Don't you realize that the engines we use in cars today are *FAR* superior to the engines of 20 years ago?
Engineers have made huge progress on the internal combustion engine. They are so much more efficient now than ever imagined.
Fuel economy is up, and environmental impact is down.
One of the problems with the advances over the last two decades, though - is that instead of having these great designs in smaller cars, they put them in big trucks and SUVs. So, in effect: making engines more efficient made SUV's possible.
It's all about where the market takes the auto makers.
You can't just say "easy. Make better engines." You know why you can't say that? Because you're an ignorant shithead that doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Re:Homeopathy is pseudoscience:
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: -1, Troll
If being intelligent means supporting McCain and Ms. Congeniality, I'll take being stupid any day.
At least we can be stupid and have a growing economy, better jobs, possibly better health care and who knows! Maybe the end of a war?
Or, you can sit there in all your intelligent designs and watch the country come crashing down on itself.
Yea, I'll take stupid.
(PS. When 95% of the base republicans all claim in polls that Palin is great - YOU tell ME who the idiots are. The republican party is the fall-in-line party and the Democrats are not. We use our fucking brains.)
Because they have 1.5 Billion slaves they can call upon to do the work.
China is a developing country, has a horrible government, and in the last two decades is doing everything they can to show everyone they are superior to everyone else.
Well, I'm sorry, but Space Programs and hosting Olympic Games doesn't mean shit when whey displace hundreds of thousands of people to put in a new stadium - and don't provide those displaced people with any way to make a living in their new "homes."
China sucks. Chinese people are just fine, but their government is really, really bad.
Which was my point exactly. I mean, I do install Intel VM clusters, and they work.
My last gig, we had 12 VM hosts. One cluster was a four machine, quad-socket, dual-core "Core 2" based Xeon cluster. Another was four quad-socket, dual-core Opterons. 32GB RAM all around.
I could run 100 virtual machines on a single Opteron box. (Mind you, many of these VM's were VDI XP guests) but I could not run 75 on one of the Xeons without it crawling to a halt. And there would be no reason for it - the CPU utilization was relatively low. No real indication as to why the performance was so bad - except for the fact that the Intel boxes would have to wait on RAM access so much. Same SAN, same everything else. The Core2's were clocked slightly higher.
For many shops, the Intel CPU's are just fine but right now, if you want the best bang for your buck with a VMware host or anything else that is multi threaded and uses RAM, you're better off with AMD.
Even when Intel releases their new bus archetecture I'll probably stick with AMD for awhile until it's proven. I'm sure it will be good - Intel always makes quality stuff, even though they over-predicted how far NetBurst could take them. Besides, AMD has never done me wrong and I think a little bit of loyalty is in order. AMD has done a lot for the x86 market.
It's nice to see that Intel is following AMD's lead again here with QuickBus or whatever they're calling it. First with x86-64, then with going back to a more efficient CPU design at lower clock speeds, and now with adopting an integrated memory controller and a high speed interconnect bus (which Intel said was a horrible idea when AMD launched Opteron.) Intel might sell more parts, but it's been AMD that's actually innovated in the market.
I'll keep buying AMD if it means there's actual competition in the market. Remember when Intel used to release CPU's horribly slow, and with minimal increments in speed, for a LOT more money? That stopped as soon as AMD entered the market for real with Athlon.
I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I regard that company highly for what they've done and that does deserve some respect in my mind.
No, I didn't say it "feels faster." I said it's not easy to quantify, because if you benchmark a few apps or do a few little multithreaded tests, the Intels may be on top.
You have to actually put substantial load on these systems to see the benefit, and in a virtualized environment you see just that.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Look at the benchmarks for heavy load servers and shove it up your "single CPU's are more common because I have never done any work in the enterprise" ass.
I guess you're not doing much VMware. For us (a consulting firm) we have been doing at least two VMware installations a month (ESX, VC, SAN, etc - we're a small shop, too) and the bare minimum host is a dual socket quad-core CPU from Intel or AMD. We usually choose AMD, because they simply perform better. We usually try to steer customers towards quad-socket boards, because generally speaking it's easier to manage fewer, more powerful servers than it is to manager more less powerful ones.
It's not something you can exactly quantify right away. When you start loading up a new VM system, you'd never notice a difference between Intel or AMD. But, when you start loading 20, 30 or 40 VM's on a single host, that's when you can really start to see why AMD. You can do less stuff per core per cycle, but you can actually access more cycles because you're not trying to shove 32GB RAM down a single bus.
