The thing that you're agreeing to is irrelevant to my point. So yes, it's the same thing. You agree to the license or you don't. If you agree to it, you agree to be bound by its terms. If this were not the case, then the GPL would be worthless (and I will resist the obvious cheap shot, because I'm trying to make a point about agreements in general).
What have your liberties got to do with this issue? Absolutely nothing! None of your liberties, assured by your Constitution or otherwise, have been taken away. You have the right to free speech, but you never had the right to use Microsoft software. They allow you to use it, at their own discretion.
And before you protest, consider that the GPL does exactly the same thing. It's conditional. You don't agree with the license, you don't use the source code. I don't agree with the GPL, so I don't involve myself with GPL'd source.
To be fair to the USA (and I have been harsh on them over the last couple of days) this is simply not true.
Japan did not unconditionally surrender until after the second bomb.
A plutonium bomb was tested a month earlier in New Mexico. Yup, it worked.
Pearl Harbor was just the beginning. Perhaps you forgot the rest of the America / Japan fighting? Three and a half years passed between the two events...
I don't think even Japanese history books are quite that inaccurate.
Well, I don't know what OO languages you are talking about, but in C++ (which the above example is clearly written in) the = operator can be overloaded, but not for built in types. pCat is of type ICat*, which is a built in type (it's a pointer). Assigning a pointer to it "does exactly what it says on the tin".
So, necessarily.
Yes, any decent compiler will perform this optimisation. In C there's no difference, because you're not using the value of the expression. In C++ 'i' could be of a class with an overloaded operator++(int) which would involve creating a temporary. It's not always possible to optimise that away.
If it does FP in software, how the hell does an 800MHz Itanium achieve 711 SpecFP? Yes, some operations have to be broken down into simpler ones, but you're implying they're all emulated using integer operations... Bullshit!
OK I'm still not making myself clear. There is no dishonesty in Intel's position here. They made their pipeline longer for technical reasons (which many people disagree with, whatever, that's not my point). They are not jumping around saying, "hey look our pipeline is longer than AMD's", are they? No. As a result of having a longer pipeline they can run at a higher clock speed. No, it doesn't make it run any faster than the AMD method (at least in the short term). But they never said it would. You just thought you heard them say it.
Why the hell should Intel use a 4 stage pipeline just because you think that's somehow more "honest"? Dude, they're trying to make fast chips! Let them make them how they want!
What I said is completely correct. The AC (probably you) said the P4 does not operate at 4GHz. Well, some of it does, so you are partly wrong. It doesn't do it with the rising and falling edges of the clock, so you were also partly right.
BTW Rambus memory does use both edges of the clock, and so does the AGP bus, to name but two examples.
So on that basis, I propose to upgrade you to "completely wrong". Have a nice day!
I agree with you completely, and I know exactly how the 2 CPUs differ, thankyou. My point was that the Intel chip runs at 2GHz, which is exactly what Intel says it runs at... It's not inflated in the sense that the parent poster was trying to imply, and certainly not in the way that a 1.4GHz processor is to be marketed as a "1600". Yes, technically they didn't say it was anything to do with the clock speed, but it still seems a bit dishonest.
I agree on your first point, which is why neither of them should do it. The fact that AMD did it first is, erm, interesting...
On your second point, if consumers really ever do that, then good luck to them, and may the best chip manufacturer win.
What? That just doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Intel just go, "oh look, it works for AMD, now let's market our 2GHz PIV's as Pentium 3000s" ????
Why oh why do you think this would cause Intel to work harder on their architecture?
It's used to cache data from DVD's, to rip WMA audio from CDs, to store saved games, and to store persistent data such as updates for MMORPGs. Anything sensitive will be encrypted and thoroughly buffer checked under pain of submission failure! Microsoft realises that the HD can be tampered with.
As for your business venture, I'm not sure the economics will go your way on that one. I can think of easier ways of making money... And given that there aren't an awful lot of games for Linux, it's quite possible that your customers would buy the odd Xbox game, hence MS would not be out of pocket after all. Linux on the Xbox would be a neat hack, but I can't see it catching on...
If I might nitpick slightly, the PS2 has 32MB of main RAM, 4MB of video RAM and 2MB of sound RAM. The PS1 has 2MB main, 1MB video and 512KB sound (oh and 32KB of CD buffer, can't remember how much the PS2 has, if any). I agree with the rest of your comments though. Er, except that the Xbox memory cards are 8MB.
"The kernel's on every Game DVD-ROM??? Thats rather silly isn't it."
