Here's my finger. Stop lying. Evidently ID and maturity correlate well in your case. When you're done with puberty, maybe you'll be rational. Then again, you could always have a terminal case of assholitis. At least it gives you a place to keep your finger.
I'd say FLAC+WMA would be the premier choice, the one being high-end for audiophiles, the other being playable on dang near any modern (car) stereo. (And yes I could have said MP3 instead of WMA, but Fraunhofer's licensing is even more bonkers than Microsoft's.) I believe that patent is now expired, but MP3 is a horrible codec anyways. AAC is by far better. WMA just sucks in so many ways, not least of which is MS licensing revenue.
I didn't see a 1.8L in there, but the 320 as far as I know is not available in the US. The 335 is a twin turbo model, which in the past would more accurately have been designated as a 330Ti. FYI, the convertible has a 'C' designation, such as 330Ci.
There's one right there. If you'll check your link again, you'll note that it's an informational listing only. There's no item for sale there.
No, what really happens is that you thought TiVo didn't have a free service, and when shown to be wrong, you rushed to find qualifiers to discount what you had overlooked.
You were wrong. Be a fucking man and admit it, instead of making up silly caveats to try and weasel out. I think the real issue is the TCO for 'x' year(s) of service vs MythTV. You can't get a Tivo and service for $100. Per the above math, by the time you factor in everything, you'll have a very nice MythTV box for less than running a Tivo box for 2 years, no matter how you slice and dice it.
I'm confused. You started out agreeing with a poster saying that a laptop was a perfectly good substitute "as a personal workstation" for a desktop. Yet all your counterpoints revolve around essentially turning a laptop into a desktop by plugging in external drives, LCDs, etc - thus pretty much removing all its advantages as a laptop, without bringing even close to the capabilities of a genuine desktop.
Well, I do agree that for most uses, a laptop is perfectly suitable as even a very powerful desktop machine with the addition of a few external components. Ext drives add I/O speed and capacity. LCDs add large screen real estate.
Exactly what are your specs for a genuine desktop? I have to wonder, since the majority come with less than 2GB RAM, a 17" or smaller LCD (although very recently, this may have moved to 19") and a single 7200 rpm drive. Compared to that desktop, almost any laptop will do.
Mac laptops, with the exception of the just-released 17" MBP, have relatively low screen resolutions.
The resolution on Macs are dpi based. Check it out sometime.
Even the ~80M/sec FW800 tops out at isn't *that* fast, compared to what's possible with a relatively modest desktop machine.
That will pretty much kill your battery life. What even semi-mainstream laptop builder offers that configuration in a sub 7# laptop with more than a max 2 hours of battery life?
None. Which is the whole freaking point I'm trying to make.
Most desktops, until you get to server quality machines, which I freely admit can make dandy desktops, have a maximum capacity as shipped of 4 drives. Should you buy a total of 4 drives and RAID0 them, the maximum peak theoretical throughput you'll get with modern HDs is less than 120MB/s and more than likely you'll be running near 80MB/s. Seems like FW800 is just fine in that ball park. Oh, and you still have the internal HD too, where your system is running.
Again, you miss the point. "Price" is standalone argument. If you're buying a bunch of PCs for a room full of office workers, buying them all laptops is just stupid. I.e. this is another situation where a laptop is a poor substitute for a desktop.
These would be hardly the people that would stress a desktop (or a laptop)? But, I agree that if the machine's not being moved, why buy a laptop? Now, if it's a support person that requires a machine when they're on the go.... Or perhaps a developer...
You're wanting performance, that always comes at a premium, esp when you want it in a laptop configuration. Then there's the physical limitations of power requirements vs heat vs battery life.
You seem to be completely missing the point of my argument, which is that laptops *aren't* clear-cut substitutes for desktops because the above reasons. I don't understand why you're trying to argue that the above requirements are a poor fit for a laptop, when the whole reason I posted them was to illustrate exactly that.
