I had a Sony walkman that fell apart after only a couple months, a Sony television that got fuzzier and fuzzier until I finally gave it away-- at a year and a half old
Do you live in the US? Chances are that if you lived in the EU, you'd be able to get something done about that, if not a refund. Even if it had the "standard" base warranty for cheaper items (1 year), if you could prove that the fault was inherent (within 6 months of purchase the onus is on the retailer to prove the opposite), the court would almost certainly rule that a "quality" TV like Sony could be expected to last longer than 18 months.
I mean, that is a POS. I have a portable Sony TV I purchased in 1993; it's had (I'd guess) average use, and the picture is as good as the day I bought it... can't believe it's the same company people talk about today.
My father had two faulty Sony cassette Walkmans in a row three or so years back, before he gave up and got a Panasonic.
For their own sake, Sony had better keep designing "fashionable" and "innovative" stuff, because no-one's going to pay a premium for that Sony quality for much longer.
Seeing as Canon are involved, they'll probably contain 5ml of Hydrogen, cost half the price of the camera and be chipped to prevent unauthorized refilling.
Arf... actually, I was going to get the same joke in myself, but about the tiny tankfuls, not the chipping. The reason I use a (low-end) Canon printer is that (unlike their rivals) they *don't* play silly buggers with chips, refills and so on; you can get third-party ink tanks with no hassle.
I've never had to consider a refill kit, as I can get new tanks for a (relatively) decent price. Most hassle I had was a clogged head that a cleaning cartridge didn't fix (I ended up soaking the base of the print-head in meths, and it was as good as new). And *that* was probably because I'd used crappy third-party ink.
If you want to lay into crappy printer manufacturers, go for Lexmark or something...
Object oriented stuff more or less caused me to lose interest in programming because it was increasingly difficult to imagine what the computer was really doing when it was executing my code.
Would you freak out with something like (e.g.) a Pentium II that converts all the CISC instructions to RISC microcode internally without being able to see it? Just curious...
VS makes putting together applications (Some of which are seriously powerful) very easy. The fact it is easy to do doesn't make it any less useful at the end.
The problem I had when I first used VS (and knew plenty of OO theory) was that the way I was being "encouraged" to develop my application via the auto-generated code (or so it seemed) ended up with everything in the same class; as well as a few other design decisions that basically weren't conducive to building a program that would be maintainable when it grew beyond a simple app.
Of course it's possible to get round this, but it requires *conscious effort* (first time I used VS I was prepared to do things its way before I started messing round; bad idea). The effect will be much worse on those with little or no previous experience. Plus, moving and changing auto-generated code manually is generally a bad idea in such cases (****s up the likes of the GUI layout editor and so on...)
As I said, this isn't a problem for small, quick apps; but anything beyond that will require a discipline which I feel goes against the RAD ethos of VS.
That's not counting the problem I had with disappearing components and such...:-6
I don't know how Eclipse compares; I've never used any of its RAD GUI plugins and the like.... although it does have the same approach to displaying function and method names (-->bottom up).
Speaking personally, I ocasionally do the same thing; but that's because different pieces of software have always had different strengths and weaknesses.
In all honesty, I think saying that MSPaint could be simpler is giving it too much credit. It's just not well-designed at all; it's only easy to use because there's not a lot to it. Or rather, it's easy to learn; *using* it is a PITA, because stuff like colour and background selection are so basic, you end up doing complicated workarounds to get past the limitations.
In terms of control of individual pixels, something like the 2-64 colour versions of Brilliance on the Amiga (a paint program generally considered better than the later versions of Deluxe Paint, which also had a 24-bit "true colour" version) would be far more satisfactory. MSPaint is simply a crude application that hasn't improved much since it was called "Paintbrush" God knows how many years ago...
For me the Paint Shop Pro series (sans everything since version 8, when they turned the program into a Photoshop clone, complete with confusing UI) has a better UI than both Photoshop and the GIMP
I had an early version of PSP (magazine freebie), and whilst it was reasonably powerful, and more tuned to the Windows interface manager, the interface wasn't that great. For example, many of the dialogs had a "programmerish" feel, with selection of numbers by direct input or up/down arrows, instead of a more intuitive graphical representation.
Photo Deluxe (a now discontinued product that used the Photoshop engine, but a totally different interface) was a pretty good example of a product that did what it set out to do. It wasn't Photoshop, it wasn't trying to be, and if you tried moving beyond what it was designed to do, it was fiddly. But within its design range, it was pretty easy to use.