No I don't think so. Why do you think that is silly?
"Why won't it run anything from the HD?"
To stop you from booting Linux on it... etc... Anyway why should it?
"Yes I see your point. Now my best bet would be to change the firmware in order to make it boot from the HD, but you say this is impossible, why?"
It's not impossible, just hard, and it's a hardware modification so not everyone will be doing it. Yes, no doubt some beardy hacker will unsolder their ROM, solder a new one in, and run Linux on his Xbox. We will all go ooh and aah and get on with our business. It's not as if everyone is suddenly going to be making beowulf clusters of Linux Xboxen.
Of course there are ways of even making this pretty much impossible, but I wouldn't know if Microsoft have gone down that route.
It's not W2K, it's a stripped down kernel, and it's on the DVD.
The encryption is in the boot rom... It won't run anything from DVD that isn't digitally signed and encrypted, and it definitely won't run anything from the HD.
To run Linux on it you would have to either crack the encryption (good luck) or rewrite the Xbox's firmware (and solder in a new ROM, again, good luck).
Do you see the problem now?
The thing is, the PC market is shit, and has been for a while. Consoles are where it's at, and developers know this. The idea of a PC port somehow loses its relevance when you consider that we're basically developing for the consoles in the first place.
"Intel Pentium III based processor": yes, I already said that.
"x86 instruction set": -1, Redundant (Duh)
"Nvidia GPU": yes, already said that, available on Mac G4s as well as PCs.
"Microsoft Operating System": As seen on Pocket PCs, WebTV, Dreamcast etc...
None of those things make the Xbox a PC.
No, for the nth time, and n is getting large, the Xbox is not a PC. It has a Pentium III processor. It has a custom nVidia GPU. You can get Mac G4's with GeForce3's, they're not specifically PC hardware.
Xbox executables will be encrypted (well) so good luck trying to run your own stuff!
Slashdot Mirror
The thing that you're agreeing to is irrelevant to my point. So yes, it's the same thing. You agree to the license or you don't. If you agree to it, you agree to be bound by its terms. If this were not the case, then the GPL would be worthless (and I will resist the obvious cheap shot, because I'm trying to make a point about agreements in general).
What have your liberties got to do with this issue? Absolutely nothing! None of your liberties, assured by your Constitution or otherwise, have been taken away. You have the right to free speech, but you never had the right to use Microsoft software. They allow you to use it, at their own discretion.
And before you protest, consider that the GPL does exactly the same thing. It's conditional. You don't agree with the license, you don't use the source code. I don't agree with the GPL, so I don't involve myself with GPL'd source.
To be fair to the USA (and I have been harsh on them over the last couple of days) this is simply not true.
Japan did not unconditionally surrender until after the second bomb.
A plutonium bomb was tested a month earlier in New Mexico. Yup, it worked.
Pearl Harbor was just the beginning. Perhaps you forgot the rest of the America / Japan fighting? Three and a half years passed between the two events...
I don't think even Japanese history books are quite that inaccurate.
Well, I don't know what OO languages you are talking about, but in C++ (which the above example is clearly written in) the = operator can be overloaded, but not for built in types. pCat is of type ICat*, which is a built in type (it's a pointer). Assigning a pointer to it "does exactly what it says on the tin".
So, necessarily.
Yes, any decent compiler will perform this optimisation. In C there's no difference, because you're not using the value of the expression. In C++ 'i' could be of a class with an overloaded operator++(int) which would involve creating a temporary. It's not always possible to optimise that away.
If it does FP in software, how the hell does an 800MHz Itanium achieve 711 SpecFP? Yes, some operations have to be broken down into simpler ones, but you're implying they're all emulated using integer operations... Bullshit!
Ah but which one is better at mixing cement?
... ever tells me what features I must include or exclude from my product,
I WILL KICK HIS ARSE*.
* "Ass" to you Yanks.
OK I'm still not making myself clear. There is no dishonesty in Intel's position here. They made their pipeline longer for technical reasons (which many people disagree with, whatever, that's not my point). They are not jumping around saying, "hey look our pipeline is longer than AMD's", are they? No. As a result of having a longer pipeline they can run at a higher clock speed. No, it doesn't make it run any faster than the AMD method (at least in the short term). But they never said it would. You just thought you heard them say it.
Why the hell should Intel use a 4 stage pipeline just because you think that's somehow more "honest"? Dude, they're trying to make fast chips! Let them make them how they want!
It's not a trick! It's not their fault for having a high clock speed, it's the consumers' fault for not knowing what it means! Aarrrggghh!
