The reason is because they charge money for services and religious ceremonies. That classifies them as for-profit in the eyes of the law, which is the main reason they've had so much trouble in that respect - giving of money is COMPULSORY in Scientology, not voluntary.
The Tom's Hardware article was the reason for the change to the system they're using now. Again, when I said wild goose chase, I was referring to your normal, off-the-streets user, not a geek. A geek probably could track the problem down fairly easily, but your average user won't. The machine just not working is more likely to get their attention and get the problem fixed than the chip simply underclocking itself is. Like I said, it would suck on a server, but the Athlons aren't for running servers. Hence why I find their behavior preferable for the every day user than I do the P4's.
Finally, someone who agrees with me. I can understand using flight sims as they tend to have hardcore physics engines, which will take advantage of the differences in CPU power... if they would turn all the graphics options all the way down/off. Unfortunately, as scientific as these benchmarking sites like to make themselves look, I've never felt like they've done all that great a job of REALLY finding the differences between CPUs.
You really need to get a clue, man. Yeah, the old Thunderbird Athlons ran hot as hell - but that was FIVE CPU cores ago by my count. A P4 will almost always run hotter than a comparable Athlon.
Athlon's are not "underclocked." AMD made the decision about a year ago to focus on processor efficiency rather than raw speed. The fact that a chip 36% slower in raw speed puts up similar, and sometimes better, performance numbers to its Intel counterpart speaks volumes. (3200+ vs 3.06GHz)
As far as AMD's architechture being dead, funny that Barton core thing that they just upped the FSB on twice in the past 6 months. Yes, Athlon64 is on the way. Yes, it is a Good Thing(TM). But the 32 bit Athlon architechture is far from a dead end. AMD just has something better to move on to.
I don't have a problem with people preferring Intel over AMD - there are plenty of legitimate reasons, depending on your application. For example, if you were going to be doing mass volumes of video encoding, buying a P4 would make sense. But it just annoys the hell out of me when people base their preference on "reasons" that are complete BS.
Again, you're wrong. The AMD's have a safeguard as well - it's just different from the P4's. Instead of underclocking, when the CPU hits a critical temperature OR if the fan stops running the machine makes the "beep beep beep" the original poster mentioned... and turns itself off. Since the Athlon is supposed to be a home chip, not a heavy duty server, this is perfectly acceptable behavior, and won't leave the user wondering why their machine suddenly got slower.
This has been a feature AMD has required in ALL AMD Approved mobos for almost a year now (I believe it went into effect like June/July 2002). I can tell you first hand, that if I pulled the side cover off the Duron machine I'm using right now, and put my finger on the CPU to stop it, the computer would beep angrily at me, and then safely turn itself before any damage is done. Personally I like that approach better - you KNOW there's something wrong with the hardware and what to check, rather than running in circles chasing a "software performance" degradation wild goose.
And while AMD was focusing purely on ramping clockspeed, they were beating Intel in that field. Who was first to 1 GHz? Here's a hint - not Intel. What's happened in the last year or two with AMD is actually twofold:
1. AMD realized that they couldn't continue to ramp up clockspeed indefinitely. They shifted from working on increasing pure speed to increasing efficiency per clock cycle. If you want an analogy - what good would a 300hp car be if you only had 100lb-ft of tourque. (I realize that it'd be damn near impossible to get a disparity that far fetched out of a car, but it's just an example)
2. It's also worth keeping in mind that AthlonXP development has lagged for the past year because AMD has, from what I understand, had the majority of their engineers assigned to work on Hammer - the home version of which is 6 months behind schedule at the moment. In short, AMD was planning on the Athlon64's being available much sooner than the reality will be. If I'm wrong with this information, please correct me, but as gung-ho as AMD has been about Hammer, the reports I read saying as such just made sense.