I don't know how it compares to Photoshop Elements, which took over its position in the market; I suspect Elements is far closer to the "real" Photoshop. Anyhow, it seems to have problems on modern PCs due to some shoddy programming; it ran fine on my 256Mb machine, but it complained that there wasn't enough RAM on my Dad's PC with (IIRC) 1Gb- and it did the same on mine when I upgraded to 768Mb.
As for a non-lifesupport example, I've notice that some EULAs mention that the software is not to be used in control systems within nuclear power plants.
Wusses.... Sinclair's advertising for the ZX80 (the UK's first computer under £100, 4K ROM, 1K RAM) stated that it *could* be used to run a nuclear power station.
He's not saying "poison" in the poetic sense you dunce, he's saying it in the technical sense.
What? Did you think I was imagining him cackling and holding a small bottle with a skull and crossbones on it?
Of course I meant the technical sense, and I'm still not convinced that "poisoning" is a good description of what the EU (or whoever else; let's be honest, this isn't just an EU thing) would be doing. "Splitting" or "forking" are more accurate.
"You're an ignorant American" rant regarding "US Values" and the idea that Americans think that Europeans are all "Socialist Cheese-Eating Europeans".
"Poisoning" implied wanton destructiveness on the part of the EU. This didn't describe the reality of the situation (see above).
No, I don't think that all Americans view Europeans that way. But I'll bet a notable minority do; and I wasn't necessarily assigning this view to the guy I was replying to.
First of all, look around in Europe, they have some of the most socialistically set up economies around, so that's a valid point.
I don't think any country in Europe is especially socialist, except in comparison with America, perhaps. Which ones did you have in mind?
Anyhow, the example was a deliberate caricature (and not especially exaggerated) of how some Americans see Europe; and how anything smacking of "socialism" is Godless and basically just communism by the back door.
Also, the internet has nothing to do with values, or America, so please stop trying to turn this into an "Americans think they're so good, blah blah blah" argument.
*I* didn't say that. However, use of a similar argument has been used by Americans elsewhere in this thread. If you disagree with that, please take it up with them.
No government should have a control over DNS at all due to the threat of censorship.
So you're saying the US government don't have a disproportionate influence over the current set up?
As for Europe, here's my issue. Just what have your countries contributed recently compared to the US? Not a threat, not an insult, just a simple question. Name some positive things you have done that come close to what the US has done.
The World Wide Web?
It's sure as hell more usable than gopher.:)
I won't even bring up the issue of WWII etc.
You just did. The EU didn't start that; actually, the EU was set up to avoid things like that ever happening again. If you want to start blaming the Axis powers specifically, be my guest.
The bigger point is, we invented it, we started it... so they have to plug into it. Its just how it works. To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.
I sympathise with you up to a point, but the fact remains that the Internet infrastructure (computers and networks) outside the US don't (in general) belong to the US. The US may have allowed the rest of the world to plug in to "their" network once upon a time, but the Internet is no longer a US-based network with appendages from other countries plugged in to "your" network. It is truly worldwide.
To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.
I don't want this to come across as ungrateful, or as if I'm trying to disparage the US. The fact remains that your invention of the Internet gave you that advantage to start with. Fair enough; the world is generally run on the way things "are", not what happened before. So the position is this; the US has the power. The rest of the world is using a system over which they don't have (what they consider to be) a satisfactory level of power.
So... you could perhaps more accurately say "To simply hand over control makes no sense when we have the upper hand". That's politics.... that's life.
It's also a fact of life that the rest of the world won't like this as much as you do, and that they'll exert control over *their* parts of the Internet to their advantage.
Should we hand over control just because they want it? Thats silly! Of course they want it. We created something and control something that is extremely important in todays world. You bet your ass they want a part of it.
Of course; it's all politics. I wouldn't expect your government to give up that advantage without good reason. And I wouldn't expect the rest of the world to grin and bear it either.:)
Bottom line; everyone uses the Internet now. You can say "but we let you connect to *our* Internet so it's only fair that we should rule it". But it isn't "your" Internet now, and it's arguable that if the US had imposed far stricter connection terms that it wouldn't have been a success (many would certainly have thought twice about using it for critical business infrastructure), and so you would have lost more than you've gained. It cuts both ways.
