve perfomance by that much, certainly not the 25% or so that Yonah has over the Turion.
Personally, I can't say about 25% in 64 over 32, but I can say very, very, very noticeable (from a bit slugish desktop to completely snappy as never before). Didn't do benchmarks, just accidently installed 32-bit version, figured that out in about one hour. Reinstalled 64-bit, forgot benchmarks. Next time I plan to do that without accident and actualy run benchmarks.
Here is a benchmark on Windows though (OS 32-bit against 64-bit on the same architecture, didn't found any test on Linux) http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1 665&page=1 While 64-bit lagged on few (streams only, and that doesn't account for 20% of tests) it was sometimes even more than 3x faster on others. So, registers do mean a LOT.
Sad, but true. Yonah is dualcore, Turion in test was singlecore. Turion dualcore is yet to come out in few months. I pointed out that too. And said it is worth to wait. But I never said that Turion (that one used in tests) is faster than duo. This is why I prefer Turion over duo (price/performance and the fact I run 64-bit Linux, duo is 32-bit).
Dualcore over Singlecore having performance gain of less than 25% (now here I'm counting 64, 32 bit diff)? SAD. And Turion dualcore comming out in first six months of 2006:) Guess which one I'm buying. Name definietly won't start with I... or be named after a fruit
Actually, the new Yonah processor is significantly faster than the Turion. Check out these benchmarks:
Actualy, test done were 32-bit. AMD has 8 extra 64-bit registers usable only when running 64-bit mode (which makes them unusable to 32-bit appliaction in 64-bit environment too). Performance gain is more than significant. At the same time power consumption should be lower because of shorter powering up of CPU (valid only for real life use (shorter time of workload, longer time of idle), this should not be valid for benchmarks since benchmarks do tend to stress cpu to get results).
I know there's no difference for Windows users. But, some of us do run 64-bit environment. So it will be probably Turion dualcore for as soon after it comes out. I would prefer even Turion over Duo. But since it is just few months until dualcore...
btw. Vista will be 64-bit. Duo won't support that. But in case 32-bit release will pop out too, I'm wrong
Wow, being so proud as you are I bet you refuse to drive by a car (or train). With your mentality, how it is possible that US is still making cars? Be terrile and write your congresman how US needs to invent their own way of transportation, this one was invented by dirty Europeans. Oh, yes. Be proud and use your OWN national language (without imitating English, Spanish, French, Chinese, Italian) when you're writing that letter.
Read what US inventor did. Patented and never implemented, basicaly he just took two ideas (steam car and gasoline engine), put them together and result is NOTHING.
It is almost impossible to get a license to carry a gun in NYC. So, obviously it must be perfectly safe to go anywhere there in the city since no one is allowed to carry guns.
With so much criminal there? I guess criminals don't respect the law:)
Your dick must be impressive. If someone came at me with a gun or a knife, my dick wouldn't protect me.
Yes, it is and I don't need a gun in our coutry even the least.
I don't live in a world of fear. I know that I won't be helpless if someone with a knife/gun comes at me. I have confidence in my ability to protect myself. Most of the time I forget to bring a gun with me. I probably won't ever need it, but you never know what can happen...
Sad, you even think about someone approaching you with a gun/knife to you. In all my life I don't know one case where it happened to anyone I know.
And, before you think I'm just another cowboy, pulling that gun would be a last resort. Even if I'm legally in the right, my lawyer bills would bankrupt me. But it is better to be bankrupt than dead.
Yes, but only when judging by standards in our country, you are a cowboy. Except two hunters and one policeman I don't know anyone with a gun.
I don't avoid roads, I even ride a motorcycle. When I'm in a car, however, I protect myself by wearing a seatbelt and on a motorcycle I wear a helmet. I probably won't ever need it, but you never know what can happen...
[sarcasm] Woow, that is soooo sophisticated, now if only the rest of the world would start doing it. [/sarcasm]
What are you going to do when Iran or NK nukes somebody? Blame the US for not acting? You'll probably say that it was the fault of our military.
In my opinion, the only country that could get nuked by some other country is US. And US poses more danger to rest than any other country. At least in last years of your sticking nose where it doesn't belong.
So, basicaly, I should blame US citizens? All 270 million of them?
Result is the same. As you said, US citizens voted for war. Which led to "Colateral damage" excuse? People died, you know. Way too many to be served afterwards with such pathetic excuses.
In my opinion US should resolve that internaly (or not, as it seems after last elections where Bush won). Rest of the world should just step aside and wait. The only problem I see here is that some US people actualy think it was good cause for messing out with other countries.