Almost all servers now comes with at least two sockets, and almost all CPU's you purchase for them now are quad-core. So that's 8 cores in your average priced server. I don't know why people keep trying to tell me that it's not common when it absolutely is common for an average server to have 8 cores.
When you go with VMware, you're likely to have more. And almost everyone is moving in that direction. I dare you to find even a medium to small sized IT environment where VM isn't already starting to utilize VMware or isn't planning on it in the near term.
"but that design advantage is negated by Intel's process and manufacturing excellence"
Who's the Fanboy?
Look - almost everyone I work with for VMware installations insist on Opteron. Benchmarks are one thing, but real-world performance is entirely different.
There's no doubt that the Intel CPU's are better performers on single-thread operations or operations where there's not a lot of memory IO. But the Opterons crush Intel when there's a lot of memory IO. Why do you think Intel is moving to a HyperTransport of their own? Because they WANT to admit that FSB is inefficient?
PS. All three servers in the VMMark page that top the 32 core, 24 core, and 16 core are ALL Opteron. And if you think 16 core is not normal, think again. That's a 4 socket quad core Opteron, which is pretty common these days for VMware hosts.
Until Intel unveils their version of HyperTransport, this will be more of the same.
You put a quad-core Xeon against a quad-core Opteron and under most conditions (besides CPU-only work) the Opteron will kill the Xeon.
Now, we'll have even more cycles we can't utilize, because of the old design of the system.
If you're going to do anything that uses both RAM and CPU (aka VMware hosts, which is what most big servers are used for these days) you'd better off with an Opteron.
I'd rather use a dual or quad socket Dual-Core Opteron than a dual or quad socket Quad-core Xeon.
I have a 40,000 song shared library. There's no easy way for the several people using it to drag the new folders to iTunes without me sending them some sort of changelog or something.. Not feasable.
Whenever I've ever used it, if I re-drag an existing folder - it absolutely does re-add it and create duplicates. The last time I used it was on MacOS, it was version 7.x something.
So unless they've changed the behavior in the last 5 months or so, then you're wrong or have a plug-in or something.
Yea, because we ALL KNOW that the Internets can't be wrong.
Vista works for the vast majority of people that use it. Sure, there's been problems - and a lot of them are due to the fact that Microsoft broke with compatibility in some places to build a better system.
Finding Vista drivers is easy, and they USUALLY work. Don't believe the hype. Well, I guess it's too late for you.
It's funny: you're ACTUALLY trying to say that the crash is a Vista problem, even though it crashes because of an Apple driver that was poorly written. I'd be okay with that, if Apple didn't say "This release is compatible with Windows Vista." Obviously not.
Problem: There isn't something else for OSX. I have a very functional Hackintosh, and it was one of my biggest annoyances.
I like the library layout of iTunes, and WinAMP (they are essentially the same.) But, no WinAMP for OSX and there's nothing else with a decent library function.
Songbird was my biggest hope but development of that software is extremely slow. It's just finally becoming more usable, but it has been horrible for a long time if you have more than a few hundred songs in your library. Scanning a library of 40,000 MP3's takes hours and hours. WinAMP does it in 20 minutes on the same machine, in a virtual machine on Fusion.
Well, yea - the player is. But there's still a lot of software (although I'm not sure if Premiere still wants it) that uses the quicktime libraries to perform some functions. Quicktime provides a bunch of image manipulation libraries you can use in your applications.
I don't own an iPod, but I have family members that do and I immediately remove iTunes, install WinAMP, and done.
WinAMP can manage an iPod okay, and it doesn't screw with my media library.
On top of all of the crappiness of iTunes, my biggest problem with it is that if you plan on using iTunes, you *have* to manage your media with it. There's no "rescan library" function. If you do it manually, you get two of everything in your list. It sucks and shows much arrogance on Apple's part.
The only decent software for Windows that Apple ever made was Quicktime. Even now, unfortunately, Quicktime is kinda flakey but the support libraries for Quicktime that many applications use work okay.
But, Apple does install drivers, and those drivers CAN crash the operating system.
It's no different from any other popular operating system. If you have a bad OSX driver - boom. Grey box. If you have a bad Linux driver - boom. Kernel panic.
The only utter nonsense is that Apple can't write a driver that doesn't crash the operating system. There's tens of thousands of drivers out there, and most of them run great. Apple is big enough to do proper testing. They didn't QA properly, obviously.
No, not much. With a bankroll like Google has, they can pretty much do whatever the hell they feel like it.