The reality is the situation today; an international Internet, whether you think that's fair on the "inventors" or not. The reality too; your politicians have an advantage- regardless of where that came from, it's their nature to play that advantage to America's (and their) gain. And the rest of the world will equally look after their own interests.
And as to what I think will *actually* happen.... well, I mentioned that in my previous message.
The EU can poison all the DNS servers they want. It will hurt them more than the US because the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.
Poison is a pretty emotive word, and I'm not convinced it applies here. Unless you see everything in black-and-white with yourself as the fearless defender of God's own American values against the heathen Socialist cheese-eating Europeans.
My guess is that in the short term the US will win this one, simply because it isn't currently worth the hassle to set up an alternative DNS system.
However, I expect that behind the scenes- or away from the present "controversy"- if the US maintains its current position, then other countries will make moves to create their own root DNS server system anyway. This will almost certainly mirror the existing root servers, and be used in conjunction with them.
Only if US control grows too great will they fully switch over to use of "their" root servers and stop mirroring. In short, people will be migrated to the "new" systems with no noticable effect on their use of the Internet, whilst allowing government X (rightly or wrongly) to control the servers better.
Personally, I think that this story is way overdone. There was nothing to stop this happening before, and if places like China felt like doing it for reasons of repression, they'd have done it anyway. That's not to mention the vagueness of the reporting; the BBC basically said "The Interweb is going to split/break", and didn't go into more detail.
Yeah, *I* know that the Itanium isn't x86 compatible. Anyone likely to be buying one is going to know that.
I was saying that Joe Public not buying a (hypothetical) next-gen x86 CPU from Intel called "Bogium" because they mistakenly think it's not x86-compatible (in the same way that the Itanium genuinely *isn't*) is an unlikely situation.
People are likely to buy positively on the "Pentium" name; but if it isn't called a Pentium, all they're going to care about is whether it runs Windows and their favourite apps or not.
Got something called a stringy floppy that used tiny videotape cartridges.
2 things; I didn't know that there were stringy floppies available for the ZX81- I thought that they (the microdrives) only worked with the Spectrum and the QL.
I know there were other brands, but I never heard of them being released for the ZX81.
BTW, was there any significance to your use of the phrase "videotape" instead of "magnetic tape" or just "tape"? Just curious...
Ooh, a third thought: How about a real geek - i.e. someone who bites the heads off live chickens???
Bird flu Russian Roulette? Genius!
Re:This is ridiculous
on
Zombie Lurch
·
· Score: 4, Funny
But NOT posting a time-sensitive story such as this is ridiculous. This was yesterday, mr. editor.
In response to the question "Don't you have ANY brains?!", Cmdr Taco simply gibbered and mumbled something about a zombie having eaten most of them the day before.
Seriously, Intel should start thinking about a new name before the next version bump.
Kinda silly when you think about the latin root; but you knew what I meant. Anyhow, is the use of the name "Pentium D" replacing that of "Pentium 4"? (Obviously they won't use this for the single cores, but in the not-so-distant future all Intel's x86 chips will likely be multiple core anyway).
Strikes me that after they get past a certain point, most companies seem to like to move away from version numbers (as in films). "Pentium D" may indicate that Intel are doing this.
I don't think they'll ditch the Pentium name altogether though, whether you think it's justified or not. It's pretty well known, and if they change it there's always the risk of people thinking it's a new and incompatible chip.
Okay; perhaps not, most people don't know enough about CPUs to *mistakenly* demand a Pentium because they think it's x86 compatible and refuse a "Bogium" or whatever because they think it's not (a la "Itanium"). In fact, most people will simply want a "Pentium" if they ask by name, or something that'll run their spyware-infested smiley apps if not.
I've got enough speed in my P4 2.6GHz. What I need is a lower (by today's metric, but still damn fast) clock speed with much less power consumption and heat production. Where is it?
Those aren't rumors, they're confirmed fact by intel itself. Did you miss all their marketing on future low-power cpus all across the board?
Yep. So their marketing can't have been that good. As I said, I'm not an expert in this area, and I'm not planning on replacing my 3-year old 1.8GHz P4 system in the next six months.
Perhaps they only advertised in "'Gotta have the latest'-Obssessive CPU Freak" magazine:)
(Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire article in depth yet, and I don't know **** about chip design)
I assume that this chip is basically derived from the Prescott P4, which (in spite of all the hype) has been considered by some commentators to be a dead-end in chip design and a mistake on the part of Intel.
