Wasn't RDRAM villified on PCs for gaming because the serial nature of the bus made for high latency? Once the transfer got started, it was really fast, but the time between RAM request and data available was much longer than even SDRAM.
Tom's hardware blasted it at first, then turned around and said it was really keen. I think AnandTech did too.
IIRC, RDRAM was good for servers and other systems that don't need low latency.
My big problem with Apple is they dont really seem to care about getting new customers as much as they just want to take advantage of the existing loyal customers.
I agree with your overall point, but not this particular sentence. They don't take very good care of their loyal customers, either.
Apple has abandoned hardware and software standards many times in the past few years. Don't get me wrong - it's not necessary to support legacy hardware (a la ISA and RS232 serial on PCs) forever, but it would be nice if Apple hardware retained some backwards compatibility for a longer period.
That and the fact that I've had several problems running Apple software on Apple hardware (including some motherboard-killing BIOS flashes) and you can see why I'm very frustrated with the company now.
Are there any bootable-CD distributions of *BSD, like the Knoppix distro for Linux?
It would be really cool to bring a couple of CDs with you in case you ran into some open-minded person willing to look at a free OS, and not have to worry about partitioning or overwriting anything.
Now that apple is beginning to behave badly, maybe it's time a free project showed what it can do with the BSD core. I'm all for this. I just wish I had more spare time!
Re:707 crash testing
on
Droning On
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you misunderstood me.
They didn't crash it the way they wanted to. Failure to test a hypothesis correctly is the only kind of failure you can have in science.
I don't suggest they should have manned it with suicide pilots, of course.
My intention is to illustrate that it's hard to fly a large plane like a 707 by remote control based on a video feed from the cockpit and instruments.
I also wanted to humorously illustrate that the history of remote-controlled flight isn't an illustrious one. I apologise for failing (I'm new and haven't gotten a good feel for/. humor yet - kinda like having the second episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation be a "funny" one, despite the fact that the characters weren't well developed yet.):)
I can't for the life of me find it on google, but that remote-controlled 707 they crash tested didn't crash how they wanted it to.
They were testing a new kind of fuel they hoped wouldn't catch fire so easily, and the plan was to guide the instrumented plane onto a test area, which had "claws" to tear the wing tanks open.
Well, the pilot kinda lost in on approach, and the plane didn't crash "as planned". It also proved that the new fuel they were testing didn't do what was expected - there was an enormous fireball.
So that's just one entry in the history of (failed) "drone" planes. I'll take my flights with a pilot, please, not some blow-up autopilot thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't RDRAM villified on PCs for gaming because the serial nature of the bus made for high latency? Once the transfer got started, it was really fast, but the time between RAM request and data available was much longer than even SDRAM.
Tom's hardware blasted it at first, then turned around and said it was really keen. I think AnandTech did too.
IIRC, RDRAM was good for servers and other systems that don't need low latency.
So why use it on a gaming system?
They put Bill G's CES keynotes on each DVD? Crikey!
I agree with your overall point, but not this particular sentence. They don't take very good care of their loyal customers, either.
Apple has abandoned hardware and software standards many times in the past few years. Don't get me wrong - it's not necessary to support legacy hardware (a la ISA and RS232 serial on PCs) forever, but it would be nice if Apple hardware retained some backwards compatibility for a longer period.
That and the fact that I've had several problems running Apple software on Apple hardware (including some motherboard-killing BIOS flashes) and you can see why I'm very frustrated with the company now.
Are there any bootable-CD distributions of *BSD, like the Knoppix distro for Linux? It would be really cool to bring a couple of CDs with you in case you ran into some open-minded person willing to look at a free OS, and not have to worry about partitioning or overwriting anything.
With the trolls here, it takes real bravery to post a BSD article on Slashdot, so you can't rightly call the submitter a "coward", can you?
He also summed up the target link well in his article submission, so he's definitely a "reader".
Now that apple is beginning to behave badly, maybe it's time a free project showed what it can do with the BSD core. I'm all for this. I just wish I had more spare time!
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you misunderstood me. They didn't crash it the way they wanted to. Failure to test a hypothesis correctly is the only kind of failure you can have in science. I don't suggest they should have manned it with suicide pilots, of course. My intention is to illustrate that it's hard to fly a large plane like a 707 by remote control based on a video feed from the cockpit and instruments. I also wanted to humorously illustrate that the history of remote-controlled flight isn't an illustrious one. I apologise for failing (I'm new and haven't gotten a good feel for /. humor yet - kinda like having the second episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation be a "funny" one, despite the fact that the characters weren't well developed yet.) :)
I can't for the life of me find it on google, but that remote-controlled 707 they crash tested didn't crash how they wanted it to.
They were testing a new kind of fuel they hoped wouldn't catch fire so easily, and the plan was to guide the instrumented plane onto a test area, which had "claws" to tear the wing tanks open.
Well, the pilot kinda lost in on approach, and the plane didn't crash "as planned". It also proved that the new fuel they were testing didn't do what was expected - there was an enormous fireball.
So that's just one entry in the history of (failed) "drone" planes. I'll take my flights with a pilot, please, not some blow-up autopilot thing.
If they wanted the revenue they should have charged from the beginning. Why can't free things stay free for very long?
I know it's tough times, but this is just pissing off your customers. Isn't it better to make a little less profit but have happy customers?