I wasn't trying to troll with the grandparent comment, but if you look at the CPUs being developed specifically for handhelds by Texas Instruments or hell even intel with their multimedia extensions. These chips open up a new world of apps for PDA/Handheld products with DSP tech built in to them.
This is just another "been there done that" core from motorola.
I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember in the WWDC keynote Jobs saying it was built with gcc3.3 the version that ships with Xcode.
If so, the new IBM compiler would presumably speed up the entire OS somewhat if it were recompiled via IBM's compiler?
Ya probably. I was surprised that they implemented Vector support so quickly. XLC really shines on Floating Point code, but I'm really curious to see how well it handles Vector. Even if the whole operating system isn't compiled with xlc as long as the core libs and things like codecs for QT and other multimedia apps the speed up would be impressive.
If these do well I see no reason for Wolfram to ignore it or treat it like a second class system. The fact that it exists shows there was enough demand already for it. Plus IBM will undoubtedly port a good chunk of their software titles to it.
Not a bad update but 128MB of RAM on the lowest and middle configuration? C'Mon Apple! OS X needs at LEAST 256 MB to be useful and more is even better. The video card is also at the bare minimum for OS X with the ATI 7500, but thats understandable in a.edu machine. The Speed bump and the rest is a nice update and for the price its a pretty good deal.
On another note Thinksecret nailed this one a month ago. They also get the iBook update on the nose too. Seems to be the only rumor site with a shit anymore...
When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard-on that won't quit.
Sixty years ago, I worked in what was once my Grandfather's Greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.
Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white, shaded by the brim of his battered felt fedora.
He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.
The old-timer extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old fellow then winked at me, "Ike Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game."
I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."
"Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men . .."
"I'll bet you do."
". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.
"I though we were talking about . .."
"You like jumping old men's peckers?"
I shook my head.
"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."
That summer of 1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.
Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his high-top work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.
"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then sticking his tongue out far enough that the tip could touch the end of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."
"People do that?"
He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"
"I never . .."
"Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."
"No way."
"Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. "Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."
"Why would I do that?"
"Curiosity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."
"I'm no queer."
"Now don't be getting judgmental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a hand into the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. "Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."
I swallowed, hard.
Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"
***
We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and
1) first determine if the wobble is major or minor
a) is the wobble really bad? meaning more than 1/4 inch
if so, do try to do anything
b) If it is minor. then try this first before calling apple support.
2) determine where the wobble is
Such as if it diagonal or left to right
If it is diagonal from left to right. or vice versa. then you can try the following...
3) Turn everying off...
4) Open up the screen..
5) Lift up the entire powerbook. ( do not try to push it against the suface of anything )
6) use both your hands on each side where the wobble is occuring.
For instance. If it is on top left and bottom right. then have both your palm or fingers on both corners.
7) use your fingers to flex as if it is a piece of cardboard or wood you are bending. ( remember to use you fingers and do not use any tools )
8) do this several times even though you do not feel anything.
9) After doing so. put the powerbook level on a flat surfact where it was wobbling such as table or floor and test it out on different surface.
10) If it is level, please put a post here so others can try it.
If not. try again or call Apple to complain.
11) Don't be afraid to apple pressure. Remember, it is aluminum and aluminum can only bend. just test it our after doing this and see if you see any difference.
Anyways. good luck.
I think Apple have a serious Quality control issue they need to address
They piced Aluminum as a shell but Aluminum is prone to this type of warping and flex due to heat, and usage.
Ok, I hope this info is in more detail.
Well to keep it short the reader basically explain how to BEND THE CASE so it no longer wobbles. Also see this thread on Ars Technica that is about the 12" and its wobble issue.
It has come to my attention that DARPA has cancelled the POSSE program
with UPENN, (sub OpenBSD & a bit for OpenSSL) for undisclosed reasons,
effective today, without any warning.
My suspicion is this happened because I made anti-war statements in a
Canadian newspaper article in the Globe & Mail, but I am not an
American citizen so I cannot claim to have free speech there (even
made "quote of the day")."
You might be king shit amongst a group of nerds
but the idea that your opinion matters to the US Government is laughable. If it was anyone
It could have been MS whispering in ears just like they did for SE Linux. Not because of some lame anti war comment you made in a Canadian newspaper.
