As a DVR, one tuner was just OK, with a second tuner working, it was still OK, provided you weren't too picky about mouths moving at the same time words came out.
You clearly need a dual processor. One processor for each tuner. Throw enough horsepower against Microsoft and even MSWord has a decent framerate.
And the First Post that didn't deserve to be moderated OT too.
The car, contrary to the Slashdot editor letting this one through when they shouldn't have in its posted form does not make its own fuel. It runs on water and aluminum or magnesium.
Now if it mined those elements and refined them in the process and still had a postive energy output then yes, the article summary would have been accurate.
If HD-DVD flopped generally, then there would naturally be fewer people with players, and specifically burners.
This will hurt MS. Unlike Sony who has design engineers, patents, and manufacturing facilities and experience, Microsoft has none of these. They're known mostly in hardware for the MSMouse and the XBox.
Sony can make their own new format (e.g. UMD) including the drives, media, and pressing plants. Microsoft can't. If HD-DVD was to only appear in the XBox with a run of a few ten's of millions over the next 7 years the price would be so high that XBox would really become non-competative.
The only reason Microsoft wants HD-DVD for the XBox is because they clearly need an HD drive of some sort, and HD-DVD is the only game in town that isn't Sony.
I want one format to win. But I'd prefer it be the Betamax rather than the VHS solution.
Of course, I also expect these decisions to change again another 2 or 3 times since all of this now seems about people and groups pressuring to get what they want. Since BluRay is the flavor of this week, the remaining number of flip-flops I need can be expressed mathmatically as: Flip_Flops MOD 2 = 0.
I remember running tests and findiing that 233Mhz and 266Mhz PIIs were noticably slower than a 200Mhz Pentium Pro
That's not unexpected since the P-Pro L2 cache ran at full core speed, while the P-II cache was running at half processor speed. This meant that it took a P-II twice as long to get data from the L2 cache as the P-Pro. P-Pro remained an excellent server chip for long after P-II was running at much higher clock rates.
But the P-Pro's problem remained that it was both very expensive to produce, and they never could get the clock speed up over 200MHz, perhaps in part because of the distance between the processor die and the L2 cache die. The inability to increase speed along with the high price I believe doomed it from the very beginning.
As for the P-II 350MHz being noticably faster, it darn well should have been. That was the step, from the P-II 333MHz where they increased the memory bus speed from 33MHz to 66MHz. Literally double the main memory bus bandwidth and of course you are going to see some significant speed increases. In fact, this is the last time Intel actually doubled memory bus speed, since DDR isn't twice as fast in the entire memory transaction as SDRAM.
they had a really great chip design in the Pentium Pro, then when downhill with the Pentium II, when the Pentium 3 came out it fixed most of the PIIs shortcomings
Just what are the Pentium II shortcomings? IIRC Pentium Pro was a very expensive and difficult chip to manufacture even given that they'd broken it up into two separate dies. In addition they never could get the clock rate up over 200MHz with it, and could not (or it wasn't worth it) include new SSE instructions into it.
P-II bundled 512KB of half-speed L2 cache into the cartridge that worked pretty well. So well that early P-IIIs with half that amount of full-speed cache on the die itself were outperformed in some areas (e.g. SETI screensaver) by the P-II due to the L2 cache limitations.
So what parts of the P-II were particularly bad? I wonder, because I'm still running 3 of them.
I hope Google wins this one, and wins it big. I'm tired of living in the 19th century, and being told I should remain there by people who consider an electric typewriter to be too advanced for their use. Google believes they are within the current copyright laws, and they have more expensive lawyers than I do.
I recently bought a Dell computer. I had a choice of getting a dual core for $50 more. Now I can rip a CD to MP3's using EAC/LAME in about 3 minutes when it used to take 15 on my old computer. I'm happy with my $50 doubling my performance for MP3's and xVID (DivX) creation.
RIAA lists Dell and Intel as major contributors to Internet piracy -- subpoenas to follow...
support of OpenDocument in MS Office could happen.
Did anybody think it wouldn't happen? Really?? And you just arrived from what planet again???
Of course it will happen. It will happen the moment MS needs it to happen. They've successfully resisted as long as they can, and when it starts costing them sales rather than creating sales for them they flip a compiler option switch and it's included. Don't think for a moment that they haven't had this running in their development labs for years. They would have been fools not to have.