I think AMD's approach is proving to be successful so far. It's easier to get discouraged when a 3000+ doesn't really match up point for point with Intel's 3.06 GHz offering... until you realize that the true clock speed of the Intel is 36% (!!) higher than the AMD. Now, I'm taking a cursory glance through a few benchmarks here, comparing Intel's 2.2 GHz chip with their 3.06 GHz chip - it generally lags behind by about 20% in the benchmarks I'm looking at. When you take that into account, suddenly AMD's little 2.2 GHz "3200+" being able to perform within +- 10% most of the time seems far more impressive - and validates AMD's claims that efficiency is just as important as pure clock speed. Remember, Moore's law says computing power will double every 18 months - not raw computing "speed."
From what I can tell (I'm too lazy to read the release notes:)) they've made some definite improvements to the popup blocker for 1.4. I have a hard time remembering exactly when changes get implemented sometimes since I tend to use whatever the latest test release is (ie: Alpha, Beta, Final, not quite crazy enough to run the latest nightly), but things like the popup manager in the tools menu make life a lot easier, since you can just tell it popups are ok on certain sites (Fileplanet comes to mind) without having to go to Prefs, disable blocking, get the popup you need, then go back and reenable it every time. Very cool stuff, indeed.
The FBI and the country's largest financial institutions don't seem to agree. Abagnale WAS actively committing fraud, and is now among the top experts in his field, one known for being highly conservative in employment. Again, if you check the story, Schwartz never did anything other than his job. You'd be allowing Intel's abuse of an overly broad law to keep someone who could be an enormous asset to your company out. Companies that slam the door shut over an applicant's previous "mistakes" (as it is in this case) without investigating things for themselves first are shooting themselves in the foot.
But if we just blindly hired someone who has proven that they can't be trusted to do the right thing
The mistake you're making is assuming that this and a conviction are one and the same. They're not. Blindly rejecting an applicant without learning the details of a situation is just as bad as what you describe is.
Ex con? I really suggest you check out the story before you make such statements. I wasn't familiar with this one when I read the parent post, so I read up on it. It quickly becomes clear that this guy is the victim of an overly broad law and was essentially prosecuted for doing his job by his employer. The point the parent poster was making is that having a conviction on his record does not always make them a bad guy, and that you should at least learn the basics of the case before making the judgement that someone is unhireable. The person in question is far from a "lowlife" criminal. Not every convicted "hacker" is like this, but not every supposed hacker was actually doing something wrong.
Perhaps your Cranial Positioner has mistaken your neck for your rectum? Consider getting it recalibrated at your local Rational Thought Service Center as soon as possible.
I believe what the original poster was saying that NASA might get adequate funding if it weren't for the general stupidity of the federal budget, not that NASA was causing the deficit. Quite the opposite really, they're hurting dearly because of it - after all, who cares about scientific progress when there are evil, evil, evil people to kill, right?
I'm on Bellsouth DSL, and they sold us the router I use (with a rebate, so it was essentially free), so I'd imagine they don't have a problem with it. So it doesn't seem to be all too common from my experience either.
Except that double sided DVD media is simply more expensive than just using 2 single sided discs. Ever wonder why almost every new DVD that needs more than one side worth of space uses 2 discs instead of one double sided disc?
And on another note, Compaq's consumer laptops in general just plain suck. I work in a shop that does occassional laptop repair, and the internal power connectors on Compaq notebooks are notorius for breaking. Assuming the connector's not totally destroyed and can simply be resoldered, it still costs the customer a good bit in labor since the whole machine has to be pretty much disassembled to find out. But if the connector's a loss... let's just say that Compaq makes it more than a little difficult to source a replacement, and it's not cheap even when you do.
While I completely understand not wanting to upgrade unless you have to, the tone of your post makes it sound as if you're suggesting that W3.11 and token ring were better than current solutions. Things like simply being able to take a machine down without taking down the whole network (since it's place in the ring would be broken) would make it worth it to me, even if upgrading wasn't 100% necessary.
