Gee, if only AMD had a line of chips that didn't have the graphics unit in them...
If only AMD had a line of chips which didn't have the graphics unit in them and were actually competitive with anything other than Intel's low-end parts....
If I buy $350 cpu and a discrete GPU it will beat the hell out of 150 cpu, did I get your logic right?
I think the point is that regardless of whether you buy Intel or AMD, you'll still probably be playing new games on the lowest graphics settings available. If you actually bought a PC to play games, you'll be buying a discrete graphics card, so the on-chip GPU is just a waste of space unless the OS is able to switch back to it for the desktop to save power when you're not running games.
If you care about performance, you buy Intel. If you care about power consumption, you buy Intel. If you're cheap and don't care about power consumption and want to play games on really low graphics settings, you buy AMD.
Quite likely. I had some old Word for Mac documents of scientific papers I wrote in the 90s, and the only way I was able to recover them a few years ago was to install a Windows 3.1-era copy of Word for Windows.
According to the article satellites currently are counted as munitions and they end up in orbit so, regardless of how US law deals with it, it must be possible to launch "munitions" into orbit.
As I understand it, you can launch them on US rockets from US launch sites, or you can buy them from a non-US company and launch them on non-US rockets from non-US launch sites, or you can spend large amounts of time and money to get permission to launch US satellites on a non-US rocket from a non-US launch site.
I believe you'll find OEMs are buying Windows 8 licenses and 'downgrading' their machines to Windows 7 instead. Everyone I know who's bought a PC in the last few months has bought one with Windows 7 because Windows 8 is an utter disaster.
So functionally, that is, with regards to function, there's no difference.
Uh, no. I have an Asus Transformer with a dockable keyboard and it makes a really crappy netbook because Android is not designed for a keyboard and mouse.
And there is no reason why you cannot attach a tablet to a bigger screen or keyboard or mouse should the need arise. (it doesn't work the other way around though)
Other than that tablets are designed for touch interfaces and make crappy desktops and laptops as a result.
Duh, I have the Kindle app on my Android tablet, on Windows and on Linux (through Wine). They all suck as e-book readers, at least when you have thousands of e-books.
Can someone tell me why a readership that embraces every speculative technology suddenly gets downright angry about the very thought of an electric car?
Because they're a dumb idea until we have a much better battery technology, and we're forced to pay taxes so rich people can buy them at a subsidized price.
Or for that matter any mention of energy produced by any alternative means?
Because many of those 'alternative energy' technologies are scams and most of the rest are subsidized by our taxes because they make no financial sense.
Also it's not like you can't go to the start and type in power and have the option pop up.
You're right. Every time I power off my computer I really want to have to go to the command line and type 'power' to find the option to do so rather than just click on it.
Except they make no sense for all the reasons another poster listed above, and the very obvious reason that no-one wants to drive off the dealership forecourt in a brand new electric car and then swap that $30,000 battery for an old clunker a hundred miles down the road.
If it were 4 times the power of every Xbox sold, why not just pack all those extra processing units into each Xbox and skip the obvious latency problems?
1. Not all people will be playing at the same time, so you can reduce the hardware costs by only paying for half as much hardware (say). 2. If you put the extra processing in the Xbox, you couldn't force people to buy a new game by shutting down the servers for the old one.
Just about everything Microsoft has done since Windows 7 seems to be based around lockin in and monetization. This looks no different.
Ditto. I went looking for an ARM board last time I built a home server, but found nothing that could compete in the slightest against a $90 Atom board.
I had a desktop with two graphics cards in sli, and two monitors
Given SLI barely works in Windows, expecting it to work in Linux was optimistic. I recently booted up a Linux Mint DVD on my laptop to try it out and... everything just works. Even using the 'recovery partition' to reinstall Windows on there takes over three hours, reboots about thirty times and breaks with barely decipherable and completely misleading error messages if you installed a hard drive larger than the one that came with it.
Linux is close to 20 years old..
And the BSD core in MacOS is close to 40 years old.
Android would make a lousy desktop interface, just like Window 8. It was designed for phones and is barely a usable tablet interface. Of course, it probably is more usable than Gnome 3.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, if only AMD had a line of chips that didn't have the graphics unit in them...
If only AMD had a line of chips which didn't have the graphics unit in them and were actually competitive with anything other than Intel's low-end parts....
Who in their right mind would intentionally buy a cpu that uses thermal paste under the heatspreader?
The 99.9% of PC users who don't overclock them?
Begging for Windows 8? That's got to be a real case of scraping the bottom of the barrel.
If I buy $350 cpu and a discrete GPU it will beat the hell out of 150 cpu, did I get your logic right?