Doesn't mean the battle is over. MS will certainly try to find some essential feature that OD doesn't support to keep people on their own proprietary format. Fight this by using OD regardless. The only thing I don't understand is why RTF was never an acceptable open format. I know it was supported by other platforms, and appears to be all ascii tags and data.
Kudos to Massachusetts to standing up to the MS BS. It took someone big enough and brave enough to get their attention. Apparently even a small state is big enough to really scare them.
The one they list 98 movies for so far, in a career spanning 1983 through present -- and she isn't stopping yet.
All this, and it still says "Primary Photo Not Submitted." Well it's not for lack of trying. Nor trying to get them to publish an entire portfolio for free. We've offered them a free primary photo for the main bio page, and they don't even want to talk about it without cash up front. Just who is doing whom a favor here?
Re:I'd like IMDB more if...Manniquin Sound Nude
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
An example: the movie Mannequin. IMDB says that there is no DVD available, but I happen to own one
I'd buy it just for the sound track. The two best songs in that movie have never been (to my knowledge) released on any soundtrack album otherwise.
And in addition that movie is just plain fun, which is a bonus. Too bad it was done before Kim Cattrall was willing to do SitC style nude, or even topless, work.:^(
That would have been fitting for this movie, and made Jonathan Switcher even more uncomfortable around her -- which is much the point.:^)
a much nicer price of $199 instead of the rather high $249 which was originally
$50/GB ($49.75+tax/GB for the purists) leaves me believing that you and I have a different definition of nicer.
I'd like IMDB more if...
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'd like IMDB more if they didn't charge to submit basic photos to their database. I have permission for one star on their site to submit her picture (none is presently available) and they want money for something that improves their site overall.
Leaves me with the feeling that bigness + age != niceness.
To make most efficient use of the 4.3 trillion possible IPv4 addresses, all we need is one giant honking DHCP server for the world to use. Of course, the USA should run it forever.
It's always amazing to me the rights states feel they have over the lives of their citizens. How long before you need a license to sneeze? After all, sneezing can spread disease if done wrong. I'd say about 4 weeks of classes should be sufficient to teach you how to do it properly. Of course, you pay for this.
I don't think such patents should be allowed. It's like a company owning a piece of me -- and I wasn't even paid for it!
The only reasonably good news is that such patents should expire, and when they do they can't be re-patented again. But given the dismal record of extending copyrights well beyond the time of anyone living today, can patents be far behind?
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly need a dual processor. One processor for each tuner. Throw enough horsepower against Microsoft and even MSWord has a decent framerate.
So my question is: Hey, do this things play regular DVD's too? If so w00t -- free DVD player for me!
Of course, is that bribery? Payola? Or just Disney being The Mouse?
And the First Post that didn't deserve to be moderated OT too.
The car, contrary to the Slashdot editor letting this one through when they shouldn't have in its posted form does not make its own fuel. It runs on water and aluminum or magnesium.
Now if it mined those elements and refined them in the process and still had a postive energy output then yes, the article summary would have been accurate.
It doesn't. It's not!
How about an Iron Butterfly?
This will hurt MS. Unlike Sony who has design engineers, patents, and manufacturing facilities and experience, Microsoft has none of these. They're known mostly in hardware for the MSMouse and the XBox.
Sony can make their own new format (e.g. UMD) including the drives, media, and pressing plants. Microsoft can't. If HD-DVD was to only appear in the XBox with a run of a few ten's of millions over the next 7 years the price would be so high that XBox would really become non-competative.
The only reason Microsoft wants HD-DVD for the XBox is because they clearly need an HD drive of some sort, and HD-DVD is the only game in town that isn't Sony.
Of course, I also expect these decisions to change again another 2 or 3 times since all of this now seems about people and groups pressuring to get what they want. Since BluRay is the flavor of this week, the remaining number of flip-flops I need can be expressed mathmatically as: Flip_Flops MOD 2 = 0.
That's not unexpected since the P-Pro L2 cache ran at full core speed, while the P-II cache was running at half processor speed. This meant that it took a P-II twice as long to get data from the L2 cache as the P-Pro. P-Pro remained an excellent server chip for long after P-II was running at much higher clock rates.