So long as you're not handling massive amounts of traffic, I think you're correct in your assessment that your next upgrade will last you at least as long, quite possibly longer, than your current setup. The technology now is far more flexible and the only major changes I can really see happening any time soon are increases in networking speed, and like I said, it probably wouldn't be a concern. The only thing I can think of that might force your hand any sooner is if MS is extremely successful with its Palladium initiative, but then again, that'd suck for a lot more people than just you.
Maybe I'm just overly geeky, but I always thought Mozilla was kind of a cool name. Especially when you consider where the name comes from - Netscape initially set out to build a "Mosaic Killer," since it was the browser of choice at the time. Mozilla was one of the names that got thrown into the mix during a staff meeting, and the team liked it, so it stuck. Like I said, I thought it was cool, but I'm also a geek.:)
Re:This makes Linux users look like morons.
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
Supposedly. Problem is most people that really need them either don't use them or don't keep them up to date. Personally, I don't keep a virus scanner of any kind on my XP machine as they do nothing but add overhead to the system and often times cause instability. I'm just careful about what I open and using trusted sources, and know what? I've had one virus ever on that machine. (Windows excluded;)). And that was because a family member tried to install something with a trojan latched on. Unfortunately, the people that need paranoid virus scanners the most are the ones that happily install every piece of spyware they can get their hands on.
Well, if you try to use PC2700 in a pre-2600+ system, yeah, you're going to take a slight performance hit. When the FSB got bumped to 333MHz, that made PC2700 the way to go. Now with a 400MHz FSB, it actually makes sense to use PC3200. Really, it's not a problem as long as you have the sense to match your RAM speed to your CPU's FSB capabillity. PC2100 for 266MHz chips, PC2700 for 333's, and PC3200 for the 400's. What's so complicated about that?
althoughw ith memory prices as they stand I can't see many people taking full use of it any time soon.
Am I missing something? DDR memory is the cheapest I've seen it yet right now. If you mean most people aren't going to have >4GB of RAM, you're right - they don't need it. At the moment, 512 is as much as 90% of the people out there are gonna need. >4 gig memory are for server and science/engineering people, for the average consumer, the improved x86 performance is going to be the selling point.
Any good links about this? This is the first I've heard about that, so it piqued my interest. If it's true, Athlon 64 just keeps getting better as far as I'm concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is because they charge money for services and religious ceremonies. That classifies them as for-profit in the eyes of the law, which is the main reason they've had so much trouble in that respect - giving of money is COMPULSORY in Scientology, not voluntary.
The Tom's Hardware article was the reason for the change to the system they're using now. Again, when I said wild goose chase, I was referring to your normal, off-the-streets user, not a geek. A geek probably could track the problem down fairly easily, but your average user won't. The machine just not working is more likely to get their attention and get the problem fixed than the chip simply underclocking itself is. Like I said, it would suck on a server, but the Athlons aren't for running servers. Hence why I find their behavior preferable for the every day user than I do the P4's.
Finally, someone who agrees with me. I can understand using flight sims as they tend to have hardcore physics engines, which will take advantage of the differences in CPU power... if they would turn all the graphics options all the way down/off. Unfortunately, as scientific as these benchmarking sites like to make themselves look, I've never felt like they've done all that great a job of REALLY finding the differences between CPUs.
If that's the case does that mean the next chip core's gonna be code named "Pheonix"? ;)
You really need to get a clue, man. Yeah, the old Thunderbird Athlons ran hot as hell - but that was FIVE CPU cores ago by my count. A P4 will almost always run hotter than a comparable Athlon.
Athlon's are not "underclocked." AMD made the decision about a year ago to focus on processor efficiency rather than raw speed. The fact that a chip 36% slower in raw speed puts up similar, and sometimes better, performance numbers to its Intel counterpart speaks volumes. (3200+ vs 3.06GHz)
As far as AMD's architechture being dead, funny that Barton core thing that they just upped the FSB on twice in the past 6 months. Yes, Athlon64 is on the way. Yes, it is a Good Thing(TM). But the 32 bit Athlon architechture is far from a dead end. AMD just has something better to move on to.
