i am writing some stuff now... it could be 20% more stuff or twice as much stuff... but it probably won't be.
i wrote some stuff... well not really some stuff than the other stuff.
i have decided that I will stop writing some stuff now... I guess there is no use arguing.
People should use what they think is the right tool for the job. If a Dell box gives you more bang for your buck then by all means buy one and have at it.
These benchmarks suggest that if you're doing something like this than the Xserve is a good choice. If you're doing something different then YMMWV.
If you're too sleepy to find the caps key or form a coherent thought into sentences then maybe you shouldn't post in public.
I did get to see him play the single greatest bass line in all of Rock and Roll once.
It was at a huge stadium in LA, but I was close enough to see the transparent spiderweb design on his bass during the solo but in _My Generation_. Of course that fact that he was talking to stage hand or someone as he played it flawlessly only added to my esteem for him.
From the story: The protocol, which is part of Message Queuing, contains a coding mistake that would threaten the security of enterprise systems using it if it were disclosed, Allchin said.
It's clear this strategy is the coding equivalent of "The Killing Joke":
"Here at M$ coders are only allowed to work on code a few lines at a time. The code is so fundementally flawed that if any single programmer sees an entire code block he immediately goes insane... well, the lucky ones do anyway..."
M$ - code so bad protecting people from it is job #1!
Postgres = Oracle
MySQL = Bugs and non SQL compatibility
While some people might take issue with Postgres being equal to Oracle *cough* I wasn't equating MySQL to Postgres. You asked me about my specific experience and I answered.
OSX also comes with OpenBase installed and running out of the box. I have also installed and programmed with FrontBase.
It isn't easier to install free/opensource software on a Mac than on a Linux server. apt or rpm package managers are just as efficient as a disk image. And there are great administration tools - my Max OS X box runs Webmin for administring Apache etc.
You're making my point for me. I said OSX was easier - and it is. AT WORST it's just like a FreeBSD machine - but then there are some wonderful admin tools as well - especially the example you immediately dropped - SSL. It takes about 2 tab selects and a couple check boxes, enter the webserver name and paste your certs into the happy GUI interface boxes where it tells you to and click the restart webserver button - which of course it reminds you to do. And you have SSL - I've installed/configed httpsd on Linux and FreeBSD and promise you it will save you at least an hour - probably two.
And you said you wanted the "How-to" guide. It's in the "AdminGuide.pdf" file that's installed in the dock for you automatically. (Pages 142-146 with dialogue box illustrations and everything.)
These are great admin tools - I have a Tomcat start/stop config panel that will detect and control it perfectly - same with MySQL and Openbase if I want to. And there are more coming out all the time. I'd be surprised if within a year all major programs didn't have Apple or third party interfaces. (And I've used WebMin on my FreeBSD server... it's better than CLI - but not much. I use ssh as much as WebMin.)
Yes, Apple stuff is more expensive, but no one will answer my basic question, "Why does that piss you off?" Isn't that point of a free marketplace? Let companies offer products at the price they want and see how it goes?
"What does a BMW do that my Ford or Chevy won't? Why does BMW even make cars? They're not cost effective - that pisses me off!"
Whatever-
=tkk
PS And for bonus points explain to how setting up a streaming audio/video server is faster and easier on either of those other platforms.
Got me scratching my head on that one. Have you installed a secure Apache / Tomcat / Postgresql web app on Mac OS X yet? If so where is the HOWTO?
Have I installed secure Apache? No, it comes installed. have I set one up? Yes and takes 1 minute to configure a website and 3 minutes to configure a secure one. Right out of the box - that's why it's easier.
Have I installed Tomcat? No, it comes installed - well and older version does. Played with it - not interested. Will install newer version if/when I want to.
Postgres? No, but I played with pre-installed MySQL - 2 minutes to turn on and use. Upgraded to later version (to fix BLOB>255 bug) and continued to run it. That did take more than 5 minutes. Maybe 15? You can downlaod source and install or get binary images and install them if you want the latest version.
I can get an application server up and running for much less than a WebObjects/Oracle solution.
Yes you can. I NEVER said you couldn't. Not everyone is you. Some people want that solution and here's a product that supplies it.
On Mac but preferably on Linux/Intel for hardware cost reasons - hell I provide SCSI RAID
Again, not everyone is you. This is exactly my point: Apple offers a product. People seem offended by it's very existence. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Why does BMW even make or sell cars?" Because people buy them.
I can do cheaper/differently/blah blah blah And now that Apple offers this product you still can. Here's an idea: If you don't want it - don't buy it.
=tkk
PS XServe will do RAID - software RAID as is or add SCSI/RAID with a PCI card. From the Apple BTO store. Go check it out.
