All my Macs have Gigabit built in. So I can get an 8 port Gigabit switch for like $100 now, and all my NICs are Gigabit, so why would I want a 10/100 piece of crap for a NAS?!
Not enterprise at ALL... for the home market I cannot see ANY reason why some little snap server wouldn't have Gigabit built in. It costs like $2 more for parts... and it can make a 3x or 4x difference in performance... WTF?
Windows uses a "shrink wrap" license, which is pretty standard practice. There's usually a seal on the box which talk about the license, and says that opening the package indicates you accept the license. You can almost always return software products that you haven't opened (broken the seal)... have a read of the box, carefully, next time;-)
They're not modifying ANYTHING after the fact, I'm quite certain the license was written and included with the product long before you even purchased it. Almost all consumer software includes a variation of the "shrink wrap" license.
You should READ the contract before you make the purchase. Before you sign up for one-click purchase you are given something rather long to read, which says SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. It's quite standard.
It's on the iTunes Music Store songs, and it's on that copy of Windoze you purchased, too. In fact it's on nearly every copy of commercial software in the universe. The license specifically states what you can and can't do with the software/media/etc.
Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean you can do what YOU think is right. It IS a contract, the validity of which can be established in the judicial system.
Saccharine *is* still used in fountain sodas. The stuff you get at 7-11 from the machine, or at the local burrito joint DOES have saccharin in it. Only the bottles and cans use NutraSweet.
This is because NutraSweet has a relatively short shelf life. It's something like 3-6 months (very vague recollection here), and then it loses its sweetness, completely.
The fountain soda is in containers or "bags" and can be in the channel for months or (gasp!) a year or more before it's hooked up and served -- really the distributors have little control over when restaurants or convenience stores hook it up. As such, it's still saccharine based to ensure they don't start serving out big "crap batches."
You can enable 30-second skip on TiVo... 4 to 10 "blips" and you're done.
Hit select-play-select-3-0-select
Hear 3 dings. Done. Index button is now +30. Oh and the one a couple buttons left of it is like -7 seconds... helps for when the thumb gets overzealous;-)
On the Mac, I have an app called "PithHelmet" which does ad blocking... I believe it keeps a database and uses a proxy server (though, I haven't really investigated, it works and it's easy;-) I've used proximitron and other blockers, as well as host files which blocked sites before, but PithHelmet is more integrated and doesn't show broken links like less integrated stuff can.
Also, OmniWeb 5 has ad blocking (including banners) built in.
So the ad monkeys will get blocked before their site is even accessed. You can read an MSN ad on a single page!
I assume similar products are/will be available on Windows soon, too. This one's fairly easily to technically circumvent.
What I'm saying is, that given a fixed number of customers, Nvidia would like to write the least number of ports to get all those customers. So given a million users TOTAL who would buy their products (this number pulled from you-know-where), their ideal situation is for all million to be on the same platform (most likely Windows). If the truth ends up being there are 850,000 Windows, 100,000 Mac, and 50,000 Linux, they have to maintain 3 ports, but still get the same number of total users (customers), which is 3 times the work for the same revenue stream.
So they need to decide if the incremental business (50K users) is worth the expense of the port, to them.
Well, but why the heck would you ever use 64 kbps files? Just get a player with a hard drive, and you don't have to worry about 32 kbps files to get more than an hour on them.
Really. Welcome to the 21st century. Technology has improved, maybe you can move along with it!
With a 40 GB iPod, you can encode at 320 kbps MP3 or 256 kbps AAC and have music that your DOG can't distinguish from the original CD content (note double-blind studies show that 256 kbps MP3 is indistinguishable for humans).
Right, no one forced us to support 2.96. But the fact was, 40%-50% of our customers had installed Red Hat 7 and had the 2.96 compiler installed by default. So there you are... 40% of your customers cannot compile apps... so do you tell them all to use the old compiler, or do you now support 2 different Linux distros? Given the fact that each distro really counts as a "supported platform" in terms of work, it's a major PITA.
From a software perspective, the fewer platforms you must support the better. And having Solaris, HPUX, Windows, OS X, and 43 Linux distros really is 47 platforms:-P
News flash... they really don't CARE about the OS. They want to ship product, and if 100% of all sales could be on Windows, they'd probably be ecstatic, because they'd only have to write a product for a single platform.
The fact that there are 3 or 4 platforms they have to support only lets them do a lot MORE work to get the same amount of product sold.
So Linux is of no benefit to them at all -- it's a detraction. But if it's a necessary step to get revenue (say because Renderman runs on Linux and big shops ask for it), then they'll do the work to get the money.
I'd wager the Dell is faster in some tasks, and the Mac is faster in others.