Having solved the first part of the clock-limiting issue, the Intel patent further describes ways to act upon the fact that the processor is overclocked. There are two methods that are described to thwart overclocking once it is detected. The first method simply shuts off power to the processor when an illegal clock speed is detected. This is the equivalent of being thrown in jail: "Do not pass go, do not collect $200". When the power is removed from the processor, the only computing you're likely do get done is on your desk calculator.
The second method proposed utilizes a clock-limiting device already included in Intel's CPU designs. Most modern CPUs include a "thermal control logic device", which is essentially like the thermostat in your house. When the device detects temperatures that are significantly higher than normal, it tells the CPU to slow way down so that it will not generate as much heat. Normally, it takes a significant amount of heat to trigger this response; usually only a fan failure or a missing heatsink can cause temperatures to soar so high. Intel's patent describes a small addition to this device that allows the overclock detection circuit to initiate the same sort of clock-limiting behavior. In such a situation, overclocking turns out to be a losing proposition, because if the processor is overclocked the detection and thwarting system will actually make it run more slowly than if it were running at the normal specified clock speed. If you still don't quite understand how this works, imagine that you get pulled over for speeding. After writing you a ticket, the police officer deflates all 4 of your tires. In such a situation, you might get somewhere, but you're not going to get there very fast until you reinflate your tires. This is what the thermal control logic does; by "deflating the tires" of the CPU, it forces it to slow down until the improper clock speed is corrected.
Summary:
Depending on the specific implementation, Intel's patent is likely to be fairly successful in limiting clock speeds to those specified. Because it does not rely on any external devices, it will be more difficult for users to tamper with. This is not to say that it will be impossible to circumvent, but it is likely that if implemented, the device would be much more resistant to such efforts than any clock-locking method to date. Despite the doom and gloom cries from hobbyist overclockers, clock-locking is not necessarily all bad news. The issue of CPU remarking by systems integrators is a real problem, and is not likely to go away as long as processors can be overclocked. Additionally, addressing this issue is a good thing for the industry because there would be a reduction in returns of "defective" processors that failed due to overclocking. This would reduce costs, and in turn prices. There is also the added benefit that inadvertent mis-clocking due to motherboard failure can be detected and remedied by the user. Undoubtedly the inability to overclock would be a disappointment to many, but in the long run it could be a benefit for all concerned. It is also important to remember that, "in the war between weapons and armor, weapons eventually win", meaning that it is only a matter of time until even the unbreakable is broken. After all, it wouldn't be overclocking without a challenge.
The abstract of the Intel patent reads as follows:
An over-clock deterrent mechanism of a chipset which comprises an over-clock detection circuit for detecting over-clocking of a system (processor) clock signal based on comparison of ratio of the system (processor) clock signal which is likely to be over-clocked and a fixed, stable reference clock signal which is highly unlikely to be over-clocked, and an over-clock prevention (thwarting) circuit for deterring such an over-clocking by either disabling operations of a computer system or significantly undermining key operations of a computer system.
Unlike the rest of the patent description, this is comparitively easy to understand. An Intel scientist invented a way to keep a microprocessor running at a specified clock speed by comparing it to a reference clock. Further, the patent details ways of acting upon an out-of-spec clock speed, all of which involve slowing the processor down in one way or another.
To explain the base technology that enables this CPU speed trap, we need to look no further than our television sets. Specifically, a television set tuned to TNN on Sunday afternoon. For those that haven't a clue what I'm talking about, check out TNN on Sunday sometime. For those that do know what I'm talking about, you probably still don't get what microprocessors have to do with NASCAR racing. Lucky for you, this curious metaphor is easily explained.
Imagine a racecar doing laps around a superspeedway of known length - say 1 mile. Then, imagine that I ask you to figure out how fast the racecar is going, but there are no radar guns around. How would you do it? The easiest way to determine the racecar's speed would be to count the number of times it goes around the track in one hour and since each lap is 1 mile, this would give us the answer in miles per hour. Pretty simple, isn't it?
Now imagine that we are on another track, of an unknown length. I again ask you to determine the racecar's speed. In this case, the best you could come up with would be a wild guess, because we no longer know the length of one lap. So, we decide that we'll settle for knowing if the racecar is going fast enough to beat an (until now unmentioned) opponent.