Actualy even your own piece of Earth was stolen from Indians and gained trough blood and war. You don't have your own language. And you don't even have typical features to be defineable.
God I love those american movies where they say someone has "scandinavian features", "african" etc. In every part of the world people have some generic features to be recogniseable.
What about US features, how could we for example describe typical US citizen? Two legs, not blue, two eyes forming various angles, does not quack but speaks some random language?
we avoid the crime-ridden inner cities where most gun-crimes occur. And if we do go there, we can defend ourselves; we haven't been made impotent by our government and are not defenseless.
20-and-some million people disagrees with you and it doesn't avoid New York, hell, they live there.
Do you really feel impotent witout a gun? In the rest of the world we have dicks, we don't need guns to avoid feeling impotent.
And you can believe me. If people don't have a gun, you don't need it either. Problem starts when people own a gun, not before. Actualy, psychologicaly the one with a gun is sooner to be scared than one without (but the other side is armed too as you pointed out), which often causes sensles shooting. Hey, that sounds like US description.
Take car as some kind of natural selection. There are accidents in US too, or do you avoid roads as well as NY.
So you basicaly say that it is ok if US has GPS, but not ok if China has. Yep, fair and square.
Funny, non-US people mostly don't agree with that. If you have enemies there's probably a good reason for that. But still, it is funny to listen to you how whole world is your enemy. Just why? Does anybody know?
Military grade GPS hardware is accurate to within a few centimeters as well.
Is that the reason why so many missiles and bombs missed in latest wars? US military has become quite accustomed with their one and only pathetic "Colateral damage" excuse.
These things will be core-to-core much faster than the G4 Powerbooks
But not as G5. G5 is available now as notebook CPU if I remember correctly. But it is true it was out after Apple announced move to Intel.
in addition to the battery life.
Yeah, compared to another Intel:) Don't you know that PB lasted twice on battery as Intel? PB 5.5 hours, my centrino 3 hours?
I don't see how you figure it will be an overall loss
Obviously you're die hard Apple fan. Do you think it is coincidence that more and more PC users turn to AMD? As former die hard Intel fan I can surely see and understand parents post. Since then Opteron is my choice.
Not very much prolonged battery life. Not very much of speedup.
I'm still waiting for some Cell based laptop. Otherwise it is Turion for me. These numbers were just too much dissapointing (after all that performance-per-watt crap from Intel) to even think about laptop with this hardware. And yes, primary choice for me is 64-bit Linux, so yes, I'm biased.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing else but a known fact. Compiling is where PPC can't produce good results. Heavy math? Completely different logic. Any CPU arch has its strong and its bad points. Compiling, JIT, CIL are the weak points of PPC, just as heavy math is the weak point of PC
GCC 4 to be exact. They helped make it.
Wow, that sounds just as Apple would be one of the main driving force behind gcc. No, they just made few extensions THEY needed, nothing more. GCC could exist and progress without Apple any day.
Not on PC platfom. On PPC it probably is.
But on PC....? PC seriously lacks registers in 32-bit mode (face it Yonah is 32-bit so it suffers here, PPC had enough of those in any mode). And you can access those only running 64-bit OS when running 64-bit app inside. Believe me, I thought as you before, until real life tests proven me otherwise.
Just as expected. All Mac zealots will now become Bambi followers:)
The power Macs but could never justify the price/performance ratio. Now I can ith the new Intel chips. A Unix based OS with a great GUI running on fast Intel hardware makes me a convert. I develop Java apps for a living so it really makes no difference to me as to what OS I use for development.
I was already wanting to say you don't know much about fast. But,... then the sad truth pops out. You develop Java applications. Yes, Java is faster on Intel. It can't be optimized for PPC and runs against PPC rules. I even agree, in any CIL or JIT world you're far better with Intel/AMD.
Hardcoded software (one example is Photoshop, where all Mac fans are proud) can be optimized for PPC, and this is why PPC can often leave any PC in the dust.
I think a lot of average consumers will be more willing to buy a mac with an Intel chip because it's about brand recognition. The more unfamiliar technology there is, the less people are going to want to learn it. If they recognize something, they might be more inclined to take a second look.
I call that BS
1. People could run Windows on their Macs before. Why didn't they jumped on that bandwagon? MS did make NT for PPC. Project failed.
2. OSX might be attractive to some, but still less attractive than cheap to average consumer.
3. Wine won't really help to run Windows software, I was hoping for that option for a long time and lost my interest nothing else. Wine just leaps behind MS, nothing else. Always some compatibility problems.