Education -- We think there's a great opportunity for us here.
Creative -- Apple continues to be the platform of choice.
Biotech.
Video.
These are Apple target markets and they already have a big foothold in there and these machines are sorely needed. Gigabit ether makes file sharing and collaborative work off a central server complete possibility. You care seamlessly share huge Photoshop files or video files from a central location and have everyone work on them. Netboot your school lab from a central server or servers. Serve WebObjects applications from a server for internal or external uses. Painless, autoconfigured Apache serving. All of these things are much harder or impossible on a Intel/Linux box.
They also announced Oracle 9i for OSX, Blast (clustered bioware, gene folding etc) for OSX as well as a bunch of other new products designed to take them into new markets.
Outside of the pure webserver market price matters less than good design and functionality... I think the Apple servers look good next to the Dell rackmount servers - why shouldn't Apple offer these products? Linux/Intel has some sort of birthright to a given market place?
And all that being said they will pick up some web/app/server market as well. Apache/WebObjects/Oracle etc... You probably can do it a little cheaper with a DIY Linux box but I bet there's people who would rather do it easier.
"I guess it's a matter of how hard you make it," Allchin replied. "We have to work on our reputation for security in the marketplace." from Jim Allchin, who oversees the Windows operating system.
This perfectly demonstrates the M$ sekurity mindset - they approach security problems as a PR problem NOT an actual usage or safety issue. What he SHOULD be saying is, "As the dominant OS in the consumer space we need to work to make our OS the most secure for our users because they are the biggest target and the least aware of the threat."Instead he's blathering about their "reputation" instead of actual security.
Bottomline is that M$ doesn't care about security - they only care about there reputation for security. Hence to them obscurity IS security to them and it becomes policy and is encouraged.
Nope. What it won't do is run office. [] This is kinda cool, watching the little 9 year-olds...
Cool, I completely agree that nothing is more important that having computers for "little 9 year-olds" that can run Office. When can I get a bunch of nine-year-olds who have been taught office to be wage-slave labor for my office? Those slave-wage 12 year-olds are getting too hip and starting to download MP3s and send email to their parents begging for rescue when I'm not looking... Bastards!
The mob is back, yelling "Down with taxes! Down with taxes!"
Quimby:"They want the bear patrol but they won't pay taxes for it." Quimby
thinks of a novel solution. He announces that taxes are high because
of illegal immigrants and that they should be disposed of.
Moe:Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it
was them.
Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder? Assistant: [checks his clipboard] Dumber, sir.
I think Sony hasn't dropped their prices because M$ will probably follow their lead. Sony's out-selling M$ now and with a 4million+ unit lead, why encourage sales of the XBox if Sony can make them tough it out?
Sony 8million units, XBox 3million makes Sony the clear leader.
But at $200 the market opens up:
Sony 11million, 5million makes Sony the first among equals and dilutes the advantage of their already installed base.
Besides - Sony's making money on each box while M$ is losing money on each sale. Why mess with that?
If M$ was a regular competitor you could count on them NOT matching the drop the price because they'd probably be losing $200/unit. But we all know M$ is NOT a regular competitor.
yes, but if you buy two or more games with your XBox, then they've made a profit.
How does that work? Most estimates put M$s loss at about $100 a box.
Even assuming that the games you buy are released by M$ directly they still have other costs associated with that money and they have pay-outs to the game's creators. (I doubt Bungie did Halo for a flat fee.)
That, and the fact that there are only two decent games for the XBox put them a long way from turning a profit on a per box basis... Maybe if you bought a console, a remote, a second controller, a service plan, and 2 games, but not until then.
Industry common knowledge (aka mostly semi-informed rumor) has it that Sony has been making money on the actual PS2 unit for a while now. (In terms of the production timeline it makes sense.) M$ is still losing a bunch of money on the XBox units themselves.
I have a feeling that Sony's decision to lower prices have more to do with market positioning and the XBox. If they lower the price on the PS2 then M$ will probably follow suit on the XBox and that might make open it up to a wider market of shoppers - and since Sony has the numbers head start they may not want that. Remember - it's all about market share and Sony's winning that race with their big head start. But with both boxes at ~$200 the XBox might appeal to bigger audience and dilute Sony's advantage.
Of course they'll have to drop prices sooner or later... if this chip advance means Sony could still make money (or break even) at $200 and M$ would be losing $200 a unit Sony might not be able to resist that. Against any other company it would be a pretty automatic move - but M$ can afford (and seems willing) to take that loss and keep pushing so Sony seems to be treading much more lightly.