We have two cars, both running around the track. We're not running an actual race, so we're not looking for the first to cross the finish line. Rather, we're interested in one thing: whether or not our racecar is going fast enough to beat the other one. To figure this out, we go back to our solution to the first problem. By counting now many times each racecar goes around the track in a specified time period, we know if our racecar is going fast enough to beat the other one. If our racecar goes around the track more times during a fixed time period it's going faster than the opponent's; if it goes around the track fewer times it's going slower. If they go around the track EXACTLY the same number of times, then they're going the same speed and there will be a tie.
If you've followed along to this point, then you understand the technique that Intel is using to determine whether or not a processor is running at a clock speed other than that specified. In our racing metaphor, one lap is equivalent to a clock pulse. We can determine whether the device that generates the clock pulses (our racecar) is going faster than a known reference that is set at the processor's specified clock speed (the opponent's racecar) by counting the number of pulses from each over a fixed time period and comparing them. If we count more pulses for the system clock than the reference (in terms of our metaphor, our racecar is winning), then the system is overclocked. If we count fewer pulses (our racecar is losing), then we are "underclocked". If we count exactly the same number of pulses, there will be a "tie" and we know that both clocks are running at the same rate. Because the reference is actually a part of the processor, it theoretically cannot be tampered with and therefore the processor is running at its specified speed.
Many of you may have read the recent article in the inquirer that reports on a patent that was granted to Intel for an overclocking detection and prevention device. With all due respect to our fellow journalists (they did post the story first), this article was a little lacking on the clear technical interpretation that we know our readers crave. As an alternative, you could fight your way through "United States Patent 6,535,988 - March 18, 2003", but to save you the trouble we here at Fastsilicon.com have done it for you. Herein we present a layman's guide to the patent that has got some of the overclocking community up in arms, and tell you why it's all bad. To begin our explanation, it is appropriate to explain how the system clock relates to the processor, and what "overclocking" is all about.
Clocking, Over- and Otherwise:
The way processors work in conjunction with their clock is fairly simple. Connected to the microprocessor's core is a device that produces an electrical pulse a certain number of times per second. This pulse is a sort-of "heartbeat", and with each pulse the processor does some work. The faster the pulses come, the more work the processor does. The rate at which the pulses come is expressed in units of Hertz (abbreviated as "Hz"), which stands for "times per second". If our pulse is coming 1 time per second, then we say that it has a frequency of "1 Hz", and hence the processor speed is 1 Hz. Obviously nobody runs processors at this speed; we are more accustomed to processor speeds that are measured in Megahertz (MHz) or Gigahertz (GHz), where 1 MHz is 1 million times per second and 1 GHz is 1 billion times per second. Additionally, some processors internally multiply this pulse, so in effect the processor sees (for example) 10 pulses for every external clock pulse. For the sake of simplifying things though, we'll ignore this multiplyer and proceed with the assumption that things are happening at a 1:1 ratio.
Many may ask at this point, "If the processor does more work with higher clock speeds, why are there limitations on the clock speed - why can't one run a processor as fast as they want?". Although there are many factors that contribute to the answer to this question, the basic answer to this is heat. With every clock pulse, electricity flows through the processor. Because of resistance in the processor's pathways (think of it as a sort of electrical friction), some of this energy is converted to heat, similar to what happens when you rub your hands together very quickly. The higher the clock speed, the more often the clock pulses come, which means that more heat is generated at higher clock speeds. Because processors don't react well to the effects of this heat, testing is done to determine the maximum clock speed that they can run at safely. The processors are then labeled with this clock speed, and they go out the door with a designation such as, "Pentium 4 - 2.4GHz". In this particular case, Intel has tested the processor and has determined that to run properly, it needs a clock that runs no faster than 2.4 billion times per second.
Running a processor at a higher clock speed than labeled by increasing the rate at which clock pulses happen is known as "overclocking". Because there is some "statistical leeway" in the tests that are done to determine the maximum clock speed, many times one can overclock a processor and achieve more performance without a perceived negative effect. As most hobbyists know, these negative effects come somewhat gradually as you slide up the clock speed curve. At one clock speed things may be good, but as one increases it they see more system glitches until the computer simply will no longer boot. This is where the "perceived" part of the negative effect comes in. One may not outwardly notice errors as they use a moderately overclocked system, but they still may be occuring, and the life of the processor may be degraded. In particular, processor subsystems such as the random number generator can lose some of thei
Instead of trying to create software that piggybacks on GNU/OS X why aren't they working on GNU/Darwin? It seems to me that they don't like apple very much for some reason. Political reasons maybe? Maybe they should have bought PCs instead of a MAC and run linux.