- They could start a pharmaceutical division - Google Pills - They could create their own car: Google Wheels - Their own airline: Google Air - Shoes: Google Steps - Toys: Google Smile - Fabric: Google Silk - Concrete: Google Hard - Trucks: Google Mac - Storage systems: Google IO - Telescopes: Google Sky - Cameras: Google View
"If you had a 1600x1200 display in 1997 how much did you pay for that?"
I think it was around $500.
"720p is 1280x720."
No shit.
"Just got a new laptop this year, guess what resolution it is. 1280x800."
I got my current notebook in March. 1920x1200.
My last notebook, from 2004: 1920x1200.
Besides, you don't go by notebook resolutions. They usually have compact, small screens. Not many LCD screens, except for the first year or so when they finally got low enough in price, were only 1024x768.
Indeed - this argument is very old and very repeated. Yes, Consoles are as good as a PC when they are released. No, they don't stay that way for very long. Right now, you can get a mid/high-end video card (Meaning: a single video card, nothing crazy like a dual SLI for $1200) and it will be twice as fast as the GPU in the PS3 and 360. You can get a quad-core CPU for your desktop for cheap. RAM is so cheap it's unbelievable.
But don't worry, it'll keep getting repeated. While I do see more of a shift towards console gaming lately, PC games will always be around - they will always be popular, always be cutting edge, always be present. nVidia and ATI didn't build their giant companies because PC gaming is dead.
Well, I guess the difference between OS/2 and MacOS is that MacOS doesn't have it's sights on taking on Windows directly. Not yet anyways. And, Apple doesn't have Microsoft helping to develop the system, so Microsoft can't just break off and use all the code they wrote for their system on their own new system (ala Windows NT.)
The age-old question of emulation is impossible to answer. Should there be an emulation layer good enough so that you can run software for the competition's operating system? It would allow your users to access their library of software. But, it could hinder development of your system. However, if you don't provide the emulation layer - you might lose users because there's not enough software available for them.
Slashdot Mirror
At least I didn't post as Anonymous Coward, you anonymous coward.
Are you kidding?
Don't you realize that the engines we use in cars today are *FAR* superior to the engines of 20 years ago?
Engineers have made huge progress on the internal combustion engine. They are so much more efficient now than ever imagined.
Fuel economy is up, and environmental impact is down.
One of the problems with the advances over the last two decades, though - is that instead of having these great designs in smaller cars, they put them in big trucks and SUVs. So, in effect: making engines more efficient made SUV's possible.
It's all about where the market takes the auto makers.
You can't just say "easy. Make better engines." You know why you can't say that? Because you're an ignorant shithead that doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
If being intelligent means supporting McCain and Ms. Congeniality, I'll take being stupid any day.
At least we can be stupid and have a growing economy, better jobs, possibly better health care and who knows! Maybe the end of a war?
Or, you can sit there in all your intelligent designs and watch the country come crashing down on itself.
Yea, I'll take stupid.
(PS. When 95% of the base republicans all claim in polls that Palin is great - YOU tell ME who the idiots are. The republican party is the fall-in-line party and the Democrats are not. We use our fucking brains.)
Because they have 1.5 Billion slaves they can call upon to do the work.
China is a developing country, has a horrible government, and in the last two decades is doing everything they can to show everyone they are superior to everyone else.
Well, I'm sorry, but Space Programs and hosting Olympic Games doesn't mean shit when whey displace hundreds of thousands of people to put in a new stadium - and don't provide those displaced people with any way to make a living in their new "homes."
China sucks. Chinese people are just fine, but their government is really, really bad.
Which was my point exactly. I mean, I do install Intel VM clusters, and they work.
My last gig, we had 12 VM hosts. One cluster was a four machine, quad-socket, dual-core "Core 2" based Xeon cluster. Another was four quad-socket, dual-core Opterons. 32GB RAM all around.
I could run 100 virtual machines on a single Opteron box. (Mind you, many of these VM's were VDI XP guests) but I could not run 75 on one of the Xeons without it crawling to a halt. And there would be no reason for it - the CPU utilization was relatively low. No real indication as to why the performance was so bad - except for the fact that the Intel boxes would have to wait on RAM access so much. Same SAN, same everything else. The Core2's were clocked slightly higher.
For many shops, the Intel CPU's are just fine but right now, if you want the best bang for your buck with a VMware host or anything else that is multi threaded and uses RAM, you're better off with AMD.
Even when Intel releases their new bus archetecture I'll probably stick with AMD for awhile until it's proven. I'm sure it will be good - Intel always makes quality stuff, even though they over-predicted how far NetBurst could take them. Besides, AMD has never done me wrong and I think a little bit of loyalty is in order. AMD has done a lot for the x86 market.