Don't forget Sony's price move with the PS1. It was $250 for months but the DAY before the N64 was officially announced Sony dropped the price to $200. Nintendo was then forced announced the N64 at $200 rather than $250 when it shipped. Sony literally took AT LEAST $50Million (probably more like $150Million+) from Nintendo with that move. Wicked.
My point is - Sony is a very market/sales aware company... they have a short, medium and long range plan.
No, this is essentially a one time pad in which the "pad" is drawn from a random source both have access to. A neat idea if you can make it work.
QE is based on a handshake protocol in which I send you a message and you send me a confirmation and we use traded information to communicate. It's not THAT different than the current http model - and other models could be used - as I understand it. The different thing about QE is that it cannot be eavesdropped on.
Parties A and B handshake and Wil E. Crackor can listen as the communication stream goes past effectively snorting the information to be hacked at later by whatever means he has access to.
In a quantum event listening to the communication will change them so after we handshake if some one snorts the packets they arrive garbled on the other end. Hence any successful communication is a secure communication. Not easy or cheap to implement but the only method I know of that certifies security in process. If we can talk we are know to be the only one's listening.
Even with extra strong encryption there's not guarantee that some one who's listening doesn't have a copy and a way to break it - eventually.
=tkk
Now it IS open to a "man in the middle attack" I THINK... but only if you have your own quantum generation device.;)
And "more evil than satan himself" used to return Microsoft's homepage.;) Then it returned Microsoft's homepage followed by a bunch of pages discussing the Easter egg. Then they finally removed the Easter egg. 8(
Come to think of it that's how I actually discovered Google in the first place I think... and of course it took about 3 searches to decide to never use another search engine ever again.
Wait, I don't understand that. Is this good or bad? Resistant meaning that you couldn't use DES for this type of new and better cryptography or the opposite that the DES was made stronger by the NSA changes... I'm confused.
It's good - the NSA changes (S-Box design specifically) DID make DES stronger.
But if you read between the lines it means that the NSA knew about Differential Crypt _at least_ as early as the early1970s while the public didn't know about it until many years later.
We went through this "good/bad" debate on/. here as part of this thread on quantum computing.
This was foreshadowed when the record companies took all those nasty music pirates to court for "ripping of the artists".
These same companies felt no need to share the money they won in court with the same artists they were "defending" and "fighting for".
The music industry's main complaint seems to be "You're shearing _our_ sheep! Only we get to do that!"
From the artists POV at least alot of people were listening to your music under the old system. Now you don't get squat AND no one's listening. Is that a net win or loss?
That is the poster's point exactly. ALL big iron people will be irrelevant if Itanium based systems make it deep into the volume curve and hence are very inexpensive.
What?!? The IA-64 project IS big iron. The McKinley cpus will cost several hundred dollars a piece to produce and will cost several thousand each in boxes that are at least 5 figures - and I'm sure Intel's hoping for 6. They are not consumer chips.
I don't see how Sun will be able to keep up with the economies that Intel brings to the party.
Again - What?!? The P4 outperforms the Itanium. No seriously, you can buy a personal computer that outperforms it RIGHT NOW. Even if the McKinley then out-performs the current P4s the roadmap has McKinley's getting to only 1.6Ghz through 2003. The P4s that will be shipping then will again outstrip the McKinley (probably) before the second gen ships. Also the IA-64 does not run x86 code! (At least any speed you ever WANT to run your M$ Word on.) It runs IA-64 specially compiled code.
The IA-64 is NOT a consumer effort. This whole discussion is about "what's the next big iron processor" going to be? Big Iron has it's place and always will - a 32 processor Power4/UltraSparc3Cu server machine swings some serious frickin' power. The jobs that this machine can do will NOT be replaced by any desktop machine. At least not for a few years.;)
the chances of Sun being able to convince already reluctant buyers that Sparc systems are still worth the money are rather low, especially now that big iron is being replaced with clusters of cheap systems.
But this argument works against ALL servers and 'big iron' makers not just Sun. You could replace "Sun" with "Intel" and "Sparc" with "Itanium" and the argument remains the same.
What you're arguing here is not that Sparc is dead but that big iron is dead. And I think you're wrong.
=tkk
PS UltraSparc/// is stands up well against Itanium and probably even against McKinley. And who has the history, and client base, and code base and, and, and.... Sun does.
As for your SPEC figures, you could have at least made your post worthwhile by not fudging the numbers to make the Itanium worse than it actually is
I didn't. These are the numbers from official submissions to the spec organization. (If they can't bother to submit results then they don't count.)
I took the machine from with the HIGHEST Int performance - as I said in my post. The FP is the result for the same machine - as I said in my post.