We were franchise as well. And if the owner noticed a game had exploded in popularity unexpectedly like PSX "Driver" he would go pick up four or five copies for the weekend rush.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM Also announced a ton of new PPC information and tech today at an event in new york. Opening up the ISA to third parties including Sony.
Looks like its time to bust out mozilla to play...
The editor and owner of our local paper donated a total of 1750 over 3 donations.
This answers a lot of questions that were raised by commentary in her smart ass op/ed pieces.
Cunt
And that should impress me how?
Its a pretty vanilla ARM core with a few tweeks
I wasn't trying to troll with the grandparent comment, but if you look at the CPUs being developed specifically for handhelds by Texas Instruments or hell even intel with their multimedia extensions. These chips open up a new world of apps for PDA/Handheld products with DSP tech built in to them.
This is just another "been there done that" core from motorola.
A dragonball processor for a handheld?
What is this 1996?
AMD sponsored an entry.
So did Intel
No this is wrong. The G3 was based on the 603 where the G4 was based on the 604 with the addition of Altivec
I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember in the WWDC keynote Jobs saying it was built with gcc3.3 the version that ships with Xcode.
Ya probably. I was surprised that they implemented Vector support so quickly. XLC really shines on Floating Point code, but I'm really curious to see how well it handles Vector. Even if the whole operating system isn't compiled with xlc as long as the core libs and things like codecs for QT and other multimedia apps the speed up would be impressive.
According to an Ars thread the XLC compiler will be $499 for a single seat license. WAY below the cost for the AIX versions.
Linkage
Granted its version 4.2 but it can be done.
Link to the list of available platforms.
If these do well I see no reason for Wolfram to ignore it or treat it like a second class system. The fact that it exists shows there was enough demand already for it. Plus IBM will undoubtedly port a good chunk of their software titles to it.
This guy got RH9 on it but it wasn't perfect or painless. Linkage
see here
Not a bad update but 128MB of RAM on the lowest and middle configuration? C'Mon Apple! OS X needs at LEAST 256 MB to be useful and more is even better. The video card is also at the bare minimum for OS X with the ATI 7500, but thats understandable in a .edu machine. The Speed bump and the rest is a nice update and for the price its a pretty good deal.
On another note Thinksecret nailed this one a month ago. They also get the iBook update on the nose too. Seems to be the only rumor site with a shit anymore...
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT! I lost another loan to Ditech :
."
."
."
PS. Please Check out Jesus Geeks for alternative commentary
When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard-on that won't quit.
Sixty years ago, I worked in what was once my Grandfather's Greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.
Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white, shaded by the brim of his battered felt fedora.
He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.
The old-timer extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old fellow then winked at me, "Ike Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game."
I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."
"Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men . .
"I'll bet you do."
". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.
"I though we were talking about . .
"You like jumping old men's peckers?"
I shook my head.
"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."
That summer of 1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.
Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his high-top work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.
"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then sticking his tongue out far enough that the tip could touch the end of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."
"People do that?"
He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"
"I never . .
"Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."
"No way."
"Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. "Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."
"Why would I do that?"
"Curiosity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."
"I'm no queer."
"Now don't be getting judgmental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a hand into the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. "Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."
I swallowed, hard.
Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"
***
We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and
About 2/3rds of the way down the page
They already now about this
Well to keep it short the reader basically explain how to BEND THE CASE so it no longer wobbles.
Also see this thread on Ars Technica that is about the 12" and its wobble issue.
Most (if not all of them currently available) PocketPC PDAs use the Intel XScale processor in them though
I know I know, IHBT yadda yadda
The Huge Future Apple CPU Thread. A very informative read focusing on the PPC 970, 980, and Moto 7457.
You might be king shit amongst a group of nerds but the idea that your opinion matters to the US Government is laughable.
If it was anyone It could have been MS whispering in ears just like they did for SE Linux. Not because of some lame anti war comment you made in a Canadian newspaper.
Grow\Shut the fuck up Theo.
Penalties for Speeding:
Having solved the first part of the clock-limiting issue, the Intel patent further describes ways to act upon the fact that the processor is overclocked. There are two methods that are described to thwart overclocking once it is detected. The first method simply shuts off power to the processor when an illegal clock speed is detected. This is the equivalent of being thrown in jail: "Do not pass go, do not collect $200". When the power is removed from the processor, the only computing you're likely do get done is on your desk calculator.