There are rumours that Intel are now using the Pentium M (ironically, a chip which supposedly owes at least as much to the Pentium III design as to the Pentium 4(*)) as their "reference" design instead of Prescott. Bearing in mind that the Pentium M has been praised for providing performance approaching that of the P4s with *much* smaller power requirements and minimal cooling needed, this wouldn't surprise me. In fact, I've read several articles (including one via/.) promoting the Pentium M as a desktop chip (IIRC passive cooling was possible with a reasonably-sized desktop heatsink).
(*) And I don't know if that was the previous-gen P4; it's been said by some that Prescott was different enough to warrant the "Pentium 5" name. At any rate, the Pentium M isn't simply a power-efficient Pentium 4.
Yeah, I agree. I've thought for some time now that the biggest enemy of capitalism is capitalism itself; or rather, short term greed by participants acting out of pure self-interest damaging the game in the long run.
commie liberal gay black islamic woman terrorist spy
It wasn't a blanket criticism of Wikipedia. However, those types of contributors *are* there. Where they add value, fine; I'm not too concerned with their motives.
Where they clutter up the content with badly-researched, badly-written and/or unimportant facts, however, this highlights their motivations. As I said elsewhere, I doubt these people are doing the boring work of cleaning stuff up. But I bet they'll try to justify their contributions in a high-handed way.
Let me put it another way; the Linux kernel may be "open", but Linus is sure as hell picky about what goes in. If someone wants to roll their own, they can do that, but they're going to have to meet pretty high standards if they want into the official release.
I wouldn't touch the Linux kernel with a bargepole if it used the Wikipedia method of contribution. Well, this is to some extent comparing Apples with Oranges, and its validity only extends so far. However, but you were the one that made the comparison in the first place, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a Sony walkman that fell apart after only a couple months, a Sony television that got fuzzier and fuzzier until I finally gave it away-- at a year and a half old
Do you live in the US? Chances are that if you lived in the EU, you'd be able to get something done about that, if not a refund. Even if it had the "standard" base warranty for cheaper items (1 year), if you could prove that the fault was inherent (within 6 months of purchase the onus is on the retailer to prove the opposite), the court would almost certainly rule that a "quality" TV like Sony could be expected to last longer than 18 months.
I mean, that is a POS. I have a portable Sony TV I purchased in 1993; it's had (I'd guess) average use, and the picture is as good as the day I bought it... can't believe it's the same company people talk about today.
My father had two faulty Sony cassette Walkmans in a row three or so years back, before he gave up and got a Panasonic.
For their own sake, Sony had better keep designing "fashionable" and "innovative" stuff, because no-one's going to pay a premium for that Sony quality for much longer.
The reality is that computers are still not bright enough to work with people.
:)
They're bright enough; they just feel uncomfortable around them and lack social skills
Seeing as Canon are involved, they'll probably contain 5ml of Hydrogen, cost half the price of the camera and be chipped to prevent unauthorized refilling.
Arf... actually, I was going to get the same joke in myself, but about the tiny tankfuls, not the chipping. The reason I use a (low-end) Canon printer is that (unlike their rivals) they *don't* play silly buggers with chips, refills and so on; you can get third-party ink tanks with no hassle.
I've never had to consider a refill kit, as I can get new tanks for a (relatively) decent price. Most hassle I had was a clogged head that a cleaning cartridge didn't fix (I ended up soaking the base of the print-head in meths, and it was as good as new). And *that* was probably because I'd used crappy third-party ink.
If you want to lay into crappy printer manufacturers, go for Lexmark or something...
Object oriented stuff more or less caused me to lose interest in programming because it was increasingly difficult to imagine what the computer was really doing when it was executing my code.
Would you freak out with something like (e.g.) a Pentium II that converts all the CISC instructions to RISC microcode internally without being able to see it? Just curious...
VS makes putting together applications (Some of which are seriously powerful) very easy. The fact it is easy to do doesn't make it any less useful at the end.
:-6
The problem I had when I first used VS (and knew plenty of OO theory) was that the way I was being "encouraged" to develop my application via the auto-generated code (or so it seemed) ended up with everything in the same class; as well as a few other design decisions that basically weren't conducive to building a program that would be maintainable when it grew beyond a simple app.