There is a >700 SpecFP machine claimed by Dell but there is no corresponding SpecInt submission. I think Intel claimed nearly 800 Spec2000FP for the Itanium but no one else has been able to re-create those results. That's why non-submitted results don't count.
Don't write off an entire architecture because you didn't like how the experimental implementation came out.
But it wasn't supposed to be a proof of concept chip. It was supposed to be the future of computing.
An exec actually admitted this in 2000.
Which is at least 3 years after they knew it. Intel instead spread FUD around while refusing to talk performance numbers.
From Intel Press Release:
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 4, 1999 - Intel Corporation today announced it has selected Itanium(TM) as the new brand name for the first product in its IA-64 family of processors, formerly code-named Merced. The Itanium brand extends Intel's reach into the highest level of computing enabling powerful servers and high-performance workstations which will address the increasing demands that the Internet economy places on e-Businesses.
"The Intel Itanium processor represents a new level of processor capability that will be the driving force for the Internet economy,"
Ummmm... okay. I see, by "highest level of computing" and "new level of processor capability" they meant "proof-of-concept place-holder chip". It's all clear to me now... The full text is here on Intel's site since you seem to think I make this stuff up.
Now McKinley is supposed to be the next, big thing.
From an article about McKinley previously on/. "Applications will be about one and a half to two times faster than what you get on a (current) Itanium," said John Crawford, an Intel fellow in the enterprise platforms group.
The additional bus and processor speed and 3 megs of on-chip on speed cache should deliver nearly a 50% boost all by itself. If the "new" features of the McKinley don't add much more beyond that then where are they going?
Forgive me if I appear skeptical...
=tkk
Overview? How about Autopsy...
on
Inside the Itanium
·
· Score: 4, Informative
HP decided as early as 1996 that the then "Merced" project would not overtake their PA-RISC arch and essentially walked away from the the project.
Years late the "Itanium" finally ships (although no one buys it) as Intel says, "But wait for McKinley! Then it will really work!"
The McKinley is the product of the "rethought" Merced project. McKinley is shipping later this year - with a completely different socket system so even the arch surrounding the "Itanium" is dead in the water.
Let's compare this to the REAL competition:
IBM Power4 1.3GHz - shipping for a while now:
SPECint2000 = 814 SPECint_base2000 = 790
SPECfp2000 = 1169 SPECfp_base2000 = 1098
Sun UltraSparc III Cu 1.05GHz:
SPECint2000 = 610 SPECint_base2000 = 537
SPECfp2000 = 827 SPECfp_base2000 = 701
Even the best Itanium 800Mhz reported int numbers are:
SPECint2000 = 365 SPECint_base2000 = 358
(Same box) SPECfp2000 = 610 SPECfp_base2000 = 526
Even if the McKinley (which doesn't ship for 6 months or so) produces double the Itanium numbers it'll still lag the currently shipping Power4 chips.
Remember the hype and FUD surrounding the launch of the "Itanium" chip that eventually hasn't even caused a ripple in the marketplace? Intel has sunk billions into this EPIC project and refuses to let it go even though it's years late so far hasn't produced the clear advantage over the RISC arch it was supposed to make obsolete. In many cases the "consumer" chips continue to make better results than the "server" chip series - and with AMD knocking on Intel's door throttling back production/performance of the consumer ship is not an option.
Will the McKinley better than the Itanium? Certainly.
Will it be compelling? Wihtout Intel behind it - probably not. (Alpha was the clear performance winner for so long but couldn't get any traction.)
Is VLIW^H^H^H^H EPIC the future of computing? "Answer unclear... ask again later.";)
=tkk
Re:Itanium at 1.6 GHz in 2003 ?
on
Intel's Big Chip
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They did a lot more than that. It has a shorter pipeline, higher clockrate, additional integer units, on-die L3 cache.
That's true.
150-200% is a modest prediction for performance.
This was the prediction of an Intel representative. I can't imagine he was TOO conservative... Then again it's academic since no one is actually running software on an Itanium - who can compare their current results with future ones?;)
But seriously - the faster clock speed and cache (since Int operations are much more sensitive to cache changes) would account for a nice bump in performance. I'd expect nearly a 50% increase in speed simply from the changes I noted. Even if it is twices as fast then new chip arch is only reponsible for a small increase in that speed.
My point is that HP decided as early as 1996 that the Merced project would never surpass PA-RISC and essentially took their marbles and went home. McKinley was an attempt to get something out of the project after it was clearly headed for failure. Intel should have known they had a dog on their hands and yet the flogged the FUD for years and after billions of dollars they have yet to deploy a compelling technology.
You should also note in your SPEC marks that there's accusations that IBM "cheated" with their submissions.
Thank goodness Intel has never been accussed of anything so horrid!