But the P-Pro's problem remained that it was both very expensive to produce, and they never could get the clock speed up over 200MHz, perhaps in part because of the distance between the processor die and the L2 cache die. The inability to increase speed along with the high price I believe doomed it from the very beginning.
As for the P-II 350MHz being noticably faster, it darn well should have been. That was the step, from the P-II 333MHz where they increased the memory bus speed from 33MHz to 66MHz. Literally double the main memory bus bandwidth and of course you are going to see some significant speed increases. In fact, this is the last time Intel actually doubled memory bus speed, since DDR isn't twice as fast in the entire memory transaction as SDRAM.
But thanks for the answer otherwise.
Just what are the Pentium II shortcomings? IIRC Pentium Pro was a very expensive and difficult chip to manufacture even given that they'd broken it up into two separate dies. In addition they never could get the clock rate up over 200MHz with it, and could not (or it wasn't worth it) include new SSE instructions into it.
P-II bundled 512KB of half-speed L2 cache into the cartridge that worked pretty well. So well that early P-IIIs with half that amount of full-speed cache on the die itself were outperformed in some areas (e.g. SETI screensaver) by the P-II due to the L2 cache limitations.
So what parts of the P-II were particularly bad? I wonder, because I'm still running 3 of them.
I hope Google wins this one, and wins it big. I'm tired of living in the 19th century, and being told I should remain there by people who consider an electric typewriter to be too advanced for their use. Google believes they are within the current copyright laws, and they have more expensive lawyers than I do.
The glowing cherry red on top of the chip packaging stepchild.
RIAA lists Dell and Intel as major contributors to Internet piracy -- subpoenas to follow...
I only wish.
AMD should be touting its own Performance per Watt figures right now, rather than waiting for Intel to eventually catch up.
Did anybody think it wouldn't happen? Really?? And you just arrived from what planet again???
Of course it will happen. It will happen the moment MS needs it to happen. They've successfully resisted as long as they can, and when it starts costing them sales rather than creating sales for them they flip a compiler option switch and it's included. Don't think for a moment that they haven't had this running in their development labs for years. They would have been fools not to have.
Doesn't mean the battle is over. MS will certainly try to find some essential feature that OD doesn't support to keep people on their own proprietary format. Fight this by using OD regardless. The only thing I don't understand is why RTF was never an acceptable open format. I know it was supported by other platforms, and appears to be all ascii tags and data.
Kudos to Massachusetts to standing up to the MS BS. It took someone big enough and brave enough to get their attention. Apparently even a small state is big enough to really scare them.
The one they list 98 movies for so far, in a career spanning 1983 through present -- and she isn't stopping yet.
All this, and it still says "Primary Photo Not Submitted." Well it's not for lack of trying. Nor trying to get them to publish an entire portfolio for free. We've offered them a free primary photo for the main bio page, and they don't even want to talk about it without cash up front. Just who is doing whom a favor here?
I'd buy it just for the sound track. The two best songs in that movie have never been (to my knowledge) released on any soundtrack album otherwise.
And in addition that movie is just plain fun, which is a bonus. Too bad it was done before Kim Cattrall was willing to do SitC style nude, or even topless, work. :^(
That would have been fitting for this movie, and made Jonathan Switcher even more uncomfortable around her -- which is much the point. :^)
The 1991 sequel sure sucked though.
$50/GB ($49.75+tax/GB for the purists) leaves me believing that you and I have a different definition of nicer.
Leaves me with the feeling that bigness + age != niceness.
To make most efficient use of the 4.3 trillion possible IPv4 addresses, all we need is one giant honking DHCP server for the world to use. Of course, the USA should run it forever.
[] Profit!
What about some of the large unused spaces currently used as Honeypots? Is this the best use of these spaces now?
Always good to know I'll have something more to worry about this weekend. I was afraid I was going to run short.
It's always amazing to me the rights states feel they have over the lives of their citizens. How long before you need a license to sneeze? After all, sneezing can spread disease if done wrong. I'd say about 4 weeks of classes should be sufficient to teach you how to do it properly. Of course, you pay for this.
I hope he's One clever ex-MySpace user permanently.
The only reasonably good news is that such patents should expire, and when they do they can't be re-patented again. But given the dismal record of extending copyrights well beyond the time of anyone living today, can patents be far behind?
This may enrich the justice department, computer companies, and/or their shareholders, but how does it help me?