Like I said originally. There are a whole bunch of very good reasons why laptops make poor desktop substitutes. This is not to deny there are some people for whom they do, but to agree a sweeping, general statement like "these days there's little reason to invest in a computer that I can't take with me should I need to" when there are so many clear reasons why it is wrong, is just silly.
The question, I believe, was whether a laptop could be a desktop replacement. The answer is yes, in almost all cases. That doesn't mean it should be. That's a different question.
4 calls and 2 techie visits across 1.5 weeks ending in a supposed cross-shipment begs to differ with you on Dell support. Can't comment on Apple support, haven't had to use it.
You have to admit that a Mac Pro @ $2500 for 4 cores, $4K for 8 cores, is a heck of a machine. FB-DIMM is a problem though, but you can blame Intel for that one.
Unfortunately, I needed a dual-core 2GB system with a 160GB HD in it and a 15" wide screen, sub 6# weight, and sturdy frame w/ wireless G, Bluetooth, FW400/800, and USB 2.0 hi-speed support. Dang, Dell comes in at $3K for that, and fails to meet the FW and weight limits, never mind the battery life.
* Multiple displays (I eagerly await the first laptop than can drive 2+ LCDs. I'm actually quite surprised Apple hasn't done it already. No, hacks like that Matrox thing don't count.)
I'm not sure Apple hasn't done it. Since "The 30-inch display takes advantage of the MacBook Pro's support for dual-link DVI" and they're running nVidia's 8600M chipset, I have to wonder whether currently it's merely a driver issue.
* Screen resolution (somewhat of an Apple-specific problem) What's your screen resolution beef? I'm not sure I follow. My MBP drove this Dell LCD to its max 1600X1200 (yes, sigh, not a wide screen) and the home LCD goes to 1920X1050, IIRC. I'll double check that though. Their max resolution is 2560-by-1600.
* Good IO performance Don't follow here either. Drives the FW800 RAID0 and FW400 drives just fine with the expected performance. (You weren't asking for internal RAID, were you? I'd rather live without the weight.)
* 4+ cores and/or >2.4Ghz That will pretty much kill your battery life. What even semi-mainstream laptop builder offers that configuration in a sub 7# laptop with more than a max 2 hours of battery life?
* 4+ GB RAM This was an Intel chipset limitation, addressed by the Santa Rosa chipset. Check out the new MBPs.
* Price
In short, there are numerous quite good reasons why laptops are not the computing nirvana some people seem to think they are.
For your requirements, Price really becomes a secondary factor. You're wanting performance, that always comes at a premium, esp when you want it in a laptop configuration. Then there's the physical limitations of power requirements vs heat vs battery life.
But, wait another couple of months and you may start seeing precisely what you're asking for. After all, 4+ cores just started showing up in personal desktop workstations within the last few months, and are by no means considered normal (unless you're looking at a Mac Pro, in which case you can get 8 cores!). But seriously, laptops can be personal workstation replacements for the majority of people, as they'll handle browsing, email, processing, photo editing, video processing, and even development just fine as long as you have the accessories. No one said it was cheap, and certianly not cheaper than a desktop, but for most it will suffice. If you're doing performance development and testing and the like, then a laptop is insufficient and is the reason I'm getting a couple of server class machines to temporarily sit next to my laptop at work.
There's another whole market that you may be unaware of. Java developers seem to be flocking to Macs. Almost every mid level on up developer I know either already has converted to a Mac, or is in the process of considering it. That's a lot of developers. Many of those that already switched are also not solely Java developers, but are proficient in multiple languages. This can only be good news for Apple.
And there's another market as well: that of the parents/relatives who constantly need hand-holding to correct this and that problem on their windows system. When it comes time to buy a new system, a mac mini is a perfect option for these folks. Much less maintenance and does everything they need.