4. People will still hate to dualboot or run OS in a window. They could all run Linux, Windows, FreeBSD for a long time now if they would want it
5. OSX will still be just another world than Windows
6. Coders will still write Windows only software. Especially if they know you can install Windows on your Mac. They'll just inform you, that you have to install Windows. Meaning Apple computer will be just more expensive for Windows retail
7. Put another OS on same arch, it is still unfamiliar technology. Put same OS on two different architectures, it suddenly becomes familiar technology.
and I was responding to someone that was asking why Apple didn't just "leapfrog" Intel and go AMD. My point was, that Yonah currently beats any Turion out there, so it wouldn't be a 'leapfrog", and we're talking about MacOS X on Yonah, not Windows.
Woooow, my bad. I must've overlooked that post. Either was rated to low, i missed it or it got crossreferenced with the wrong post in another tab by accident.
If that was the question, you're right as much as 120%. I was relating it to other post, zealoting how Intel now rules and Apple Duo CPU is the best Duo ever, iMac rules and beats any PC CPU for the next decade.
Now to add on the real question:
Second reason (why Intel and not AMD;) is that Intel is a win-win situation, AMD is a win-loose. In case Apple does not succed with computers because of that move, they know for sure Intel (which looses ground against AMD and this would be a very good PR stunt) would buy them. AMD wouldn't do that, not enough money and no interests.
Again, my sincere apologies on missing the parent post. Mea culpa:)
On the other hand I still think benchmarks you posted are valid for Windows and OSX users only as I said (if not else whole SW is 32-bit). In fact in my first post I was mentioning 64-bit environments only and how some of us aren't forced to use 32, which mekes benchmarks you posted rigged in Intels favour for us. But maybe it would help if you would point out the parent post sooner, since I was completely OT.
Seems you missed whole point of my comments. Some of us don't need to cripple Turion or Opteron to use it. For people like me your benchmarks are near to irrelevant. They are just singleminded benchmarks which come very valid for Windows users, nothing else. As I pointed out in my first posts. Some of us don't need to cripple our computer to use software we need. And if you don't superior can become something completely else. Correct benchmark would be some OSS tools (benchmarks, whatever), run on Win-32 or OSX-Duo and same OSS tools run on Linux-AMD64.
As far as I know, Turion isn't dual core.
Yes, it is not. I tried to point out that few times already to you. It just confirms my saying that Duo is far from being superior tech as Apple would like you to believe it is. On one side you're perfectly allright with crippling AMD, in fact you actualy enforce crippling AMD while keeping as optimistic as possible benchmarks for Duo.
You might be implying that Turion single core would beat out Yonah single core, but that's really beside the point.
As I said, I'm willing to wait dualcore. I won't buy Apple. I even said I would prefer current Turion over Duo for the 64-bit sake.
Apple has to ship a product, and can't wait around for AMD to catch up.
What has Apple to do with the CPU benchmarks?
No, not really. These tasks are typically handled by SSE instructions, which haven't change between 32 and 64 bits. Large integer operations are far less common.
But still depending on the number of registers when more complex math is involved.
386 kernels are still VERY common. I just installed Kubuntu 5.10 and it defaulted to a 386 kernel, for instance.
I can't even remember when I saw last one.
You seem to completley misunderstand. I said nothing about how MUCH memory or disk space. I was talking about memory bandwidth, and the amount of throughput. When you double the data without doubling your throughput, you lose performance. Now, granted, the AMD's integrated memory controller really reduces memory latency, but currently that's limited to DDR400. Intel systems can run at DDR2-667 speeds (though Yonah is significantly below that right now, being 32 bit).
Fact is that you're more guessing by the papers than relying on actual tests
p.s. Just to rub it in once more. Singlecore, dualcore? Low diff?
I should have been a bit clearer. Yes, if you're doing large math, like PKI encryption/decryption, then you're going to see very good results with 64 bit, but that's not a common task for most people.
Image manipulation, video, audio, archiving... all rely on large math. Or do you find nowadays computers not being responsive in notepad? So, yes it is common. Look at standards, cheap cameras now ship with 8MPixels. It is not really conservative. DV cameras, cheap scanner scanning high resolutions, cheap printers with higher resolution. Face it, multimedia needs grow in drastic steps. More and more relying on heavy math because no op can still be simple, it is just geting larger and more intensive
I really doubt you would see that great an improvement in responsiveness between 32 and 64 bit, unless the 32 bit version were optimized for 386 rather than 686 (which is pretty common). If you're going to benchmark, you should at least make sure you're using a kernel that's optimized for the 32 bit version of the CPU you're using.