However, often on a laptop, your HD speed makes a WAY bigger difference in how fast the machine "feels."
I'll avoid the standard G4 versus Pentium "clock speed" arguments -- because it's impossible to pin down. The G4's are NOT the fastest chips in the universe (and anyone trying to use "new math" to do so is in Steve's RDF), but a 1.5 GHz G4 laptop is pretty darned responsive. Plus, the chances that you're burying the laptop at 100% all the time are slim to none. I have a 1 GHz TiBook and it's very good for day to day use, but I don't do heavy development work on it. A dual G5 is 3-10 times faster for most tasks, but I don't need that all that often, only when opening up resource-pig stuff like Keynote (no joke:-P)
It hurts it HUGELY for commercial developers who don't ship their product as source code.
If Linux distros are not binary compatible, then you have to write a different binary for EACH Linux distro. When Red Hat was at 2.96, you would be forced to release a product on 2.95.3, and on 2.96 for Red Hat, if you had a product that was a development environment and required people to link.
That's ridiculous, and a reason that Linux adoption for a long time isn't attractive for software developers -- because Linux wasn't a platform, it was 20 platforms. United Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux are big steps in the right direction -- more "stable" targets that vendors can build/test for and not worrying about binary compatibility issues.
At my former company, 2.96 was a HUGE issue because we didn't support it (didn't WANT to have to support it and maintain support when Red Hat went to 3.1 or 3.2), and so we had to make everybody on that platform build/use the 2.95.3 compiler.
Xserve RAID today can have specific portions allocated to specific workstations/servers. In fact, this is the way it MUST work. Because if you allocate the same storage to two different servers, they will crap on each other's storage and corrupt it (there is no cross-host locking).
So xSAN can act as a traffic cop, managing traffic/access to the machines. This way, you can have a big 3 TB storage volume shared by a number of servers, and it looks like a local disk to each of them.
A very common request for digital media workflow... someone does a bunch of editing on a 15 GB file, and the next guy needs to do some color correction. Should he have to ftp/AFP/??? the file to "his" box? Yecch. Have the volume be local to both machines... xSAN allows this.
xSAN will also be very valuable for service failover... say you have an FTP site and you want to cluster the machines. It's WAY easier if they both access the files on the same volume, so if one machine blows up, the second can take over and access the exact same storage volume, without some trickery.
"short attention span"... "listen to the album as the artist intended."
May be all well and good for opera and other types of music, but pop albums have plenty of crap filler tracks, which means you get all sorts of worthless stuff.
I took the time (yes, it was a PITA) to rate EVERY song in iTunes, from 1 to 5 stars. One star songs don't even make it to the iPod -- they're music I REALLY don't like. 2's are fair, but I'd never choose to listen (I may just choose to skip). Then I have playlists of 3+, 4+, and 5+ songs (about 2700, 800, and 80 total), that I usually play on random.
Works great for me, and I don't want to have to scroll/search for albums, I just get to choose a large number of songs to have as background, including many I haven't listened to in a long time.
So who's he to tell me I have a short attention span? I mean... I typed this whole hey look there's a fly over there!
It slows things down a little, yes, but it's not a huge difference. Infiniband can do DMA across machines -- so the memory on machine 2 *can* be directly accessed by the CPU on machine 1 (i.e. the CPU on machine 1 doesn't need to be consulted).
Sure, this reduces peak efficiency. I think on the VT cluster it was in the 50-60% range (I could Google search but I'm lazy... shoot me)... that is, the total performance is about.5 or.6 times (2200 CPUs). This is pretty good, overall, compared to other systems.
But the Cray guy is full of hot air. Of course you're going to sing the praises of massive SMP when that's what you have to sell. The fact is, if 1100 dual CPU machines clustered together can significantly outperfom the Cray, for less money, and they're easy to manage (they are...), then why not go that route?
So Cray sells FUD, because it's their last option.
What's the date on your XP CD? I have an "original" one -- From November/December 2001. Perhaps you have a newer CD?
I'm not gonna fork over extra coin to Microsoft to get an SP1 rev'd CD, so I have to get SATA drivers from the vendor because my CD most certainly doesn't have Seagate SATA drivers on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, I should say, linking to it killed him, DEAD.
Article text?
All my Macs have Gigabit built in. So I can get an 8 port Gigabit switch for like $100 now, and all my NICs are Gigabit, so why would I want a 10/100 piece of crap for a NAS?!
Not enterprise at ALL... for the home market I cannot see ANY reason why some little snap server wouldn't have Gigabit built in. It costs like $2 more for parts... and it can make a 3x or 4x difference in performance... WTF?
