Printing on a cheapie inkjet has 300 DPI. Printing on a high-quality but still consumer-level laser printer tops out around 1200 DPI.
Dpi has NOTHING to do with the color resolution of an inkjet printer, unless you are printing black and white line art. If you feel you need a 1200ppi image to print at the full capacity of your 1200dpi printer, you are:
1: Sadly mistaken.
2: Working with huge images unnecessarily.
3: Probably spent much more on your camera than you needed to do.
4: Are spending a lot of time watching your computer transmit these huge images to your printer, which is merrily throwing away much of the data sent it.
A single dot of color, does not a color cell make. If so, you'd have a limited color pallette of black, white, and subtractively created single tone RGB.
Example: An HP large format printer (say a Design Jet 2000 series) prints at 600dpi. That means it can put down an individual ink dot every 1/600th of an inch. And most of them don't overlap the adjacent one, as some printers claiming insanely high horizontal resolutions do. In order to create a wide spectrum of color, this printer builds a 4x4 color cell of 16 dots. Depending on which colors are placed in this cell in which order (yes, dots can be placed on top of each other, and this ordering is significant), you get a wide variety of results. What this means to the image however is that the maximum resolution of this printer is 150ppi. There are 150 color cells per inch horizontally and vertically. Any resolution higher than that is discarded as the image is downsized in the printer to 150 pels (picture elements) per inch. And the results are gorgeous!
Example: An Epson 1440dpi printer actually prints about 240 color cells per inch. A higher resolution image will not print any sharper.
Important thing to remember #1: Dots per Inch figures for inkjet printers are nothing more than advertising hype and garbage.
Important thing to remember #2: Your eye can't see much more than about 100dpi anyway from more than a few inches away. And most people don't hang the image on their nose to view it.
Important thing to remember #3: The very hard to find color cells per inch figure is the true printer resolution, and the manufacturers don't make this easy to find because they like to advertise big numbers. People also like to buy big numbers.
Important thing to remember #4: The only way to get a good printer is to view samples of your work on the various printers you are considering buying, and pick the one that is most pleasing to you. It's a lot like wine -- the kind you drink.
Here's a validity check. If the situation was reversed and the passenger was being sued for not adhering to some term of NorthWest's ticketing agreement, would the court have also ruled it was not valid because he had not read it in detail, and therefore not agreed to it?
Agreements between parties cannot be one-way. In fact, I would believe (standard disclaimer: IANAL-BWI -- IANAL But Who Is?) the moment NorthWest published their privacy policy, they unilaterally bound themselves to it regardless of passenger actions.
The case should be appealed.
The Appeals Court should promptly reinstate it.
This judge should be immediately removed for incompetence.
Well, you would only need to populate as many banks as you have processors.
So if you only bought one CPU, you'd only fill two of the slots.
Go back to the title of this entire discussion. We're discussing dual core processors, and single socket motherboards intended for dual core processors that might contain upto 4 memory banks to make optimal -- and expensive -- highbandwidth memory access available. Any single CPU discussion doesn't fit the parameters of what I'm talking about from the beginning.
Akamai said the attack was primarily aimed at the large search engines - of which it runs the three largest, Yahoo!, Google and Lycos
And I have long thought that Google was several big rooms of white boxes running Linux, with occasional dead nodes in there that aren't worth the trouble to locate, disconnect, and repair, that Google ran themselves.
Re:(Eric) Head, Talking! /. has your answer!!
on
Spammer Apologizes
·
· Score: 1
And you may ask yourself
Am I right? Am I wrong?
And as you ask on Slashdot, so shall you find the answer to your quantum question right here!
You're not gong to run an OS on a Cell, it's not designed for it.
1: Cost.
2: Cost.
3: Cost.
The very same reason that super fast gaming machines sell to such a limited market. There's always a cost verses performance tradeoff. Most users probably trade at a different point than you apparently do.
On single-socket boards, you'd still have the same 4 DIMM slots you have now - 2 DIMM slots per core.
Which means that you would have to populate all 4 DIMM slots to run the thing. As opposed to the 1 or 2 DIMM slots you populate now at minimum on single or dual channel memory systems.
One gig in 1 DIMM, or 1 gig as 256MBx4 DIMMS. Which do you feel will cost less? And to upgrade memory you would have to replace it all.
This was never about the cost or space needed for the sockets on the motherboard. It's about what you have to put in them with multi-channel memory access.
If you're at all familiar with the Opteron architecture, you'd realize that each chip's memory controller does, indeed go to a new memory bank.
Yes. And in the 939 pin package, a single processor accesses dual memory banks in parallel.
However...
Most desktop units are not going to put in 4 or 8 independent banks of memory. For servers, yeah, spread 2 or 4 GB over multiple banks. But a desktop PC, I don't think so. The gain is not worth the price. You don't need that much memory, and buying less by spending on lower density memory modules is not cost effective.