The second method proposed utilizes a clock-limiting device already included in Intel's CPU designs. Most modern CPUs include a "thermal control logic device", which is essentially like the thermostat in your house. When the device detects temperatures that are significantly higher than normal, it tells the CPU to slow way down so that it will not generate as much heat. Normally, it takes a significant amount of heat to trigger this response; usually only a fan failure or a missing heatsink can cause temperatures to soar so high. Intel's patent describes a small addition to this device that allows the overclock detection circuit to initiate the same sort of clock-limiting behavior. In such a situation, overclocking turns out to be a losing proposition, because if the processor is overclocked the detection and thwarting system will actually make it run more slowly than if it were running at the normal specified clock speed. If you still don't quite understand how this works, imagine that you get pulled over for speeding. After writing you a ticket, the police officer deflates all 4 of your tires. In such a situation, you might get somewhere, but you're not going to get there very fast until you reinflate your tires. This is what the thermal control logic does; by "deflating the tires" of the CPU, it forces it to slow down until the improper clock speed is corrected.
Summary:
Depending on the specific implementation, Intel's patent is likely to be fairly successful in limiting clock speeds to those specified. Because it does not rely on any external devices, it will be more difficult for users to tamper with. This is not to say that it will be impossible to circumvent, but it is likely that if implemented, the device would be much more resistant to such efforts than any clock-locking method to date. Despite the doom and gloom cries from hobbyist overclockers, clock-locking is not necessarily all bad news. The issue of CPU remarking by systems integrators is a real problem, and is not likely to go away as long as processors can be overclocked. Additionally, addressing this issue is a good thing for the industry because there would be a reduction in returns of "defective" processors that failed due to overclocking. This would reduce costs, and in turn prices. There is also the added benefit that inadvertent mis-clocking due to motherboard failure can be detected and remedied by the user. Undoubtedly the inability to overclock would be a disappointment to many, but in the long run it could be a benefit for all concerned. It is also important to remember that, "in the war between weapons and armor, weapons eventually win", meaning that it is only a matter of time until even the unbreakable is broken. After all, it wouldn't be overclocking without a challenge.
CPU Speed Trap:
The abstract of the Intel patent reads as follows:
An over-clock deterrent mechanism of a chipset which comprises an over-clock detection circuit for detecting over-clocking of a system (processor) clock signal based on comparison of ratio of the system (processor) clock signal which is likely to be over-clocked and a fixed, stable reference clock signal which is highly unlikely to be over-clocked, and an over-clock prevention (thwarting) circuit for deterring such an over-clocking by either disabling operations of a computer system or significantly undermining key operations of a computer system.
Unlike the rest of the patent description, this is comparitively easy to understand. An Intel scientist invented a way to keep a microprocessor running at a specified clock speed by comparing it to a reference clock. Further, the patent details ways of acting upon an out-of-spec clock speed, all of which involve slowing the processor down in one way or another.
To explain the base technology that enables this CPU speed trap, we need to look no further than our television sets. Specifically, a television set tuned to TNN on Sunday afternoon. For those that haven't a clue what I'm talking about, check out TNN on Sunday sometime. For those that do know what I'm talking about, you probably still don't get what microprocessors have to do with NASCAR racing. Lucky for you, this curious metaphor is easily explained.
Imagine a racecar doing laps around a superspeedway of known length - say 1 mile. Then, imagine that I ask you to figure out how fast the racecar is going, but there are no radar guns around. How would you do it? The easiest way to determine the racecar's speed would be to count the number of times it goes around the track in one hour and since each lap is 1 mile, this would give us the answer in miles per hour. Pretty simple, isn't it?
Now imagine that we are on another track, of an unknown length. I again ask you to determine the racecar's speed. In this case, the best you could come up with would be a wild guess, because we no longer know the length of one lap. So, we decide that we'll settle for knowing if the racecar is going fast enough to beat an (until now unmentioned) opponent.
We have two cars, both running around the track. We're not running an actual race, so we're not looking for the first to cross the finish line. Rather, we're interested in one thing: whether or not our racecar is going fast enough to beat the other one. To figure this out, we go back to our solution to the first problem. By counting now many times each racecar goes around the track in a specified time period, we know if our racecar is going fast enough to beat the other one. If our racecar goes around the track more times during a fixed time period it's going faster than the opponent's; if it goes around the track fewer times it's going slower. If they go around the track EXACTLY the same number of times, then they're going the same speed and there will be a tie.