Windows uses a "shrink wrap" license, which is pretty standard practice. There's usually a seal on the box which talk about the license, and says that opening the package indicates you accept the license. You can almost always return software products that you haven't opened (broken the seal)... have a read of the box, carefully, next time ;-)
They're not modifying ANYTHING after the fact, I'm quite certain the license was written and included with the product long before you even purchased it. Almost all consumer software includes a variation of the "shrink wrap" license.
You should READ the contract before you make the purchase. Before you sign up for one-click purchase you are given something rather long to read, which says SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. It's quite standard.
It's on the iTunes Music Store songs, and it's on that copy of Windoze you purchased, too. In fact it's on nearly every copy of commercial software in the universe. The license specifically states what you can and can't do with the software/media/etc.
Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean you can do what YOU think is right. It IS a contract, the validity of which can be established in the judicial system.
Saccharine *is* still used in fountain sodas. The stuff you get at 7-11 from the machine, or at the local burrito joint DOES have saccharin in it. Only the bottles and cans use NutraSweet.
This is because NutraSweet has a relatively short shelf life. It's something like 3-6 months (very vague recollection here), and then it loses its sweetness, completely.
The fountain soda is in containers or "bags" and can be in the channel for months or (gasp!) a year or more before it's hooked up and served -- really the distributors have little control over when restaurants or convenience stores hook it up. As such, it's still saccharine based to ensure they don't start serving out big "crap batches."
You can enable 30-second skip on TiVo... 4 to 10 "blips" and you're done.
;-)
Hit select-play-select-3-0-select
Hear 3 dings. Done. Index button is now +30. Oh and the one a couple buttons left of it is like -7 seconds... helps for when the thumb gets overzealous
TiVo, with 30 second skip. No idea why people would not have a PVR of some sort, in this day and age.
On the Mac, I have an app called "PithHelmet" which does ad blocking... I believe it keeps a database and uses a proxy server (though, I haven't really investigated, it works and it's easy ;-) I've used proximitron and other blockers, as well as host files which blocked sites before, but PithHelmet is more integrated and doesn't show broken links like less integrated stuff can.
Also, OmniWeb 5 has ad blocking (including banners) built in.
So the ad monkeys will get blocked before their site is even accessed. You can read an MSN ad on a single page!
I assume similar products are/will be available on Windows soon, too. This one's fairly easily to technically circumvent.
What I'm saying is, that given a fixed number of customers, Nvidia would like to write the least number of ports to get all those customers. So given a million users TOTAL who would buy their products (this number pulled from you-know-where), their ideal situation is for all million to be on the same platform (most likely Windows). If the truth ends up being there are 850,000 Windows, 100,000 Mac, and 50,000 Linux, they have to maintain 3 ports, but still get the same number of total users (customers), which is 3 times the work for the same revenue stream.
So they need to decide if the incremental business (50K users) is worth the expense of the port, to them.
A CF card can handle it. Plus, the drives are spinning like 2% of the time.
Wow. Somebody chowed down on a double helping of troll casserole.
Well, but why the heck would you ever use 64 kbps files? Just get a player with a hard drive, and you don't have to worry about 32 kbps files to get more than an hour on them.
Really. Welcome to the 21st century. Technology has improved, maybe you can move along with it!
With a 40 GB iPod, you can encode at 320 kbps MP3 or 256 kbps AAC and have music that your DOG can't distinguish from the original CD content (note double-blind studies show that 256 kbps MP3 is indistinguishable for humans).
Hmmm.
So they could sell at least ONE player.
Right, no one forced us to support 2.96. But the fact was, 40%-50% of our customers had installed Red Hat 7 and had the 2.96 compiler installed by default. So there you are... 40% of your customers cannot compile apps... so do you tell them all to use the old compiler, or do you now support 2 different Linux distros? Given the fact that each distro really counts as a "supported platform" in terms of work, it's a major PITA.
:-P
From a software perspective, the fewer platforms you must support the better. And having Solaris, HPUX, Windows, OS X, and 43 Linux distros really is 47 platforms
How is Nvidia benefiting from Linux?
News flash... they really don't CARE about the OS. They want to ship product, and if 100% of all sales could be on Windows, they'd probably be ecstatic, because they'd only have to write a product for a single platform.
The fact that there are 3 or 4 platforms they have to support only lets them do a lot MORE work to get the same amount of product sold.
So Linux is of no benefit to them at all -- it's a detraction. But if it's a necessary step to get revenue (say because Renderman runs on Linux and big shops ask for it), then they'll do the work to get the money.
But really, Linux is not everybody's savior.
I'd wager the Dell is faster in some tasks, and the Mac is faster in others.
