1000base-T used all four wire pairs, yes, but it was extremely limited in length. (10m, IIRC). 1000Base-TX goes the full 100m, uses all four wire pairs, and is full duplex on all wires simeltaneously.
Okay, I checked and found that 1000base-TX does exist and is TIA-EIA-854 (1000base-T is IEEE 802.3ab), indeed uses all 4 pairs of wires, but each pair is half-duplex. In addition, CAT6 cable is required for the additional (analog) bandwidth.
And the devices on the market are still 1000base-T. See for example Intel and Cisco: both say 1000base-T and 802.3ab, both go 100m at gigabit speed, and 1000base-TX is nowhere in sight.
Considering that 1000base-T & 1000base-TX are incompatible, and devices would not sell if they don't work with Intel and Cisco, I'd say 99% or more of current gigabit stuff on the market are 1000base-T, not TX.
A lot of (I'd go as far as saying 'all') the inexpensive copper gigabit stuff on the market that are labelled 1000baseTX are incorrect.
Maybe somebody is working on such a standard, which is said to be gigabit over 2 pair of copper wires. However, almost all the current stuff on the market are
1000baseT, which is Gigabit over 4 pairs of wires in a CAT5e cable.
You can shovel 133MB/second over a PCI bus, or 1064Mb.... very slightly more than a gigabit, but that's with NOTHING else happening on the bus.
Don't forget that 1000baseT transfers 1Gbps in both directions, so potentially you need 2Gbps of bandwidth over the bus. And as you said the HD controller is also on the south bridge so if you copy stuff from disk to network you'll need more than that to fully utilize the hardware.
Hopefully PCI Express with give us more bandwidth. If you must buy now make sure you get one on CSA and not just a on-board chip on PCI, it doesn't cost much more and makes quite a difference.
You have a good point. With some much disk space nowadays, maybe the default action when we close an application is to save without prompting the user, but keeping the last 5 versions of the document, with a button to revert to one of these if desired.
Or even better, make this an OS feature and have the filesystem handle it. Didn't one of the OS (VMS?) have some "versioned files" feature like that?
The first thing that comes to mind is this story that MS refused to support Hebrew for Mac Office. There's some theory that they can't do that due to political reasons (trying not to piss of another group of customers, though pissing off Israel people in the mean time). If this program applies to Mac products as well Israel people can make their own version, though I don't see why they would want to support MS if they are treated so poorly.
This is stupid. I wonder if the Firefox developers would not scream bloody murder if somebody just takes the Firefox code, re-brand it with a new, freely usable name and logo -- say, Debifox, and everyone starts using that and forgetting about the Firefox name.
"Totally free use" of the name & icons may not be the ideal solution for Firefox, but they need to make a little more compromise than this.
Having read the emails in the archive, I think I side with the Mozilla folks on this one. For exactly the same reason that you mention. If the Firefox packaged in Debian has been patched from the standard distro, then there it should not be called Firefox.
You have a point, but this is not what the distributions or users are used to. Most packages from Debian/Red Hat/others has some patch to make them comply with the directory layout or other policies unique to the distribution. If everyone take this stance to the extreme you'd have to make up a new name for each package, INCLUDING THE LINUX KERNEL.
And then, users will ask: "I want to use Firefox(tm), MySQL(tm) and Perl(tm) on Debian, but I can't find them!" and getting the answer: "They are in the butt-headed-foundation-browser-5.13, somekindof-database-2.17, and incomprehesible-scripting-language-15.4 packages, by the way, you'll need a system with kernel-originally-written-by-finnish-student-2.78 to run these."
I think it reflects that a large part of the audience who grew up with computer games has, er, grown older, and this is the kneejerk reaction of the industry to try to attract them.
The CPU clock is often used to measure processor speed in demostrating Moore's Law.