I think the point is that regardless of whether you buy Intel or AMD, you'll still probably be playing new games on the lowest graphics settings available. If you actually bought a PC to play games, you'll be buying a discrete graphics card, so the on-chip GPU is just a waste of space unless the OS is able to switch back to it for the desktop to save power when you're not running games.
As I see it:
If you care about performance, you buy Intel.
If you care about power consumption, you buy Intel.
If you're cheap and don't care about power consumption and want to play games on really low graphics settings, you buy AMD.
Quite likely. I had some old Word for Mac documents of scientific papers I wrote in the 90s, and the only way I was able to recover them a few years ago was to install a Windows 3.1-era copy of Word for Windows.
According to the article satellites currently are counted as munitions and they end up in orbit so, regardless of how US law deals with it, it must be possible to launch "munitions" into orbit.
As I understand it, you can launch them on US rockets from US launch sites, or you can buy them from a non-US company and launch them on non-US rockets from non-US launch sites, or you can spend large amounts of time and money to get permission to launch US satellites on a non-US rocket from a non-US launch site.
I believe you'll find OEMs are buying Windows 8 licenses and 'downgrading' their machines to Windows 7 instead. Everyone I know who's bought a PC in the last few months has bought one with Windows 7 because Windows 8 is an utter disaster.
They make the money back and then some off the accessories and games.
[citation needed]
Every source I've read has shown the Xbox to be a substantial money pit.
So functionally, that is, with regards to function, there's no difference.
Uh, no. I have an Asus Transformer with a dockable keyboard and it makes a really crappy netbook because Android is not designed for a keyboard and mouse.
And there is no reason why you cannot attach a tablet to a bigger screen or keyboard or mouse should the need arise. (it doesn't work the other way around though)
Other than that tablets are designed for touch interfaces and make crappy desktops and laptops as a result.
Fact is, the emphasis is still on processing power over performance per watt. Sure, Intel gives it lip service, but not much beyond that.
So why does my new i7 system use half as much power as my old Pentium-4?
Speak for yourself. The main reason why PCs are still not the main media centre / gaming unit in households is due to the ridiculous noise they make.
Maybe if you buy AMD's space heaters, but my i7 + GTX 660 system is barely audible when playing games.
You must be confusing modern PCs with Pentium-4s or something.
Duh, I have the Kindle app on my Android tablet, on Windows and on Linux (through Wine). They all suck as e-book readers, at least when you have thousands of e-books.
The Kindle app is a horrible, slow, piece of poo whose only saving grace is that it's not as bad as the Adobe equivalent.
Can someone tell me why a readership that embraces every speculative technology suddenly gets downright angry about the very thought of an electric car?
Because they're a dumb idea until we have a much better battery technology, and we're forced to pay taxes so rich people can buy them at a subsidized price.
Or for that matter any mention of energy produced by any alternative means?
Because many of those 'alternative energy' technologies are scams and most of the rest are subsidized by our taxes because they make no financial sense.
Also it's not like you can't go to the start and type in power and have the option pop up.
You're right. Every time I power off my computer I really want to have to go to the command line and type 'power' to find the option to do so rather than just click on it.
You are so right. I can't wait for the glorious future of creating Excel spreadsheets by randomly waving my hands in the air in front of a computer.
Or they could just install a sane operating system instead.
Hardware acceleration is huge win.
Yeah, because, as everyone knows, X11 has no hardware acceleration, which is why it sucks and stuff.
If X11 is so good, why isn't Android using it?
Because Android is a toy OS for cellphones.
Except they make no sense for all the reasons another poster listed above, and the very obvious reason that no-one wants to drive off the dealership forecourt in a brand new electric car and then swap that $30,000 battery for an old clunker a hundred miles down the road.
If it were 4 times the power of every Xbox sold, why not just pack all those extra processing units into each Xbox and skip the obvious latency problems?
1. Not all people will be playing at the same time, so you can reduce the hardware costs by only paying for half as much hardware (say).
2. If you put the extra processing in the Xbox, you couldn't force people to buy a new game by shutting down the servers for the old one.
Just about everything Microsoft has done since Windows 7 seems to be based around lockin in and monetization. This looks no different.
Ditto. I went looking for an ARM board last time I built a home server, but found nothing that could compete in the slightest against a $90 Atom board.
I had a desktop with two graphics cards in sli, and two monitors
Given SLI barely works in Windows, expecting it to work in Linux was optimistic. I recently booted up a Linux Mint DVD on my laptop to try it out and... everything just works. Even using the 'recovery partition' to reinstall Windows on there takes over three hours, reboots about thirty times and breaks with barely decipherable and completely misleading error messages if you installed a hard drive larger than the one that came with it.
Linux is close to 20 years old..
And the BSD core in MacOS is close to 40 years old.
Android would make a lousy desktop interface, just like Window 8. It was designed for phones and is barely a usable tablet interface. Of course, it probably is more usable than Gnome 3.