These days there's little reason to invest in a computer that I can't take with me should I need to. There are plenty of people that would say otherwise. Those "computers you can't take with you" have many advantages. Not as a personal workstation. If you're talking about a game machine then yes, desktops have a significant advantage since you can't get anything approaching an nVidia 8800 xxx for a laptop.
I've successfully done hot swaps without any issues whatsoever, and only minor hit to throughput. Of course, this was between 96 and 2001, running on RAID systems that cost between $4K and $7K per array. I also played with cheap IDE RAID, which is just about worthless. It's much better to go with software RAID vs any cheap hardware solution and put the extra money into a few extra drives. Then implement RAID 10 (a stripe set consisting of mirrored arrays) for the best performance and fault tolerance and fault recovery, for high availability/reliability sites (not what the OP was interested in)
For the OP's solution, it'd be better to just have JBOD and make a backup copy onto an external set of disks that he then removes. Yes, you still have double the diskspace, but you also have an offline backup. For video/audio files, this is the cheap way of doing it. The proper way would be to have two external drives for each system drive, and rotate backups between them, keeping one set off site (ie - at work) in case of catastrophic issues (fire at home). Odds are, once filled, each drive will remain mostly static and never need backing up again. Change out backup disks about every 2-3 years (rotate backup into prime use rotation) and you should remain drive failure free and be able to upgrade to the then current best buy for disk size.
I'm aware the MBPs use the ATI chipset, I probably should have mentioned that. I cannot comment on any Windows ATI driver issues with dual head, because I've never had a windows laptop with an ATI chipset. (I downloaded bootcamp but haven't installed it yet as my need for windows ever shrinks:) I have used a desktop windows system with dual head, and I like their implementation a little better than nVidia's.
As for Linux, all my linux installs except for 1 are headless and that one only has 1 very old CRT attached.
I've used both for some time now, although not the latest incarnations. (ATI 9800 Pro, nVidia 7900 GS latest two) They both work well in single and dual monitor use, although I like the ATI dual monitor setup better. I should also note that my new Dell laptop can't ever seem to get the dual monitor thing right (nVidia) with something that is modified from a standard configuration. This is not a problem on my Macbook Pro, so it must be a Windows nVidia driver issue.
nVidia definitely has the crown in games currently, even though the R600 has specifications that would make any gamer drool. Hopefully AMD/ATI's drivers will get the boost they need to make the hardware work (I can't imagine the hardware sucks as badly as the tests make it out to at the moment)
Either way, as you can tell, I'm no longer on the cutting edge of graphics, so I can afford to wait until the driver issue is resolved and the prices come down to where it's a small purchase.
A lot of applications like Word, Excel, etc don't usually do process-intensive tasks and the act of spreading the work over multiple threads would actually decrease performance (there is overhead for each thread, context switches, etc) You are right, but not quite accurate: multi core systems share the L1/L2 cache between processors, this primarly means that they are not such a big improvement in performance as they are supposed to be (small cache = low computer); the side effect is that multiple threads can pass messages and data to each other much faster than on "classic" multiprocessor systems, where the data had to be moved through a much slower bus. L1 caches are tied to a single core. L2 caches on Core 2 Duo chips are shared between 2 cores. The current Intel quad core CPUs have 2 L2 caches. On AMD Opteron dual core chips, L2 caches are single core. On AMD's Barcelona quad core CPUs, L2 caches are still 1:1, but the L3 cache is shared among all 4 CPUs.
There is still context switching overhead between threads on different cores accessing the same data, but the latency involved drops if L2 or L3 caches are shared and the data resides in one of those. This still doesn't address multiple CPU systems though which do not benefit from shared caches.
Back to the topic of Excel/Word. Both of these most certainly would benefit from multi-threaded design. Imagine being able to continue working on a spreadsheet while another spreadsheet renders/saves/recalcs/draws/loads/prints/is emailed. Is there any reason I can't work on a word document while images are loaded asynchronously in the background? Just a couple of the single-threaded bottlenecks I personally experience with Word/Excel.
I'd be interested in what you use to process your music prior to encoding.