Maybe, in additional to the current marketing reasons, Intel found that they can't make the CPU clock follow Moore's Law anymore. This in itself would bad news for not only Intel but the whole industry as it cannot keep up its image of rapid growth.
This change will de-emphasize raw clock rate, but I wonder if it is also meant to de-emphasize raw processor speed in general as we move on to showing how to get more real work done by other means like putting multiple cores in a package or speeding up the I/O subsystems.
I am sure people will find a way to massage the data to show Moore's Law is still valid, but I wonder if the days of CPU clock following the law is going to be over.
[...]switching to Apple and Linux would not be without cost. There is a lot of labor and training involved, even if the software is free.
It would also stimulate the economy. We'll see people starting companies to fill the great void MS left behind, or to provide the labor & training you mentioned. Whole new industries could eolve. These companies will compete openly in the marketplace, bringing new ideas and innovations.
The cellphone companies simply do not want to provide this information [about cell tower location].
Some of this is security; a lot of these towers are unmanned. Sure there are physical security but someone malicious could go break down all the locks, destory or steal equipment, and cost the companies lots of money in both equipment and lost income.
Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but you really don't want to end up being as a scapegoat in a high profile case this one has the potential of turning into. Getting blamed for distributing a million copies of Windows and ending up in jail for years is not fun.
It is wise to keep a low profile from a company that offers bounties to hunt people down.
Similar in idea, new motherboards just came out in Japan using etBIOS. Letting PCs to play CD/DVDs, browse the net, etc. even before they boot up. No HDD is needed, though that probably means persistent storage is not available. (Can't save the all the p0rn you find nor bookmark the site:-) )
Well, you see, they are really quite clever this way. If they didn't complain, only a few people would have known about it, and "The Education Secretary is doing it also!" wouldn't have the credibility as it has now.
Your work phone may have CID blocked, but it wouldn't work on a 1-800 number. That uses ANI, a different system and is not blockable. Depends on the outfit they can either see your number real-time or on their monthly statement.
Silicon Image makes, or made, their 0680 RAID chipset, and Koutech Systems sells the IOFLEX-Pir133 using that chipset. It costs $25 retail. I tried a Koutech card and had a lot of trouble with it, even after updating the BIOS.
Yeah, I tried one card based on the same chip. I attached two drives to the card, one which has data, and created a mirror set. The *#$#% thing spent 10+ hours trying to mirror a 60G HDD in BIOS, during which the PC can't be used, so I went to sleep and it was still going when I woke up. I cannot imagine spending 10+ hours each time I need to repair a mirror, so I scraped the PoS. Silicon Image seems to be big on SATA controllers, and I have one on my motherboard, but I have no drive to test it with.
I used highpoint hpt370 controllers and they worked well, but after I got a new MB which has suspend-to-RAM I found that highpoint's W2k driver hanged the PC if I used that. Not sure if it is just incompatibility or what, but I have also had IRQ sharing problems with the drivers so I kinda doubt their quality.
I now use a Promise controller in that PC and it has worked well so far.
My gripe with Promise & newer Highpoint BIOSes is that they erase the partition information if you change the mirror setups. I used to just add/delete a drive and make/destroy a mirror and use it as before (Highpoint's documentation seems to say this is okay). Now I have to backup the partition table to do it. It makes sense for splitting a mirror 'cos W2k gets confused, but not for making a mirror.
I have not really tried swapping a drive in a mirror which these controllers; with the above BIOS experience I am not very confident about not making a mistake and erasing the other drive in the process. OS-based solutions like Veritas are much better in this regard. Linux RAID also, but the user space utilities can use some polishing. As for W2k, it is only available on Server versions and it have to re-mirror after a BSoD each time, which is annoying.
I haven't tried hardware RAIDs but I am sure they are easier to manage than these cheap driver/BIOS based solutions.
I RTFA and what Netgear did was just set up two names, sure that uses some bandwidth to their DNS server but they can point those name anywhere, directing the SNTP queries to somewhere not on Netgear's network, and thus not use Netgear's own bandwidth...