What I said is completely correct. The AC (probably you) said the P4 does not operate at 4GHz. Well, some of it does, so you are partly wrong. It doesn't do it with the rising and falling edges of the clock, so you were also partly right.
BTW Rambus memory does use both edges of the clock, and so does the AGP bus, to name but two examples.
So on that basis, I propose to upgrade you to "completely wrong". Have a nice day!
I agree with you completely, and I know exactly how the 2 CPUs differ, thankyou. My point was that the Intel chip runs at 2GHz, which is exactly what Intel says it runs at... It's not inflated in the sense that the parent poster was trying to imply, and certainly not in the way that a 1.4GHz processor is to be marketed as a "1600". Yes, technically they didn't say it was anything to do with the clock speed, but it still seems a bit dishonest.
What part of what I said are you disagreeing with?
I agree on your first point, which is why neither of them should do it. The fact that AMD did it first is, erm, interesting...
On your second point, if consumers really ever do that, then good luck to them, and may the best chip manufacturer win.
Actually, you're partly wrong. The ALU in the P4 is double clocked, it really does run at 4GHz in a 2GHz P4.
What are you talking about? The length of the pipeline is irrelevant here. A 2GHz P4 runs at 2GHz. How are Intel "inflating the MHz"?
What? That just doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Intel just go, "oh look, it works for AMD, now let's market our 2GHz PIV's as Pentium 3000s" ????
Why oh why do you think this would cause Intel to work harder on their architecture?
"Well how does the Xbox itself use the HD?"
It's used to cache data from DVD's, to rip WMA audio from CDs, to store saved games, and to store persistent data such as updates for MMORPGs. Anything sensitive will be encrypted and thoroughly buffer checked under pain of submission failure! Microsoft realises that the HD can be tampered with.
As for your business venture, I'm not sure the economics will go your way on that one. I can think of easier ways of making money... And given that there aren't an awful lot of games for Linux, it's quite possible that your customers would buy the odd Xbox game, hence MS would not be out of pocket after all. Linux on the Xbox would be a neat hack, but I can't see it catching on...
If I might nitpick slightly, the PS2 has 32MB of main RAM, 4MB of video RAM and 2MB of sound RAM. The PS1 has 2MB main, 1MB video and 512KB sound (oh and 32KB of CD buffer, can't remember how much the PS2 has, if any). I agree with the rest of your comments though. Er, except that the Xbox memory cards are 8MB.
"The kernel's on every Game DVD-ROM??? Thats rather silly isn't it."
No I don't think so. Why do you think that is silly?
"Why won't it run anything from the HD?"
To stop you from booting Linux on it... etc... Anyway why should it?
"Yes I see your point. Now my best bet would be to change the firmware in order to make it boot from the HD, but you say this is impossible, why?"
It's not impossible, just hard, and it's a hardware modification so not everyone will be doing it. Yes, no doubt some beardy hacker will unsolder their ROM, solder a new one in, and run Linux on his Xbox. We will all go ooh and aah and get on with our business. It's not as if everyone is suddenly going to be making beowulf clusters of Linux Xboxen.
Of course there are ways of even making this pretty much impossible, but I wouldn't know if Microsoft have gone down that route.
It's not W2K, it's a stripped down kernel, and it's on the DVD.
The encryption is in the boot rom... It won't run anything from DVD that isn't digitally signed and encrypted, and it definitely won't run anything from the HD.
To run Linux on it you would have to either crack the encryption (good luck) or rewrite the Xbox's firmware (and solder in a new ROM, again, good luck).
Do you see the problem now?
The thing is, the PC market is shit, and has been for a while. Consoles are where it's at, and developers know this. The idea of a PC port somehow loses its relevance when you consider that we're basically developing for the consoles in the first place.
Sigh. Oh well, here we go again...
b) There isn't a registry
c) The OS isn't "installed"
Try again.
"Intel Pentium III based processor": yes, I already said that.
"x86 instruction set": -1, Redundant (Duh)
"Nvidia GPU": yes, already said that, available on Mac G4s as well as PCs.
"Microsoft Operating System": As seen on Pocket PCs, WebTV, Dreamcast etc...
None of those things make the Xbox a PC.
No, for the nth time, and n is getting large, the Xbox is not a PC. It has a Pentium III processor. It has a custom nVidia GPU. You can get Mac G4's with GeForce3's, they're not specifically PC hardware.
Xbox executables will be encrypted (well) so good luck trying to run your own stuff!