If you've followed along to this point, then you understand the technique that Intel is using to determine whether or not a processor is running at a clock speed other than that specified. In our racing metaphor, one lap is equivalent to a clock pulse. We can determine whether the device that generates the clock pulses (our racecar) is going faster than a known reference that is set at the processor's specified clock speed (the opponent's racecar) by counting the number of pulses from each over a fixed time period and comparing them. If we count more pulses for the system clock than the reference (in terms of our metaphor, our racecar is winning), then the system is overclocked. If we count fewer pulses (our racecar is losing), then we are "underclocked". If we count exactly the same number of pulses, there will be a "tie" and we know that both clocks are running at the same rate. Because the reference is actually a part of the processor, it theoretically cannot be tampered with and therefore the processor is running at its specified speed.
Introduction
Many of you may have read the recent article in the inquirer that reports on a patent that was granted to Intel for an overclocking detection and prevention device. With all due respect to our fellow journalists (they did post the story first), this article was a little lacking on the clear technical interpretation that we know our readers crave. As an alternative, you could fight your way through "United States Patent 6,535,988 - March 18, 2003", but to save you the trouble we here at Fastsilicon.com have done it for you. Herein we present a layman's guide to the patent that has got some of the overclocking community up in arms, and tell you why it's all bad. To begin our explanation, it is appropriate to explain how the system clock relates to the processor, and what "overclocking" is all about.
Clocking, Over- and Otherwise:
The way processors work in conjunction with their clock is fairly simple. Connected to the microprocessor's core is a device that produces an electrical pulse a certain number of times per second. This pulse is a sort-of "heartbeat", and with each pulse the processor does some work. The faster the pulses come, the more work the processor does. The rate at which the pulses come is expressed in units of Hertz (abbreviated as "Hz"), which stands for "times per second". If our pulse is coming 1 time per second, then we say that it has a frequency of "1 Hz", and hence the processor speed is 1 Hz. Obviously nobody runs processors at this speed; we are more accustomed to processor speeds that are measured in Megahertz (MHz) or Gigahertz (GHz), where 1 MHz is 1 million times per second and 1 GHz is 1 billion times per second. Additionally, some processors internally multiply this pulse, so in effect the processor sees (for example) 10 pulses for every external clock pulse. For the sake of simplifying things though, we'll ignore this multiplyer and proceed with the assumption that things are happening at a 1:1 ratio.
Many may ask at this point, "If the processor does more work with higher clock speeds, why are there limitations on the clock speed - why can't one run a processor as fast as they want?". Although there are many factors that contribute to the answer to this question, the basic answer to this is heat. With every clock pulse, electricity flows through the processor. Because of resistance in the processor's pathways (think of it as a sort of electrical friction), some of this energy is converted to heat, similar to what happens when you rub your hands together very quickly. The higher the clock speed, the more often the clock pulses come, which means that more heat is generated at higher clock speeds. Because processors don't react well to the effects of this heat, testing is done to determine the maximum clock speed that they can run at safely. The processors are then labeled with this clock speed, and they go out the door with a designation such as, "Pentium 4 - 2.4GHz". In this particular case, Intel has tested the processor and has determined that to run properly, it needs a clock that runs no faster than 2.4 billion times per second.
Running a processor at a higher clock speed than labeled by increasing the rate at which clock pulses happen is known as "overclocking". Because there is some "statistical leeway" in the tests that are done to determine the maximum clock speed, many times one can overclock a processor and achieve more performance without a perceived negative effect. As most hobbyists know, these negative effects come somewhat gradually as you slide up the clock speed curve. At one clock speed things may be good, but as one increases it they see more system glitches until the computer simply will no longer boot. This is where the "perceived" part of the negative effect comes in. One may not outwardly notice errors as they use a moderately overclocked system, but they still may be occuring, and the life of the processor may be degraded. In particular, processor subsystems such as the random number generator can lose some of thei
Instead of trying to create software that piggybacks on GNU/OS X why aren't they working on GNU/Darwin? It seems to me that they don't like apple very much for some reason. Political reasons maybe? Maybe they should have bought PCs instead of a MAC and run linux.
But is there a distro like knoppix for PPC?
We were franchise as well. And if the owner noticed a game had exploded in popularity unexpectedly like PSX "Driver" he would go pick up four or five copies for the weekend rush.