Of course it's possible to get round this, but it requires *conscious effort* (first time I used VS I was prepared to do things its way before I started messing round; bad idea). The effect will be much worse on those with little or no previous experience. Plus, moving and changing auto-generated code manually is generally a bad idea in such cases (****s up the likes of the GUI layout editor and so on...)
As I said, this isn't a problem for small, quick apps; but anything beyond that will require a discipline which I feel goes against the RAD ethos of VS.
That's not counting the problem I had with disappearing components and such...
I don't know how Eclipse compares; I've never used any of its RAD GUI plugins and the like.... although it does have the same approach to displaying function and method names (-->bottom up).
The best crims are never found out hence, their success and covertness.
a) buy gold
[..]
e) never ever talk , paint a false picture to everyone including your wife/kids
Doesn't that include not discussing it on Slashdot either? Plus, you forgot...
(g) Don't give away all your secrets.
Speaking personally, I ocasionally do the same thing; but that's because different pieces of software have always had different strengths and weaknesses.
In all honesty, I think saying that MSPaint could be simpler is giving it too much credit. It's just not well-designed at all; it's only easy to use because there's not a lot to it. Or rather, it's easy to learn; *using* it is a PITA, because stuff like colour and background selection are so basic, you end up doing complicated workarounds to get past the limitations.
In terms of control of individual pixels, something like the 2-64 colour versions of Brilliance on the Amiga (a paint program generally considered better than the later versions of Deluxe Paint, which also had a 24-bit "true colour" version) would be far more satisfactory. MSPaint is simply a crude application that hasn't improved much since it was called "Paintbrush" God knows how many years ago...
For me the Paint Shop Pro series (sans everything since version 8, when they turned the program into a Photoshop clone, complete with confusing UI) has a better UI than both Photoshop and the GIMP
I had an early version of PSP (magazine freebie), and whilst it was reasonably powerful, and more tuned to the Windows interface manager, the interface wasn't that great. For example, many of the dialogs had a "programmerish" feel, with selection of numbers by direct input or up/down arrows, instead of a more intuitive graphical representation.
Photo Deluxe (a now discontinued product that used the Photoshop engine, but a totally different interface) was a pretty good example of a product that did what it set out to do. It wasn't Photoshop, it wasn't trying to be, and if you tried moving beyond what it was designed to do, it was fiddly. But within its design range, it was pretty easy to use.
I don't know how it compares to Photoshop Elements, which took over its position in the market; I suspect Elements is far closer to the "real" Photoshop. Anyhow, it seems to have problems on modern PCs due to some shoddy programming; it ran fine on my 256Mb machine, but it complained that there wasn't enough RAM on my Dad's PC with (IIRC) 1Gb- and it did the same on mine when I upgraded to 768Mb.
Yep, no prob.
As for a non-lifesupport example, I've notice that some EULAs mention that the software is not to be used in control systems within nuclear power plants.
Wusses.... Sinclair's advertising for the ZX80 (the UK's first computer under £100, 4K ROM, 1K RAM) stated that it *could* be used to run a nuclear power station.
He's not saying "poison" in the poetic sense you dunce, he's saying it in the technical sense.
:)
What? Did you think I was imagining him cackling and holding a small bottle with a skull and crossbones on it?
Of course I meant the technical sense, and I'm still not convinced that "poisoning" is a good description of what the EU (or whoever else; let's be honest, this isn't just an EU thing) would be doing. "Splitting" or "forking" are more accurate.
"You're an ignorant American" rant regarding "US Values" and the idea that Americans think that Europeans are all "Socialist Cheese-Eating Europeans".
"Poisoning" implied wanton destructiveness on the part of the EU. This didn't describe the reality of the situation (see above).
No, I don't think that all Americans view Europeans that way. But I'll bet a notable minority do; and I wasn't necessarily assigning this view to the guy I was replying to.
First of all, look around in Europe, they have some of the most socialistically set up economies around, so that's a valid point.
I don't think any country in Europe is especially socialist, except in comparison with America, perhaps. Which ones did you have in mind?
Anyhow, the example was a deliberate caricature (and not especially exaggerated) of how some Americans see Europe; and how anything smacking of "socialism" is Godless and basically just communism by the back door.
Also, the internet has nothing to do with values, or America, so please stop trying to turn this into an "Americans think they're so good, blah blah blah" argument.
*I* didn't say that. However, use of a similar argument has been used by Americans elsewhere in this thread. If you disagree with that, please take it up with them.
No government should have a control over DNS at all due to the threat of censorship.