Linus said 'The developer complained how "ugly" it was' in the interview, but if you check out the conversation in linux-kernel, you can see that this does not refer to 'the code' but rather 'the inclusion of the code in the linux kernel'.
The reason it was ugly was that it duplicates the function of some other code in the kernel.
It is hard to believe that the code was ugly. After all, it was written by ken/dmr and withstood 30 years of scrutiny.
Slashdot Mirror
Source, please?
1000base-T does go 100 meters.
Okay, I checked and found that 1000base-TX does exist and is TIA-EIA-854 (1000base-T is IEEE 802.3ab), indeed uses all 4 pairs of wires, but each pair is half-duplex. In addition, CAT6 cable is required for the additional (analog) bandwidth.
And the devices on the market are still 1000base-T. See for example Intel and Cisco: both say 1000base-T and 802.3ab, both go 100m at gigabit speed, and 1000base-TX is nowhere in sight.
Considering that 1000base-T & 1000base-TX are incompatible, and devices would not sell if they don't work with Intel and Cisco, I'd say 99% or more of current gigabit stuff on the market are 1000base-T, not TX.
Maybe somebody is working on such a standard, which is said to be gigabit over 2 pair of copper wires. However, almost all the current stuff on the market are 1000baseT, which is Gigabit over 4 pairs of wires in a CAT5e cable.
You can shovel 133MB/second over a PCI bus, or 1064Mb.... very slightly more than a gigabit, but that's with NOTHING else happening on the bus.
Don't forget that 1000baseT transfers 1Gbps in both directions, so potentially you need 2Gbps of bandwidth over the bus. And as you said the HD controller is also on the south bridge so if you copy stuff from disk to network you'll need more than that to fully utilize the hardware.
Hopefully PCI Express with give us more bandwidth. If you must buy now make sure you get one on CSA and not just a on-board chip on PCI, it doesn't cost much more and makes quite a difference.
Too bad CSA is Intel-only for the moment.
Otherwise known as the "Sell the blades cheaply and make money on the razor" anti-strategy.
Or even better, make this an OS feature and have the filesystem handle it. Didn't one of the OS (VMS?) have some "versioned files" feature like that?
The first thing that comes to mind is this story that MS refused to support Hebrew for Mac Office. There's some theory that they can't do that due to political reasons (trying not to piss of another group of customers, though pissing off Israel people in the mean time). If this program applies to Mac products as well Israel people can make their own version, though I don't see why they would want to support MS if they are treated so poorly.
Especially of interests are the following 2 points:
- PG trademark owner and PG2 owner are supposedly friends.
- PG2 tries to claim copyright over the files as well, even though the text themselves are supposed to be in the public domain.
"Totally free use" of the name & icons may not be the ideal solution for Firefox, but they need to make a little more compromise than this.
You have a point, but this is not what the distributions or users are used to. Most packages from Debian/Red Hat/others has some patch to make them comply with the directory layout or other policies unique to the distribution. If everyone take this stance to the extreme you'd have to make up a new name for each package, INCLUDING THE LINUX KERNEL.
And then, users will ask: "I want to use Firefox(tm), MySQL(tm) and Perl(tm) on Debian, but I can't find them!" and getting the answer: "They are in the butt-headed-foundation-browser-5.13, somekindof-database-2.17, and incomprehesible-scripting-language-15.4 packages, by the way, you'll need a system with kernel-originally-written-by-finnish-student-2.78 to run these."
I think it reflects that a large part of the audience who grew up with computer games has, er, grown older, and this is the kneejerk reaction of the industry to try to attract them.
Maybe, in additional to the current marketing reasons, Intel found that they can't make the CPU clock follow Moore's Law anymore. This in itself would bad news for not only Intel but the whole industry as it cannot keep up its image of rapid growth.