There are two kernels amd and amd64 optimized. You can't find i386 kernel practicaly in any distro. So, yes after seeing that diff I become almost religious 64-bit user. I don't go to museum. And gain is more than noticeable, yes. It is realy enjoyable.
Tests I pointed you were done on Windows. What are Windows 32-bit optimized for? If you say i386 than you are just discrediting any benchmark until now where Intel and AMD64 were tested because in that case 64-bit were always severly crippled.
This difference is not common for PPC arch. PPC already had enough regs from before 64-bit.
One reason I doubt the improvement is that you also have a tradeoff of nearly doubling your memory load. 64 bit pointers are all twice as large, and ints will be 64 bit by default, which will mean the average unit of storage is also double.
Very, very bad arguments. It almost seems like you lost all your sane arguments
1. Memory is cheap. Very cheap. And you only need to double (or better percentage gets higher with segmentation) it when data is segmented, meaning 100% data consisting of only pointers or ints. Images, videos, audio, (any larger format), etc are not segmented, mostly few block allocations, which means pointer is 64-bit (taking whole sum of 8 bytes instead of 4), data inside memory can be 8,16...-bit. RGB values when opening picture are the same size in 32 and 64 bit system
2. Hard disks are cheap. Even cheaper than RAM. Again does not count for any standard format like audio, video... If it would count, you couldn't load for example mp3 made on 64-bit when using 32-bit arch. It only counts for some internal formats where you wrote int to output file, but those are very rare.
3. You forgot dualcore, singlecore diff:) Now that is not really fair of me:)
4. In measuring performance, factor of your hope does not count;)
64 bit doesn't improve perfomance by that much, certainly not the 25% or so that Yonah has over the Turion.
1 665&page=1
Personally, I can't say about 25% in 64 over 32, but I can say very, very, very noticeable (from a bit slugish desktop to completely snappy as never before). Didn't do benchmarks, just accidently installed 32-bit version, figured that out in about one hour. Reinstalled 64-bit, forgot benchmarks. Next time I plan to do that without accident and actualy run benchmarks.
Here is a benchmark on Windows though (OS 32-bit against 64-bit on the same architecture, didn't found any test on Linux)
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=
While 64-bit lagged on few (streams only, and that doesn't account for 20% of tests) it was sometimes even more than 3x faster on others. So, registers do mean a LOT.
Sad, but true. Yonah is dualcore, Turion in test was singlecore. Turion dualcore is yet to come out in few months. I pointed out that too. And said it is worth to wait. But I never said that Turion (that one used in tests) is faster than duo. This is why I prefer Turion over duo (price/performance and the fact I run 64-bit Linux, duo is 32-bit).
Dualcore over Singlecore having performance gain of less than 25% (now here I'm counting 64, 32 bit diff)? SAD. And Turion dualcore comming out in first six months of 2006:) Guess which one I'm buying. Name definietly won't start with I... or be named after a fruit
Actually, the new Yonah processor is significantly faster than the Turion. Check out these benchmarks:
Actualy, test done were 32-bit. AMD has 8 extra 64-bit registers usable only when running 64-bit mode (which makes them unusable to 32-bit appliaction in 64-bit environment too). Performance gain is more than significant. At the same time power consumption should be lower because of shorter powering up of CPU (valid only for real life use (shorter time of workload, longer time of idle), this should not be valid for benchmarks since benchmarks do tend to stress cpu to get results).
I know there's no difference for Windows users. But, some of us do run 64-bit environment. So it will be probably Turion dualcore for as soon after it comes out. I would prefer even Turion over Duo. But since it is just few months until dualcore...
btw. Vista will be 64-bit. Duo won't support that. But in case 32-bit release will pop out too, I'm wrong
Wow, being so proud as you are I bet you refuse to drive by a car (or train). With your mentality, how it is possible that US is still making cars? Be terrile and write your congresman how US needs to invent their own way of transportation, this one was invented by dirty Europeans. Oh, yes. Be proud and use your OWN national language (without imitating English, Spanish, French, Chinese, Italian) when you're writing that letter.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html
Read what US inventor did. Patented and never implemented, basicaly he just took two ideas (steam car and gasoline engine), put them together and result is NOTHING.
It is almost impossible to get a license to carry a gun in NYC. So, obviously it must be perfectly safe to go anywhere there in the city since no one is allowed to carry guns.
...
...
With so much criminal there? I guess criminals don't respect the law:)
Your dick must be impressive. If someone came at me with a gun or a knife, my dick wouldn't protect me.