It's nice to see that Intel is following AMD's lead again here with QuickBus or whatever they're calling it. First with x86-64, then with going back to a more efficient CPU design at lower clock speeds, and now with adopting an integrated memory controller and a high speed interconnect bus (which Intel said was a horrible idea when AMD launched Opteron.) Intel might sell more parts, but it's been AMD that's actually innovated in the market.
I'll keep buying AMD if it means there's actual competition in the market. Remember when Intel used to release CPU's horribly slow, and with minimal increments in speed, for a LOT more money? That stopped as soon as AMD entered the market for real with Athlon.
I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I regard that company highly for what they've done and that does deserve some respect in my mind.
No, I didn't say it "feels faster." I said it's not easy to quantify, because if you benchmark a few apps or do a few little multithreaded tests, the Intels may be on top.
You have to actually put substantial load on these systems to see the benefit, and in a virtualized environment you see just that.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Look at the benchmarks for heavy load servers and shove it up your "single CPU's are more common because I have never done any work in the enterprise" ass.
I guess you're not doing much VMware. For us (a consulting firm) we have been doing at least two VMware installations a month (ESX, VC, SAN, etc - we're a small shop, too) and the bare minimum host is a dual socket quad-core CPU from Intel or AMD. We usually choose AMD, because they simply perform better. We usually try to steer customers towards quad-socket boards, because generally speaking it's easier to manage fewer, more powerful servers than it is to manager more less powerful ones.
It's not something you can exactly quantify right away. When you start loading up a new VM system, you'd never notice a difference between Intel or AMD. But, when you start loading 20, 30 or 40 VM's on a single host, that's when you can really start to see why AMD. You can do less stuff per core per cycle, but you can actually access more cycles because you're not trying to shove 32GB RAM down a single bus.
Almost all servers now comes with at least two sockets, and almost all CPU's you purchase for them now are quad-core. So that's 8 cores in your average priced server. I don't know why people keep trying to tell me that it's not common when it absolutely is common for an average server to have 8 cores.
When you go with VMware, you're likely to have more. And almost everyone is moving in that direction. I dare you to find even a medium to small sized IT environment where VM isn't already starting to utilize VMware or isn't planning on it in the near term.
"but that design advantage is negated by Intel's process and manufacturing excellence"
Who's the Fanboy?
Look - almost everyone I work with for VMware installations insist on Opteron. Benchmarks are one thing, but real-world performance is entirely different.
There's no doubt that the Intel CPU's are better performers on single-thread operations or operations where there's not a lot of memory IO. But the Opterons crush Intel when there's a lot of memory IO. Why do you think Intel is moving to a HyperTransport of their own? Because they WANT to admit that FSB is inefficient?
PS. All three servers in the VMMark page that top the 32 core, 24 core, and 16 core are ALL Opteron. And if you think 16 core is not normal, think again. That's a 4 socket quad core Opteron, which is pretty common these days for VMware hosts.
Until Intel unveils their version of HyperTransport, this will be more of the same.
You put a quad-core Xeon against a quad-core Opteron and under most conditions (besides CPU-only work) the Opteron will kill the Xeon.
Now, we'll have even more cycles we can't utilize, because of the old design of the system.
If you're going to do anything that uses both RAM and CPU (aka VMware hosts, which is what most big servers are used for these days) you'd better off with an Opteron.
I'd rather use a dual or quad socket Dual-Core Opteron than a dual or quad socket Quad-core Xeon.
I have a 40,000 song shared library. There's no easy way for the several people using it to drag the new folders to iTunes without me sending them some sort of changelog or something.. Not feasable.
Whenever I've ever used it, if I re-drag an existing folder - it absolutely does re-add it and create duplicates. The last time I used it was on MacOS, it was version 7.x something.
So unless they've changed the behavior in the last 5 months or so, then you're wrong or have a plug-in or something.
Jesus Chris I said the player was kida crappy but the libraries that other software uses it for work pretty good and always have.
Yea, because we ALL KNOW that the Internets can't be wrong.
Vista works for the vast majority of people that use it. Sure, there's been problems - and a lot of them are due to the fact that Microsoft broke with compatibility in some places to build a better system.
Finding Vista drivers is easy, and they USUALLY work. Don't believe the hype. Well, I guess it's too late for you.
It's funny: you're ACTUALLY trying to say that the crash is a Vista problem, even though it crashes because of an Apple driver that was poorly written. I'd be okay with that, if Apple didn't say "This release is compatible with Windows Vista." Obviously not.