I'm not sure on the details on it, but I was reading parts of it on www.realworldtech.com the other day.
Well if it's on the Internet it MUST be true... Let me get this straight - because you "heard something" you can't back up I should note that IBM's officially submitted Spec results are faked? How do you figure?
Slashdot Mirror
i am writing some stuff now... it could be 20% more stuff or twice as much stuff... but it probably won't be.
i wrote some stuff... well not really some stuff than the other stuff.
i have decided that I will stop writing some stuff now... I guess there is no use arguing.
People should use what they think is the right tool for the job. If a Dell box gives you more bang for your buck then by all means buy one and have at it.
These benchmarks suggest that if you're doing something like this than the Xserve is a good choice. If you're doing something different then YMMWV.
If you're too sleepy to find the caps key or form a coherent thought into sentences then maybe you shouldn't post in public.
=tkk
*SIGH*
I did get to see him play the single greatest bass line in all of Rock and Roll once.
It was at a huge stadium in LA, but I was close enough to see the transparent spiderweb design on his bass during the solo but in _My Generation_. Of course that fact that he was talking to stage hand or someone as he played it flawlessly only added to my esteem for him.
Creepy crawly creepy crawly...
*SIGH*
=tkk
The protocol, which is part of Message Queuing, contains a coding mistake that would threaten the security of enterprise systems using it if it were disclosed, Allchin said.
"That's business with
=tkk
It's clear this strategy is the coding equivalent of "The Killing Joke":
"Here at M$ coders are only allowed to work on code a few lines at a time. The code is so fundementally flawed that if any single programmer sees an entire code block he immediately goes insane... well, the lucky ones do anyway..."
M$ - code so bad protecting people from it is job #1!
=tkk
MySQL = Bugs and non SQL compatibility
While some people might take issue with Postgres being equal to Oracle *cough* I wasn't equating MySQL to Postgres. You asked me about my specific experience and I answered.
OSX also comes with OpenBase installed and running out of the box. I have also installed and programmed with FrontBase.
It isn't easier to install free/opensource software on a Mac than on a Linux server. apt or rpm package managers are just as efficient as a disk image. And there are great administration tools - my Max OS X box runs Webmin for administring Apache etc.
You're making my point for me. I said OSX was easier - and it is. AT WORST it's just like a FreeBSD machine - but then there are some wonderful admin tools as well - especially the example you immediately dropped - SSL. It takes about 2 tab selects and a couple check boxes, enter the webserver name and paste your certs into the happy GUI interface boxes where it tells you to and click the restart webserver button - which of course it reminds you to do. And you have SSL - I've installed/configed httpsd on Linux and FreeBSD and promise you it will save you at least an hour - probably two.
And you said you wanted the "How-to" guide. It's in the "AdminGuide.pdf" file that's installed in the dock for you automatically. (Pages 142-146 with dialogue box illustrations and everything.)
These are great admin tools - I have a Tomcat start/stop config panel that will detect and control it perfectly - same with MySQL and Openbase if I want to. And there are more coming out all the time. I'd be surprised if within a year all major programs didn't have Apple or third party interfaces. (And I've used WebMin on my FreeBSD server... it's better than CLI - but not much. I use ssh as much as WebMin.)
Yes, Apple stuff is more expensive, but no one will answer my basic question, "Why does that piss you off?"
Isn't that point of a free marketplace? Let companies offer products at the price they want and see how it goes?
"What does a BMW do that my Ford or Chevy won't? Why does BMW even make cars? They're not cost effective - that pisses me off!"
Whatever-
=tkk
PS And for bonus points explain to how setting up a streaming audio/video server is faster and easier on either of those other platforms.
Have I installed secure Apache? No, it comes installed. have I set one up? Yes and takes 1 minute to configure a website and 3 minutes to configure a secure one. Right out of the box - that's why it's easier.
Have I installed Tomcat? No, it comes installed - well and older version does. Played with it - not interested. Will install newer version if/when I want to.
Postgres? No, but I played with pre-installed MySQL - 2 minutes to turn on and use. Upgraded to later version (to fix BLOB>255 bug) and continued to run it. That did take more than 5 minutes. Maybe 15? You can downlaod source and install or get binary images and install them if you want the latest version.
I can get an application server up and running for much less than a WebObjects/Oracle solution.
Yes you can. I NEVER said you couldn't. Not everyone is you. Some people want that solution and here's a product that supplies it.
On Mac but preferably on Linux/Intel for hardware cost reasons - hell I provide SCSI RAID
Again, not everyone is you. This is exactly my point: Apple offers a product. People seem offended by it's very existence. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Why does BMW even make or sell cars?" Because people buy them.