So where 95% of us care about it -- i.e. on the desktop -- we don't see this gain because the price for it is too high.
And that is my point. Not that you can't build some screaming fast machine with outrageous memory bandwidth using a multi-core Opteron chip going out to a lot of independent memory banks, but rather for most of us users it isn't going to happen for cost reasons, and therefore it is nothing to get excited about. I save my excitement for the stuff most of us will actually own -- which may likely be a dual core Athlon-64 with dual memory channels running out of a Socket 939 in about a year.
your program is going to run on only one core at a time and at the speed of a 486
Did you miss the part about shrinking it down to modern geomerty, meaning it would run faster on less power (read less heat) than the original? Sure a 90nm i486 isn't going to run at 3.6GHz like a P4, however I expect it would run a good amount faster than a 486DX2-66 once did.
Also, having 30 or so of your 486 cores sitting idle most of the time would result in alot of wasted electricity.
Modern power control circuitry shuts down cores not in use.
SCO charges $1,149 for a dual license. Check their website, Darl.
My bad! Who would have ever expected SCO to be that nice about anything?
Maybe we need to check their website more often. Yeah, all of Slashdot check their website every day to see if anything has changed. That would be good.
Unless the new controller goes to an entirely separate memory bank, then it is simply contesting with the first controller to access memory. Regular ram chips only serve up one memory location at a time, and are more efficient when serving up a burst of consecutive locations, delaying the second controller even further. Since even a single processor is often waiting on main memory (figure 90% cache hit rate, and there is still a lot of memory reading and writing happening), a second controller can't even get to the memory.
And if you go to separate memory banks for each core, costs go up and getting the right data in the right memory bank becomes a problem. Yes, you ought to be able to cross-bar the memory accesses in the chip between multiple controllers, but the system costs go up beyond what many people would want for a desktop system.
Why not take an older processor (e.g. i80486) that already is basically single cycle execution -- or Pentium which has two execution pipes already -- update it to modern geometry which should increase speed and decrease power, and put as many as you can easily fit onto the die? After all, those older cores execute all the basic i86 code including MMX with a lot less transistors. How much does SSE, SSE2 and HT contribute verses a lot of cores just executing threads with little context switching?
How many fully paid student scholorships could have that money have bought?
Well, at Stanford what, a hundred? If you include housing (Silicon Valley prices), and have you seen what they pay for gasoline in California? Got to include that.
Slashdot Mirror
Dpi has NOTHING to do with the color resolution of an inkjet printer, unless you are printing black and white line art. If you feel you need a 1200ppi image to print at the full capacity of your 1200dpi printer, you are:
1: Sadly mistaken.
2: Working with huge images unnecessarily.
3: Probably spent much more on your camera than you needed to do.
4: Are spending a lot of time watching your computer transmit these huge images to your printer, which is merrily throwing away much of the data sent it.
A single dot of color, does not a color cell make. If so, you'd have a limited color pallette of black, white, and subtractively created single tone RGB.
Example: An HP large format printer (say a Design Jet 2000 series) prints at 600dpi. That means it can put down an individual ink dot every 1/600th of an inch. And most of them don't overlap the adjacent one, as some printers claiming insanely high horizontal resolutions do. In order to create a wide spectrum of color, this printer builds a 4x4 color cell of 16 dots. Depending on which colors are placed in this cell in which order (yes, dots can be placed on top of each other, and this ordering is significant), you get a wide variety of results. What this means to the image however is that the maximum resolution of this printer is 150ppi. There are 150 color cells per inch horizontally and vertically. Any resolution higher than that is discarded as the image is downsized in the printer to 150 pels (picture elements) per inch. And the results are gorgeous!
Example: An Epson 1440dpi printer actually prints about 240 color cells per inch. A higher resolution image will not print any sharper.
Important thing to remember #1: Dots per Inch figures for inkjet printers are nothing more than advertising hype and garbage.
Important thing to remember #2: Your eye can't see much more than about 100dpi anyway from more than a few inches away. And most people don't hang the image on their nose to view it.
Important thing to remember #3: The very hard to find color cells per inch figure is the true printer resolution, and the manufacturers don't make this easy to find because they like to advertise big numbers. People also like to buy big numbers.
Important thing to remember #4: The only way to get a good printer is to view samples of your work on the various printers you are considering buying, and pick the one that is most pleasing to you. It's a lot like wine -- the kind you drink.
Agreements between parties cannot be one-way. In fact, I would believe (standard disclaimer: IANAL-BWI -- IANAL But Who Is?) the moment NorthWest published their privacy policy, they unilaterally bound themselves to it regardless of passenger actions.
The case should be appealed.
The Appeals Court should promptly reinstate it.
This judge should be immediately removed for incompetence.
Would the same apply to and End User License Agreement?