Problem: There isn't something else for OSX. I have a very functional Hackintosh, and it was one of my biggest annoyances.
I like the library layout of iTunes, and WinAMP (they are essentially the same.) But, no WinAMP for OSX and there's nothing else with a decent library function.
Songbird was my biggest hope but development of that software is extremely slow. It's just finally becoming more usable, but it has been horrible for a long time if you have more than a few hundred songs in your library. Scanning a library of 40,000 MP3's takes hours and hours. WinAMP does it in 20 minutes on the same machine, in a virtual machine on Fusion.
I don't own an iPod but I've set some people up with them and I usually just use WinAMP. It has sufficient iPod controlling abilities.
Well, yea - the player is. But there's still a lot of software (although I'm not sure if Premiere still wants it) that uses the quicktime libraries to perform some functions. Quicktime provides a bunch of image manipulation libraries you can use in your applications.
Hehe shitstorm.
I don't own an iPod, but I have family members that do and I immediately remove iTunes, install WinAMP, and done.
WinAMP can manage an iPod okay, and it doesn't screw with my media library.
On top of all of the crappiness of iTunes, my biggest problem with it is that if you plan on using iTunes, you *have* to manage your media with it. There's no "rescan library" function. If you do it manually, you get two of everything in your list. It sucks and shows much arrogance on Apple's part.
The only decent software for Windows that Apple ever made was Quicktime. Even now, unfortunately, Quicktime is kinda flakey but the support libraries for Quicktime that many applications use work okay.
But, Apple does install drivers, and those drivers CAN crash the operating system.
It's no different from any other popular operating system. If you have a bad OSX driver - boom. Grey box. If you have a bad Linux driver - boom. Kernel panic.
The only utter nonsense is that Apple can't write a driver that doesn't crash the operating system. There's tens of thousands of drivers out there, and most of them run great. Apple is big enough to do proper testing. They didn't QA properly, obviously.
Ohh go fuck yourself and your poor sport for losing an argument.
Yea, and since when were we talking about modern gaming on old machines?
No, not much. With a bankroll like Google has, they can pretty much do whatever the hell they feel like it.
- They could start a pharmaceutical division - Google Pills
- They could create their own car: Google Wheels
- Their own airline: Google Air
- Shoes: Google Steps
- Toys: Google Smile
- Fabric: Google Silk
- Concrete: Google Hard
- Trucks: Google Mac
- Storage systems: Google IO
- Telescopes: Google Sky
- Cameras: Google View
Wish I had 4bn to spend on bullshit too.
"If you had a 1600x1200 display in 1997 how much did you pay for that?"
I think it was around $500.
"720p is 1280x720."
No shit.
"Just got a new laptop this year, guess what resolution it is. 1280x800."
I got my current notebook in March. 1920x1200.
My last notebook, from 2004: 1920x1200.
Besides, you don't go by notebook resolutions. They usually have compact, small screens. Not many LCD screens, except for the first year or so when they finally got low enough in price, were only 1024x768.
I wouldn't wager on 1024.
Indeed - this argument is very old and very repeated. Yes, Consoles are as good as a PC when they are released. No, they don't stay that way for very long. Right now, you can get a mid/high-end video card (Meaning: a single video card, nothing crazy like a dual SLI for $1200) and it will be twice as fast as the GPU in the PS3 and 360. You can get a quad-core CPU for your desktop for cheap. RAM is so cheap it's unbelievable.
But don't worry, it'll keep getting repeated. While I do see more of a shift towards console gaming lately, PC games will always be around - they will always be popular, always be cutting edge, always be present. nVidia and ATI didn't build their giant companies because PC gaming is dead.
My CRT in 1997 did 1600x1200. If you had a 17" or higher screen, you were using high resolution.
Not to mention - almost no games on consoles run at full 1080. Most of them run at 720, which is nothing spectacular.
Well, I guess the difference between OS/2 and MacOS is that MacOS doesn't have it's sights on taking on Windows directly. Not yet anyways. And, Apple doesn't have Microsoft helping to develop the system, so Microsoft can't just break off and use all the code they wrote for their system on their own new system (ala Windows NT.)
The age-old question of emulation is impossible to answer. Should there be an emulation layer good enough so that you can run software for the competition's operating system? It would allow your users to access their library of software. But, it could hinder development of your system. However, if you don't provide the emulation layer - you might lose users because there's not enough software available for them.
Chicken or the egg. You decide.