I can do cheaper/differently/blah blah blah And now that Apple offers this product you still can. Here's an idea: If you don't want it - don't buy it.
=tkk
PS XServe will do RAID - software RAID as is or add SCSI/RAID with a PCI card. From the Apple BTO store. Go check it out.
- Target Markets:
- Education -- We think there's a great opportunity for us here.
- Creative -- Apple continues to be the platform of choice.
- Biotech.
- Video.
These are Apple target markets and they already have a big foothold in there and these machines are sorely needed.Gigabit ether makes file sharing and collaborative work off a central server complete possibility. You care seamlessly share huge Photoshop files or video files from a central location and have everyone work on them.
Netboot your school lab from a central server or servers.
Serve WebObjects applications from a server for internal or external uses.
Painless, autoconfigured Apache serving.
All of these things are much harder or impossible on a Intel/Linux box.
They also announced Oracle 9i for OSX, Blast (clustered bioware, gene folding etc) for OSX as well as a bunch of other new products designed to take them into new markets.
Outside of the pure webserver market price matters less than good design and functionality... I think the Apple servers look good next to the Dell rackmount servers - why shouldn't Apple offer these products? Linux/Intel has some sort of birthright to a given market place?
And all that being said they will pick up some web/app/server market as well. Apache/WebObjects/Oracle etc... You probably can do it a little cheaper with a DIY Linux box but I bet there's people who would rather do it easier.
=tkk
"I guess it's a matter of how hard you make it," Allchin replied. "We have to work on our reputation for security in the marketplace." from Jim Allchin, who oversees the Windows operating system.
This perfectly demonstrates the M$ sekurity mindset - they approach security problems as a PR problem NOT an actual usage or safety issue. What he SHOULD be saying is, "As the dominant OS in the consumer space we need to work to make our OS the most secure for our users because they are the biggest target and the least aware of the threat."Instead he's blathering about their "reputation" instead of actual security.
Bottomline is that M$ doesn't care about security - they only care about there reputation for security. Hence to them obscurity IS security to them and it becomes policy and is encouraged.
=tkk
Nope. What it won't do is run office. [] This is kinda cool, watching the little 9 year-olds...
Cool, I completely agree that nothing is more important that having computers for "little 9 year-olds" that can run Office.
When can I get a bunch of nine-year-olds who have been taught office to be wage-slave labor for my office? Those slave-wage 12 year-olds are getting too hip and starting to download MP3s and send email to their parents begging for rescue when I'm not looking... Bastards!
*SHEESH*
=tkk
Quimby:"They want the bear patrol but they won't pay taxes for it."
Quimby thinks of a novel solution. He announces that taxes are high because of illegal immigrants and that they should be disposed of.
Moe:Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?
Assistant: [checks his clipboard] Dumber, sir.
=tkk
He didn't seem to get the association with the other code names: Cold Fusion and Piltdown Man.
The replacement BHA wasn't as poetic but it had it's own special charm...
=tkk
Sony 8million units, XBox 3million makes Sony the clear leader. But at $200 the market opens up:
Sony 11million, 5million makes Sony the first among equals and dilutes the advantage of their already installed base.
Besides - Sony's making money on each box while M$ is losing money on each sale. Why mess with that?
If M$ was a regular competitor you could count on them NOT matching the drop the price because they'd probably be losing $200/unit. But we all know M$ is NOT a regular competitor.
=tkk
How does that work? Most estimates put M$s loss at about $100 a box.
Even assuming that the games you buy are released by M$ directly they still have other costs associated with that money and they have pay-outs to the game's creators. (I doubt Bungie did Halo for a flat fee.)
That, and the fact that there are only two decent games for the XBox put them a long way from turning a profit on a per box basis... Maybe if you bought a console, a remote, a second controller, a service plan, and 2 games, but not until then.
=tkk
Industry common knowledge (aka mostly semi-informed rumor) has it that Sony has been making money on the actual PS2 unit for a while now. (In terms of the production timeline it makes sense.) M$ is still losing a bunch of money on the XBox units themselves.
I have a feeling that Sony's decision to lower prices have more to do with market positioning and the XBox. If they lower the price on the PS2 then M$ will probably follow suit on the XBox and that might make open it up to a wider market of shoppers - and since Sony has the numbers head start they may not want that. Remember - it's all about market share and Sony's winning that race with their big head start. But with both boxes at ~$200 the XBox might appeal to bigger audience and dilute Sony's advantage.
Of course they'll have to drop prices sooner or later... if this chip advance means Sony could still make money (or break even) at $200 and M$ would be losing $200 a unit Sony might not be able to resist that. Against any other company it would be a pretty automatic move - but M$ can afford (and seems willing) to take that loss and keep pushing so Sony seems to be treading much more lightly.