:-P)
However, often on a laptop, your HD speed makes a WAY bigger difference in how fast the machine "feels."
I'll avoid the standard G4 versus Pentium "clock speed" arguments -- because it's impossible to pin down. The G4's are NOT the fastest chips in the universe (and anyone trying to use "new math" to do so is in Steve's RDF), but a 1.5 GHz G4 laptop is pretty darned responsive. Plus, the chances that you're burying the laptop at 100% all the time are slim to none. I have a 1 GHz TiBook and it's very good for day to day use, but I don't do heavy development work on it. A dual G5 is 3-10 times faster for most tasks, but I don't need that all that often, only when opening up resource-pig stuff like Keynote (no joke
Though, it appears the 6800 is changing that, in a big way :-/
People who have iPods DO need firewire. And these days, judging from the sales, that's JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY. ;-)
It hurts it HUGELY for commercial developers who don't ship their product as source code.
If Linux distros are not binary compatible, then you have to write a different binary for EACH Linux distro. When Red Hat was at 2.96, you would be forced to release a product on 2.95.3, and on 2.96 for Red Hat, if you had a product that was a development environment and required people to link.
That's ridiculous, and a reason that Linux adoption for a long time isn't attractive for software developers -- because Linux wasn't a platform, it was 20 platforms. United Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux are big steps in the right direction -- more "stable" targets that vendors can build/test for and not worrying about binary compatibility issues.
At my former company, 2.96 was a HUGE issue because we didn't support it (didn't WANT to have to support it and maintain support when Red Hat went to 3.1 or 3.2), and so we had to make everybody on that platform build/use the 2.95.3 compiler.
Xserve RAID today can have specific portions allocated to specific workstations/servers. In fact, this is the way it MUST work. Because if you allocate the same storage to two different servers, they will crap on each other's storage and corrupt it (there is no cross-host locking).
So xSAN can act as a traffic cop, managing traffic/access to the machines. This way, you can have a big 3 TB storage volume shared by a number of servers, and it looks like a local disk to each of them.
A very common request for digital media workflow... someone does a bunch of editing on a 15 GB file, and the next guy needs to do some color correction. Should he have to ftp/AFP/??? the file to "his" box? Yecch. Have the volume be local to both machines... xSAN allows this.
xSAN will also be very valuable for service failover... say you have an FTP site and you want to cluster the machines. It's WAY easier if they both access the files on the same volume, so if one machine blows up, the second can take over and access the exact same storage volume, without some trickery.
$150,000 spent on CD's.
Dizzamn. Is he Jack junior?
"short attention span"... "listen to the album as the artist intended."
May be all well and good for opera and other types of music, but pop albums have plenty of crap filler tracks, which means you get all sorts of worthless stuff.
I took the time (yes, it was a PITA) to rate EVERY song in iTunes, from 1 to 5 stars. One star songs don't even make it to the iPod -- they're music I REALLY don't like. 2's are fair, but I'd never choose to listen (I may just choose to skip). Then I have playlists of 3+, 4+, and 5+ songs (about 2700, 800, and 80 total), that I usually play on random.
Works great for me, and I don't want to have to scroll/search for albums, I just get to choose a large number of songs to have as background, including many I haven't listened to in a long time.
So who's he to tell me I have a short attention span? I mean... I typed this whole hey look there's a fly over there!
I'll turn off the TV for a week, it won't bother me at all!
Then, the next week, my TiVo will be loaded to the gills and I'll gorge myself on 3 heaping helpings per day of brain-drain.
Gotta cut this post short. Have to go to 9th tee and buy a 180 GB drive to hold the extra content!
It slows things down a little, yes, but it's not a huge difference. Infiniband can do DMA across machines -- so the memory on machine 2 *can* be directly accessed by the CPU on machine 1 (i.e. the CPU on machine 1 doesn't need to be consulted).
.5 or .6 times (2200 CPUs). This is pretty good, overall, compared to other systems.
Sure, this reduces peak efficiency. I think on the VT cluster it was in the 50-60% range (I could Google search but I'm lazy... shoot me)... that is, the total performance is about
But the Cray guy is full of hot air. Of course you're going to sing the praises of massive SMP when that's what you have to sell. The fact is, if 1100 dual CPU machines clustered together can significantly outperfom the Cray, for less money, and they're easy to manage (they are...), then why not go that route?
So Cray sells FUD, because it's their last option.
What's the date on your XP CD? I have an "original" one -- From November/December 2001. Perhaps you have a newer CD?
I'm not gonna fork over extra coin to Microsoft to get an SP1 rev'd CD, so I have to get SATA drivers from the vendor because my CD most certainly doesn't have Seagate SATA drivers on it.