I don't have a problem with people preferring Intel over AMD - there are plenty of legitimate reasons, depending on your application. For example, if you were going to be doing mass volumes of video encoding, buying a P4 would make sense. But it just annoys the hell out of me when people base their preference on "reasons" that are complete BS.
Again, you're wrong. The AMD's have a safeguard as well - it's just different from the P4's. Instead of underclocking, when the CPU hits a critical temperature OR if the fan stops running the machine makes the "beep beep beep" the original poster mentioned... and turns itself off. Since the Athlon is supposed to be a home chip, not a heavy duty server, this is perfectly acceptable behavior, and won't leave the user wondering why their machine suddenly got slower.
This has been a feature AMD has required in ALL AMD Approved mobos for almost a year now (I believe it went into effect like June/July 2002). I can tell you first hand, that if I pulled the side cover off the Duron machine I'm using right now, and put my finger on the CPU to stop it, the computer would beep angrily at me, and then safely turn itself before any damage is done. Personally I like that approach better - you KNOW there's something wrong with the hardware and what to check, rather than running in circles chasing a "software performance" degradation wild goose.
And while AMD was focusing purely on ramping clockspeed, they were beating Intel in that field. Who was first to 1 GHz? Here's a hint - not Intel. What's happened in the last year or two with AMD is actually twofold:
1. AMD realized that they couldn't continue to ramp up clockspeed indefinitely. They shifted from working on increasing pure speed to increasing efficiency per clock cycle. If you want an analogy - what good would a 300hp car be if you only had 100lb-ft of tourque. (I realize that it'd be damn near impossible to get a disparity that far fetched out of a car, but it's just an example)
2. It's also worth keeping in mind that AthlonXP development has lagged for the past year because AMD has, from what I understand, had the majority of their engineers assigned to work on Hammer - the home version of which is 6 months behind schedule at the moment. In short, AMD was planning on the Athlon64's being available much sooner than the reality will be. If I'm wrong with this information, please correct me, but as gung-ho as AMD has been about Hammer, the reports I read saying as such just made sense.
I think AMD's approach is proving to be successful so far. It's easier to get discouraged when a 3000+ doesn't really match up point for point with Intel's 3.06 GHz offering... until you realize that the true clock speed of the Intel is 36% (!!) higher than the AMD. Now, I'm taking a cursory glance through a few benchmarks here, comparing Intel's 2.2 GHz chip with their 3.06 GHz chip - it generally lags behind by about 20% in the benchmarks I'm looking at. When you take that into account, suddenly AMD's little 2.2 GHz "3200+" being able to perform within +- 10% most of the time seems far more impressive - and validates AMD's claims that efficiency is just as important as pure clock speed. Remember, Moore's law says computing power will double every 18 months - not raw computing "speed."
You sure that wouldn't be from the bottom down? :)
hehe and the geek drive for efficiency shows itself even(especially) in the most devious devious moments. God, I love this place. =)
Yeah, but as an AC pointed out, they've changed the text. I think this is a different version than was in 1.3, but I couldn't tell you definitively.
From what I can tell (I'm too lazy to read the release notes :)) they've made some definite improvements to the popup blocker for 1.4. I have a hard time remembering exactly when changes get implemented sometimes since I tend to use whatever the latest test release is (ie: Alpha, Beta, Final, not quite crazy enough to run the latest nightly), but things like the popup manager in the tools menu make life a lot easier, since you can just tell it popups are ok on certain sites (Fileplanet comes to mind) without having to go to Prefs, disable blocking, get the popup you need, then go back and reenable it every time. Very cool stuff, indeed.
The FBI and the country's largest financial institutions don't seem to agree. Abagnale WAS actively committing fraud, and is now among the top experts in his field, one known for being highly conservative in employment. Again, if you check the story, Schwartz never did anything other than his job. You'd be allowing Intel's abuse of an overly broad law to keep someone who could be an enormous asset to your company out. Companies that slam the door shut over an applicant's previous "mistakes" (as it is in this case) without investigating things for themselves first are shooting themselves in the foot.