Don't forget Sony's price move with the PS1. It was $250 for months but the DAY before the N64 was officially announced Sony dropped the price to $200. Nintendo was then forced announced the N64 at $200 rather than $250 when it shipped. Sony literally took AT LEAST $50Million (probably more like $150Million+) from Nintendo with that move. Wicked.
My point is - Sony is a very market/sales aware company... they have a short, medium and long range plan.
=tkk
Maybe if he doesn't retain a lawyer by then I'll go watch... it could be funny.
"An idiot who represents himself has an idiot for a..." wait...
=tkk
QE is based on a handshake protocol in which I send you a message and you send me a confirmation and we use traded information to communicate. It's not THAT different than the current http model - and other models could be used - as I understand it. The different thing about QE is that it cannot be eavesdropped on.
Parties A and B handshake and Wil E. Crackor can listen as the communication stream goes past effectively snorting the information to be hacked at later by whatever means he has access to.
In a quantum event listening to the communication will change them so after we handshake if some one snorts the packets they arrive garbled on the other end. Hence any successful communication is a secure communication. Not easy or cheap to implement but the only method I know of that certifies security in process. If we can talk we are know to be the only one's listening.
Even with extra strong encryption there's not guarantee that some one who's listening doesn't have a copy and a way to break it - eventually.
=tkk
Now it IS open to a "man in the middle attack" I THINK... but only if you have your own quantum generation device. ;)
And "more evil than satan himself" used to return Microsoft's homepage. ;)
Then it returned Microsoft's homepage followed by a bunch of pages discussing the Easter egg. Then they finally removed the Easter egg. 8(
Come to think of it that's how I actually discovered Google in the first place I think... and of course it took about 3 searches to decide to never use another search engine ever again.
=tkk
It's good - the NSA changes (S-Box design specifically) DID make DES stronger.
But if you read between the lines it means that the NSA knew about Differential Crypt _at least_ as early as the early1970s while the public didn't know about it until many years later.
We went through this "good/bad" debate on /. here as part of this thread on quantum computing.
=tkk
This was foreshadowed when the record companies took all those nasty music pirates to court for "ripping of the artists".
These same companies felt no need to share the money they won in court with the same artists they were "defending" and "fighting for".
The music industry's main complaint seems to be "You're shearing _our_ sheep! Only we get to do that!"
From the artists POV at least alot of people were listening to your music under the old system. Now you don't get squat AND no one's listening. Is that a net win or loss?
Sheesh,
=tkk
What?!? The IA-64 project IS big iron. The McKinley cpus will cost several hundred dollars a piece to produce and will cost several thousand each in boxes that are at least 5 figures - and I'm sure Intel's hoping for 6. They are not consumer chips.
I don't see how Sun will be able to keep up with the economies that Intel brings to the party.
Again - What?!? The P4 outperforms the Itanium. No seriously, you can buy a personal computer that outperforms it RIGHT NOW. Even if the McKinley then out-performs the current P4s the roadmap has McKinley's getting to only 1.6Ghz through 2003. The P4s that will be shipping then will again outstrip the McKinley (probably) before the second gen ships. Also the IA-64 does not run x86 code! (At least any speed you ever WANT to run your M$ Word on.) It runs IA-64 specially compiled code.
The IA-64 is NOT a consumer effort. This whole discussion is about "what's the next big iron processor" going to be? Big Iron has it's place and always will - a 32 processor Power4/UltraSparc3Cu server machine swings some serious frickin' power. The jobs that this machine can do will NOT be replaced by any desktop machine. At least not for a few years. ;)
=tkk
the chances of Sun being able to convince already reluctant buyers that Sparc systems are still worth the money are rather low, especially now that big iron is being replaced with clusters of cheap systems.
But this argument works against ALL servers and 'big iron' makers not just Sun. You could replace "Sun" with "Intel" and "Sparc" with "Itanium" and the argument remains the same.
What you're arguing here is not that Sparc is dead but that big iron is dead. And I think you're wrong.
=tkk
PS UltraSparc/// is stands up well against Itanium and probably even against McKinley. And who has the history, and client base, and code base and, and, and.... Sun does.
What!? Who rated this as "Informative"?!?
That was WAY more information than I needed, thank you...
I think he was going for "Funny", BTW
=tkk
I didn't. These are the numbers from official submissions to the spec organization. (If they can't bother to submit results then they don't count.) I took the machine from with the HIGHEST Int performance - as I said in my post. The FP is the result for the same machine - as I said in my post.