So you're saying the US government don't have a disproportionate influence over the current set up?
As for Europe, here's my issue. Just what have your countries contributed recently compared to the US? Not a threat, not an insult, just a simple question. Name some positive things you have done that come close to what the US has done.
The World Wide Web?
It's sure as hell more usable than gopher.
I won't even bring up the issue of WWII etc.
You just did. The EU didn't start that; actually, the EU was set up to avoid things like that ever happening again. If you want to start blaming the Axis powers specifically, be my guest.
The bigger point is, we invented it, we started it... so they have to plug into it. Its just how it works. To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.
:)
I sympathise with you up to a point, but the fact remains that the Internet infrastructure (computers and networks) outside the US don't (in general) belong to the US. The US may have allowed the rest of the world to plug in to "their" network once upon a time, but the Internet is no longer a US-based network with appendages from other countries plugged in to "your" network. It is truly worldwide.
To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.
I don't want this to come across as ungrateful, or as if I'm trying to disparage the US. The fact remains that your invention of the Internet gave you that advantage to start with. Fair enough; the world is generally run on the way things "are", not what happened before. So the position is this; the US has the power. The rest of the world is using a system over which they don't have (what they consider to be) a satisfactory level of power.
So... you could perhaps more accurately say "To simply hand over control makes no sense when we have the upper hand". That's politics.... that's life.
It's also a fact of life that the rest of the world won't like this as much as you do, and that they'll exert control over *their* parts of the Internet to their advantage.
Should we hand over control just because they want it? Thats silly! Of course they want it. We created something and control something that is extremely important in todays world. You bet your ass they want a part of it.
Of course; it's all politics. I wouldn't expect your government to give up that advantage without good reason. And I wouldn't expect the rest of the world to grin and bear it either.
Bottom line; everyone uses the Internet now. You can say "but we let you connect to *our* Internet so it's only fair that we should rule it". But it isn't "your" Internet now, and it's arguable that if the US had imposed far stricter connection terms that it wouldn't have been a success (many would certainly have thought twice about using it for critical business infrastructure), and so you would have lost more than you've gained. It cuts both ways.
The reality is the situation today; an international Internet, whether you think that's fair on the "inventors" or not. The reality too; your politicians have an advantage- regardless of where that came from, it's their nature to play that advantage to America's (and their) gain. And the rest of the world will equally look after their own interests.
And as to what I think will *actually* happen.... well, I mentioned that in my previous message.
The EU can poison all the DNS servers they want. It will hurt them more than the US because the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.
Poison is a pretty emotive word, and I'm not convinced it applies here. Unless you see everything in black-and-white with yourself as the fearless defender of God's own American values against the heathen Socialist cheese-eating Europeans.
My guess is that in the short term the US will win this one, simply because it isn't currently worth the hassle to set up an alternative DNS system.
However, I expect that behind the scenes- or away from the present "controversy"- if the US maintains its current position, then other countries will make moves to create their own root DNS server system anyway. This will almost certainly mirror the existing root servers, and be used in conjunction with them.
Only if US control grows too great will they fully switch over to use of "their" root servers and stop mirroring. In short, people will be migrated to the "new" systems with no noticable effect on their use of the Internet, whilst allowing government X (rightly or wrongly) to control the servers better.
Personally, I think that this story is way overdone. There was nothing to stop this happening before, and if places like China felt like doing it for reasons of repression, they'd have done it anyway. That's not to mention the vagueness of the reporting; the BBC basically said "The Interweb is going to split/break", and didn't go into more detail.
Yeah, *I* know that the Itanium isn't x86 compatible. Anyone likely to be buying one is going to know that.
I was saying that Joe Public not buying a (hypothetical) next-gen x86 CPU from Intel called "Bogium" because they mistakenly think it's not x86-compatible (in the same way that the Itanium genuinely *isn't*) is an unlikely situation.
People are likely to buy positively on the "Pentium" name; but if it isn't called a Pentium, all they're going to care about is whether it runs Windows and their favourite apps or not.
It was a crap example anyway.
My ZX81 has only 1KB, and that should be enough for anyone.
Well, they did manage to get a basic (full) chess program to fit into the 1K memory, didn't they?
However, remember that with the extravagent 16K ram-pack, you could play exciting Doom-style 3D games on the ZX81.
Got something called a stringy floppy that used tiny videotape cartridges.