Ex con? I really suggest you check out the story before you make such statements. I wasn't familiar with this one when I read the parent post, so I read up on it. It quickly becomes clear that this guy is the victim of an overly broad law and was essentially prosecuted for doing his job by his employer. The point the parent poster was making is that having a conviction on his record does not always make them a bad guy, and that you should at least learn the basics of the case before making the judgement that someone is unhireable. The person in question is far from a "lowlife" criminal. Not every convicted "hacker" is like this, but not every supposed hacker was actually doing something wrong.
Perhaps your Cranial Positioner has mistaken your neck for your rectum? Consider getting it recalibrated at your local Rational Thought Service Center as soon as possible.
I believe what the original poster was saying that NASA might get adequate funding if it weren't for the general stupidity of the federal budget, not that NASA was causing the deficit. Quite the opposite really, they're hurting dearly because of it - after all, who cares about scientific progress when there are evil, evil, evil people to kill, right?
I'm on Bellsouth DSL, and they sold us the router I use (with a rebate, so it was essentially free), so I'd imagine they don't have a problem with it. So it doesn't seem to be all too common from my experience either.
Except that double sided DVD media is simply more expensive than just using 2 single sided discs. Ever wonder why almost every new DVD that needs more than one side worth of space uses 2 discs instead of one double sided disc?
And on another note, Compaq's consumer laptops in general just plain suck. I work in a shop that does occassional laptop repair, and the internal power connectors on Compaq notebooks are notorius for breaking. Assuming the connector's not totally destroyed and can simply be resoldered, it still costs the customer a good bit in labor since the whole machine has to be pretty much disassembled to find out. But if the connector's a loss... let's just say that Compaq makes it more than a little difficult to source a replacement, and it's not cheap even when you do.
While I completely understand not wanting to upgrade unless you have to, the tone of your post makes it sound as if you're suggesting that W3.11 and token ring were better than current solutions. Things like simply being able to take a machine down without taking down the whole network (since it's place in the ring would be broken) would make it worth it to me, even if upgrading wasn't 100% necessary.
So long as you're not handling massive amounts of traffic, I think you're correct in your assessment that your next upgrade will last you at least as long, quite possibly longer, than your current setup. The technology now is far more flexible and the only major changes I can really see happening any time soon are increases in networking speed, and like I said, it probably wouldn't be a concern. The only thing I can think of that might force your hand any sooner is if MS is extremely successful with its Palladium initiative, but then again, that'd suck for a lot more people than just you.
Maybe I'm just overly geeky, but I always thought Mozilla was kind of a cool name. Especially when you consider where the name comes from - Netscape initially set out to build a "Mosaic Killer," since it was the browser of choice at the time. Mozilla was one of the names that got thrown into the mix during a staff meeting, and the team liked it, so it stuck. Like I said, I thought it was cool, but I'm also a geek. :)
Supposedly. Problem is most people that really need them either don't use them or don't keep them up to date. Personally, I don't keep a virus scanner of any kind on my XP machine as they do nothing but add overhead to the system and often times cause instability. I'm just careful about what I open and using trusted sources, and know what? I've had one virus ever on that machine. (Windows excluded ;)). And that was because a family member tried to install something with a trojan latched on. Unfortunately, the people that need paranoid virus scanners the most are the ones that happily install every piece of spyware they can get their hands on.
Well, if you try to use PC2700 in a pre-2600+ system, yeah, you're going to take a slight performance hit. When the FSB got bumped to 333MHz, that made PC2700 the way to go. Now with a 400MHz FSB, it actually makes sense to use PC3200. Really, it's not a problem as long as you have the sense to match your RAM speed to your CPU's FSB capabillity. PC2100 for 266MHz chips, PC2700 for 333's, and PC3200 for the 400's. What's so complicated about that?