There is a >700 SpecFP machine claimed by Dell but there is no corresponding SpecInt submission. I think Intel claimed nearly 800 Spec2000FP for the Itanium but no one else has been able to re-create those results. That's why non-submitted results don't count.
Don't write off an entire architecture because you didn't like how the experimental implementation came out.
But it wasn't supposed to be a proof of concept chip. It was supposed to be the future of computing.
An exec actually admitted this in 2000.
Which is at least 3 years after they knew it. Intel instead spread FUD around while refusing to talk performance numbers.
From Intel Press Release:
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 4, 1999 - Intel Corporation today announced it has selected Itanium(TM) as the new brand name for the first product in its IA-64 family of processors, formerly code-named Merced. The Itanium brand extends Intel's reach into the highest level of computing enabling powerful servers and high-performance workstations which will address the increasing demands that the Internet economy places on e-Businesses. "The Intel Itanium processor represents a new level of processor capability that will be the driving force for the Internet economy,"
Ummmm... okay. I see, by "highest level of computing" and "new level of processor capability" they meant "proof-of-concept place-holder chip". It's all clear to me now...
The full text is here on Intel's site since you seem to think I make this stuff up.
Now McKinley is supposed to be the next, big thing.
From an article about McKinley previously on /.
"Applications will be about one and a half to two times faster than what you get on a (current) Itanium," said John Crawford, an Intel fellow in the enterprise platforms group.
The additional bus and processor speed and 3 megs of on-chip on speed cache should deliver nearly a 50% boost all by itself. If the "new" features of the McKinley don't add much more beyond that then where are they going?
Forgive me if I appear skeptical...
=tkk
HP decided as early as 1996 that the then "Merced" project would not overtake their PA-RISC arch and essentially walked away from the the project.
;)
Years late the "Itanium" finally ships (although no one buys it) as Intel says, "But wait for McKinley! Then it will really work!"
The McKinley is the product of the "rethought" Merced project. McKinley is shipping later this year - with a completely different socket system so even the arch surrounding the "Itanium" is dead in the water.
Let's compare this to the REAL competition:
IBM Power4 1.3GHz - shipping for a while now:
SPECint2000 = 814 SPECint_base2000 = 790
SPECfp2000 = 1169 SPECfp_base2000 = 1098
Sun UltraSparc III Cu 1.05GHz:
SPECint2000 = 610 SPECint_base2000 = 537
SPECfp2000 = 827 SPECfp_base2000 = 701
Even the best Itanium 800Mhz reported int numbers are:
SPECint2000 = 365 SPECint_base2000 = 358
(Same box) SPECfp2000 = 610 SPECfp_base2000 = 526
Even if the McKinley (which doesn't ship for 6 months or so) produces double the Itanium numbers it'll still lag the currently shipping Power4 chips.
Remember the hype and FUD surrounding the launch of the "Itanium" chip that eventually hasn't even caused a ripple in the marketplace? Intel has sunk billions into this EPIC project and refuses to let it go even though it's years late so far hasn't produced the clear advantage over the RISC arch it was supposed to make obsolete. In many cases the "consumer" chips continue to make better results than the "server" chip series - and with AMD knocking on Intel's door throttling back production/performance of the consumer ship is not an option.
Will the McKinley better than the Itanium? Certainly.
Will it be compelling? Wihtout Intel behind it - probably not. (Alpha was the clear performance winner for so long but couldn't get any traction.)
Is VLIW^H^H^H^H EPIC the future of computing? "Answer unclear... ask again later."
=tkk
That's true.
150-200% is a modest prediction for performance.
This was the prediction of an Intel representative. I can't imagine he was TOO conservative... Then again it's academic since no one is actually running software on an Itanium - who can compare their current results with future ones?
But seriously - the faster clock speed and cache (since Int operations are much more sensitive to cache changes) would account for a nice bump in performance. I'd expect nearly a 50% increase in speed simply from the changes I noted. Even if it is twices as fast then new chip arch is only reponsible for a small increase in that speed.
My point is that HP decided as early as 1996 that the Merced project would never surpass PA-RISC and essentially took their marbles and went home. McKinley was an attempt to get something out of the project after it was clearly headed for failure. Intel should have known they had a dog on their hands and yet the flogged the FUD for years and after billions of dollars they have yet to deploy a compelling technology.
You should also note in your SPEC marks that there's accusations that IBM "cheated" with their submissions.
Thank goodness Intel has never been accussed of anything so horrid!
I'm not sure on the details on it, but I was reading parts of it on www.realworldtech.com the other day.
Well if it's on the Internet it MUST be true...
Let me get this straight - because you "heard something" you can't back up I should note that IBM's officially submitted Spec results are faked? How do you figure?
=tkk