2 things; I didn't know that there were stringy floppies available for the ZX81- I thought that they (the microdrives) only worked with the Spectrum and the QL.
I know there were other brands, but I never heard of them being released for the ZX81.
BTW, was there any significance to your use of the phrase "videotape" instead of "magnetic tape" or just "tape"? Just curious...
Ooh, a third thought: How about a real geek - i.e. someone who bites the heads off live chickens???
Bird flu Russian Roulette? Genius!
But NOT posting a time-sensitive story such as this is ridiculous. This was yesterday, mr. editor.
In response to the question "Don't you have ANY brains?!", Cmdr Taco simply gibbered and mumbled something about a zombie having eaten most of them the day before.
"Pentium 5"?? HAHAHAHA
Seriously, Intel should start thinking about a new name before the next version bump.
Kinda silly when you think about the latin root; but you knew what I meant. Anyhow, is the use of the name "Pentium D" replacing that of "Pentium 4"? (Obviously they won't use this for the single cores, but in the not-so-distant future all Intel's x86 chips will likely be multiple core anyway).
Strikes me that after they get past a certain point, most companies seem to like to move away from version numbers (as in films). "Pentium D" may indicate that Intel are doing this.
I don't think they'll ditch the Pentium name altogether though, whether you think it's justified or not. It's pretty well known, and if they change it there's always the risk of people thinking it's a new and incompatible chip.
Okay; perhaps not, most people don't know enough about CPUs to *mistakenly* demand a Pentium because they think it's x86 compatible and refuse a "Bogium" or whatever because they think it's not (a la "Itanium"). In fact, most people will simply want a "Pentium" if they ask by name, or something that'll run their spyware-infested smiley apps if not.
I've got enough speed in my P4 2.6GHz. What I need is a lower (by today's metric, but still damn fast) clock speed with much less power consumption and heat production. Where is it?
It's in the shop that sells "Pentium M" CPUs.
Those aren't rumors, they're confirmed fact by intel itself. Did you miss all their marketing on future low-power cpus all across the board?
:)
Yep. So their marketing can't have been that good. As I said, I'm not an expert in this area, and I'm not planning on replacing my 3-year old 1.8GHz P4 system in the next six months.
Perhaps they only advertised in "'Gotta have the latest'-Obssessive CPU Freak" magazine
(Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire article in depth yet, and I don't know **** about chip design)
/.) promoting the Pentium M as a desktop chip (IIRC passive cooling was possible with a reasonably-sized desktop heatsink).
I assume that this chip is basically derived from the Prescott P4, which (in spite of all the hype) has been considered by some commentators to be a dead-end in chip design and a mistake on the part of Intel.
There are rumours that Intel are now using the Pentium M (ironically, a chip which supposedly owes at least as much to the Pentium III design as to the Pentium 4(*)) as their "reference" design instead of Prescott. Bearing in mind that the Pentium M has been praised for providing performance approaching that of the P4s with *much* smaller power requirements and minimal cooling needed, this wouldn't surprise me. In fact, I've read several articles (including one via
(*) And I don't know if that was the previous-gen P4; it's been said by some that Prescott was different enough to warrant the "Pentium 5" name. At any rate, the Pentium M isn't simply a power-efficient Pentium 4.
I think it's interesting to watch and see who is the 800lb gorrila here.
That's obvious; it's Steve Ballmer.
Yeah, I agree. I've thought for some time now that the biggest enemy of capitalism is capitalism itself; or rather, short term greed by participants acting out of pure self-interest damaging the game in the long run.
:)
commie liberal gay black islamic woman terrorist spy
Sounds quite cool to me actually
It wasn't a blanket criticism of Wikipedia. However, those types of contributors *are* there. Where they add value, fine; I'm not too concerned with their motives.
Where they clutter up the content with badly-researched, badly-written and/or unimportant facts, however, this highlights their motivations. As I said elsewhere, I doubt these people are doing the boring work of cleaning stuff up. But I bet they'll try to justify their contributions in a high-handed way.
Let me put it another way; the Linux kernel may be "open", but Linus is sure as hell picky about what goes in. If someone wants to roll their own, they can do that, but they're going to have to meet pretty high standards if they want into the official release.
I wouldn't touch the Linux kernel with a bargepole if it used the Wikipedia method of contribution. Well, this is to some extent comparing Apples with Oranges, and its validity only extends so far. However, but you were the one that made the comparison in the first place, not me.