Yes, it is and I don't need a gun in our coutry even the least.
I don't live in a world of fear. I know that I won't be helpless if someone with a knife/gun comes at me. I have confidence in my ability to protect myself. Most of the time I forget to bring a gun with me. I probably won't ever need it, but you never know what can happen
Sad, you even think about someone approaching you with a gun/knife to you. In all my life I don't know one case where it happened to anyone I know.
And, before you think I'm just another cowboy, pulling that gun would be a last resort. Even if I'm legally in the right, my lawyer bills would bankrupt me. But it is better to be bankrupt than dead.
Yes, but only when judging by standards in our country, you are a cowboy. Except two hunters and one policeman I don't know anyone with a gun.
I don't avoid roads, I even ride a motorcycle. When I'm in a car, however, I protect myself by wearing a seatbelt and on a motorcycle I wear a helmet. I probably won't ever need it, but you never know what can happen
[sarcasm] Woow, that is soooo sophisticated, now if only the rest of the world would start doing it. [/sarcasm]
What are you going to do when Iran or NK nukes somebody? Blame the US for not acting? You'll probably say that it was the fault of our military.
In my opinion, the only country that could get nuked by some other country is US. And US poses more danger to rest than any other country. At least in last years of your sticking nose where it doesn't belong.
So, basicaly, I should blame US citizens? All 270 million of them?
Result is the same. As you said, US citizens voted for war. Which led to "Colateral damage" excuse? People died, you know. Way too many to be served afterwards with such pathetic excuses.
In my opinion US should resolve that internaly (or not, as it seems after last elections where Bush won). Rest of the world should just step aside and wait. The only problem I see here is that some US people actualy think it was good cause for messing out with other countries.
Look who is talking. You don't even have language. You just imitate others, why would anybody take you as existing?
Actualy even your own piece of Earth was stolen from Indians and gained trough blood and war. You don't have your own language. And you don't even have typical features to be defineable.
God I love those american movies where they say someone has "scandinavian features", "african" etc. In every part of the world people have some generic features to be recogniseable.
What about US features, how could we for example describe typical US citizen? Two legs, not blue, two eyes forming various angles, does not quack but speaks some random language?
we avoid the crime-ridden inner cities where most gun-crimes occur. And if we do go there, we can defend ourselves; we haven't been made impotent by our government and are not defenseless.
20-and-some million people disagrees with you and it doesn't avoid New York, hell, they live there.
Do you really feel impotent witout a gun? In the rest of the world we have dicks, we don't need guns to avoid feeling impotent.
And you can believe me. If people don't have a gun, you don't need it either. Problem starts when people own a gun, not before. Actualy, psychologicaly the one with a gun is sooner to be scared than one without (but the other side is armed too as you pointed out), which often causes sensles shooting. Hey, that sounds like US description.
Take car as some kind of natural selection. There are accidents in US too, or do you avoid roads as well as NY.
So you basicaly say that it is ok if US has GPS, but not ok if China has. Yep, fair and square.
Funny, non-US people mostly don't agree with that. If you have enemies there's probably a good reason for that. But still, it is funny to listen to you how whole world is your enemy. Just why? Does anybody know?
Military grade GPS hardware is accurate to within a few centimeters as well.
Is that the reason why so many missiles and bombs missed in latest wars?
US military has become quite accustomed with their one and only pathetic "Colateral damage" excuse.
i'm also curious as how good that turned out
Well if you take history as a lesson, you can only know that Intel graphics worth was always equal to the same weight pile of shit.
Intel graphics card is (and was always) barely usable.
These things will be core-to-core much faster than the G4 Powerbooks
But not as G5. G5 is available now as notebook CPU if I remember correctly. But it is true it was out after Apple announced move to Intel.
in addition to the battery life.
Yeah, compared to another Intel:) Don't you know that PB lasted twice on battery as Intel? PB 5.5 hours, my centrino 3 hours?
I don't see how you figure it will be an overall loss
Obviously you're die hard Apple fan. Do you think it is coincidence that more and more PC users turn to AMD? As former die hard Intel fan I can surely see and understand parents post. Since then Opteron is my choice.
Then I would call that bad decision.
Not very much prolonged battery life.
Not very much of speedup.
I'm still waiting for some Cell based laptop. Otherwise it is Turion for me. These numbers were just too much dissapointing (after all that performance-per-watt crap from Intel) to even think about laptop with this hardware. And yes, primary choice for me is 64-bit Linux, so yes, I'm biased.
You can't threaten it with a lawsuit.
True, but there always squeaking SCO way.