Hey, it has worked for Direct TV and smart card programmers.
So if you only bought one CPU, you'd only fill two of the slots.
Go back to the title of this entire discussion. We're discussing dual core processors, and single socket motherboards intended for dual core processors that might contain upto 4 memory banks to make optimal -- and expensive -- highbandwidth memory access available. Any single CPU discussion doesn't fit the parameters of what I'm talking about from the beginning.
I'm glad someone saw beyond the initial funny, to the deeper thought beneath it.
And I have long thought that Google was several big rooms of white boxes running Linux, with occasional dead nodes in there that aren't worth the trouble to locate, disconnect, and repair, that Google ran themselves.
Am I right? Am I wrong?
And as you ask on Slashdot, so shall you find the answer to your quantum question right here!
Until somebody went and looked at it.
(Or does that need 42 Q-bits?)
If that had been a 32 node Itantium cluster, Intel could have boasted of doubled Itantium sales for that quarter.
The only question left is, can a Quantum Computer Simulator handle the /. effect?
1: Cost.
2: Cost.
3: Cost.
The very same reason that super fast gaming machines sell to such a limited market. There's always a cost verses performance tradeoff. Most users probably trade at a different point than you apparently do.
You're certainly going to run some form of OS on it. You couldn't use it at all otherwise.
IBM has already talked about Cell-based workstations, so they have some ideas on how to use it.
Which means that you would have to populate all 4 DIMM slots to run the thing. As opposed to the 1 or 2 DIMM slots you populate now at minimum on single or dual channel memory systems.
One gig in 1 DIMM, or 1 gig as 256MBx4 DIMMS. Which do you feel will cost less? And to upgrade memory you would have to replace it all.
This was never about the cost or space needed for the sockets on the motherboard. It's about what you have to put in them with multi-channel memory access.
What I actually expect to toast everything around in a couple years, and at a surprisingly affordable price, will be the Sony/IBM Cell Processor.
Yes. And in the 939 pin package, a single processor accesses dual memory banks in parallel.
However...
Most desktop units are not going to put in 4 or 8 independent banks of memory. For servers, yeah, spread 2 or 4 GB over multiple banks. But a desktop PC, I don't think so. The gain is not worth the price. You don't need that much memory, and buying less by spending on lower density memory modules is not cost effective.
So where 95% of us care about it -- i.e. on the desktop -- we don't see this gain because the price for it is too high.
And that is my point. Not that you can't build some screaming fast machine with outrageous memory bandwidth using a multi-core Opteron chip going out to a lot of independent memory banks, but rather for most of us users it isn't going to happen for cost reasons, and therefore it is nothing to get excited about. I save my excitement for the stuff most of us will actually own -- which may likely be a dual core Athlon-64 with dual memory channels running out of a Socket 939 in about a year.
Did you miss the part about shrinking it down to modern geomerty, meaning it would run faster on less power (read less heat) than the original? Sure a 90nm i486 isn't going to run at 3.6GHz like a P4, however I expect it would run a good amount faster than a 486DX2-66 once did.
Also, having 30 or so of your 486 cores sitting idle most of the time would result in alot of wasted electricity.
Modern power control circuitry shuts down cores not in use.
My bad! Who would have ever expected SCO to be that nice about anything?
Maybe we need to check their website more often. Yeah, all of Slashdot check their website every day to see if anything has changed. That would be good.
No it doesn't.
Unless the new controller goes to an entirely separate memory bank, then it is simply contesting with the first controller to access memory. Regular ram chips only serve up one memory location at a time, and are more efficient when serving up a burst of consecutive locations, delaying the second controller even further. Since even a single processor is often waiting on main memory (figure 90% cache hit rate, and there is still a lot of memory reading and writing happening), a second controller can't even get to the memory.
And if you go to separate memory banks for each core, costs go up and getting the right data in the right memory bank becomes a problem. Yes, you ought to be able to cross-bar the memory accesses in the chip between multiple controllers, but the system costs go up beyond what many people would want for a desktop system.
Don't you mean $1,398? Or are you doing your math on an old Pentium -- in which case your really do need an upgrade.
Can't wait to see the heat sink that goes with it!
Why not take an older processor (e.g. i80486) that already is basically single cycle execution -- or Pentium which has two execution pipes already -- update it to modern geometry which should increase speed and decrease power, and put as many as you can easily fit onto the die? After all, those older cores execute all the basic i86 code including MMX with a lot less transistors. How much does SSE, SSE2 and HT contribute verses a lot of cores just executing threads with little context switching?
Well, at Stanford what, a hundred? If you include housing (Silicon Valley prices), and have you seen what they pay for gasoline in California? Got to include that.
Because a 100+ years ago we did not have post-fix notation, the HP-35 calculator, or Yoda.
Seriously yourself, Dude. Do I have to put [SARCASM]...[/SARCASM] markup tags on everything?