This change will de-emphasize raw clock rate, but I wonder if it is also meant to de-emphasize raw processor speed in general as we move on to showing how to get more real work done by other means like putting multiple cores in a package or speeding up the I/O subsystems.
I am sure people will find a way to massage the data to show Moore's Law is still valid, but I wonder if the days of CPU clock following the law is going to be over.
It would also stimulate the economy. We'll see people starting companies to fill the great void MS left behind, or to provide the labor & training you mentioned. Whole new industries could eolve. These companies will compete openly in the marketplace, bringing new ideas and innovations.
It might not be such a bad idea after all.
I used to hold the same view as yours. But then I learned how fast a gigabit per second is.
But yes, I think the HDD marketing people are scum to have deviated from the "standard" usage of the megabyte...
I guess with this new lock you'll just need to use opaque glue.
I did. Check the MacMall page. It said refurbished by Apple.
Some of this is security; a lot of these towers are unmanned. Sure there are physical security but someone malicious could go break down all the locks, destory or steal equipment, and cost the companies lots of money in both equipment and lost income.
Didn't Apple take Virginia Tech's PowerMac G5s back? I'm pretty sure those were "custom configured".
It is wise to keep a low profile from a company that offers bounties to hunt people down.
Similar in idea, new motherboards just came out in Japan using etBIOS. Letting PCs to play CD/DVDs, browse the net, etc. even before they boot up. No HDD is needed, though that probably means persistent storage is not available. (Can't save the all the p0rn you find nor bookmark the site :-) )
Well, you see, they are really quite clever this way. If they didn't complain, only a few people would have known about it, and "The Education Secretary is doing it also!" wouldn't have the credibility as it has now.
Your work phone may have CID blocked, but it wouldn't work on a 1-800 number. That uses ANI, a different system and is not blockable. Depends on the outfit they can either see your number real-time or on their monthly statement.
Yeah, I tried one card based on the same chip. I attached two drives to the card, one which has data, and created a mirror set. The *#$#% thing spent 10+ hours trying to mirror a 60G HDD in BIOS, during which the PC can't be used, so I went to sleep and it was still going when I woke up. I cannot imagine spending 10+ hours each time I need to repair a mirror, so I scraped the PoS. Silicon Image seems to be big on SATA controllers, and I have one on my motherboard, but I have no drive to test it with.
I used highpoint hpt370 controllers and they worked well, but after I got a new MB which has suspend-to-RAM I found that highpoint's W2k driver hanged the PC if I used that. Not sure if it is just incompatibility or what, but I have also had IRQ sharing problems with the drivers so I kinda doubt their quality.
I now use a Promise controller in that PC and it has worked well so far.
My gripe with Promise & newer Highpoint BIOSes is that they erase the partition information if you change the mirror setups. I used to just add/delete a drive and make/destroy a mirror and use it as before (Highpoint's documentation seems to say this is okay). Now I have to backup the partition table to do it. It makes sense for splitting a mirror 'cos W2k gets confused, but not for making a mirror.
I have not really tried swapping a drive in a mirror which these controllers; with the above BIOS experience I am not very confident about not making a mistake and erasing the other drive in the process. OS-based solutions like Veritas are much better in this regard. Linux RAID also, but the user space utilities can use some polishing. As for W2k, it is only available on Server versions and it have to re-mirror after a BSoD each time, which is annoying.
I haven't tried hardware RAIDs but I am sure they are easier to manage than these cheap driver/BIOS based solutions.
So what kind of special chamber do you use to accelerate radioactive decay?
I RTFA and what Netgear did was just set up two names, sure that uses some bandwidth to their DNS server but they can point those name anywhere, directing the SNTP queries to somewhere not on Netgear's network, and thus not use Netgear's own bandwidth...
The reason it was ugly was that it duplicates the function of some other code in the kernel.
It is hard to believe that the code was ugly. After all, it was written by ken/dmr and withstood 30 years of scrutiny.