I'm currently using EAC which does a great job of ripping WAVs, and will automatically encode in FLAC and MP3 or other formats if you want (and multi-threaded too!). But what else are you using? I'd like to do some analysis and possibly equalization compensation for some badly recorded (early) CDs.
If you'll check the latest stories about NASA and bodies like Mars, Europa, Titan etc, you'll note that they're very concerned about potential contamination with Earth biology.
A literary work first must have intrinsic artistic value. Then, it must have intellectual value. Then, it must be creative.
intrinsic artistic value: this is extremely subjective
intellectual value: also subjective, but less so than #1
be creative: and again subjective, but perhaps less than #2
It's been a while since I dealt literature at this level, but let's take a quick look: Some good books with poor literary value: - Any good technical book (agreed: fails on #1 and #3) - Harry Potter and all fiction/fantasy books (It could possibly fail #2 IMHO, but that's it - this doesn't mean it's great art or not) - 1984 (possibly fails #1 - it's been years since I last read it so my memory's a little fuzzy on it)
Some good literary works, but poor books: - The Lusiads (who? looked it up and it sounds like it'd be as much fun as reading the Cantebury Tales in original format) - Most of Shakespeare work (I'd say most of Shakespeare fails on #2) - Anything by Dostoevsky (some of the most painful reading in the classics I ever did, other than Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, which I'd argue is the most worthless drivel to waste ink and paper I've seen - as far as classics go)
Some good literary works that are also good books: - Brave New World (this is better than 1984 how?) - Dracula (didn't read it, made multiple bad movies although an enjoyable character) - Frankenstein (slow reading, movies were so-so) - The Three Musketeers (Horribly slow reading, long-winded passages, easy to put down) - Mobydick (didn't read Moby Dick, but Billy Budd, a slightly lesser known work, was pretty interesting)
For good books I'd have added Animal Farm from Orwell, The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer, and possibly something newer like Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet (while a fictional story, draws a vivid picture of life in the middle ages via the lives of those constructing a cathedral - something that probably will invalidate it as being "great literature";).
Personally I'd say that what critics have regarded as "great literature" is usually something worth reading despite the incredible drudgery required to get through it (Walden Pond), much like learning higher mathematics. Others just because they show the evolution of literature over the ages (Homer, Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare). When is the last time that "great literature" was also an enjoyable page turner? (Pride and Prejudice? Jane Eyre? Dostoevsky? Camus?)
It's much easier to say what is not great literature, the horrible forced 3rd grade babble of Patricia Cornwell's characters made getting to and past page 50 a Herculean task. She's certainly not alone in the successful but terrible category. (Actually, thinking about this made me just realize that being a successful writer, financially and/or being on the best-seller list, in no way corresponds to being a good writer, much like being a successful musician at the top of the charts has little relation to the ability to sing or play an instrument)
Time is only a factor if you consider "surviving the test of time", which is usually the case. Since I don't think it is always the case (many good books and authors end up forgotten, for whatever reasons), I didn't list it before. But it is a valid clue.
I hope this helps to clarify my point of view, even if you don't agree with me (not my intention to convince anyone).
I'd agree that to be great literature a work would need to be able to stand the test of time. The biggest problem with that is that our environmental and cultural references are changing so quickly at the present, that very few works will be able to stand the test of time, as the references will fade or disappear entirely. Even now, many of the nuances of a Shakespearean work are lost because we lack the cultural references that would allow us to see the depth of an insult, or the wittiness of a retort. Throw in the archaic language and
I'd agree. Playing Ogg or Flac isn't really high on the list, there's always Apple's lossless codec for that which is just fine. If you want direct access to your iPod, you always have something like ephpod. (Wait, you don't have to use iTunes? OMG!!!)
Other than those potential issues, the interface is well-thought out, easy to use on the go, small, light, and reliable. (Yes, I own 3, one of them for 2 years already)
Kentucky Fried Chicken is the McDonalds of chicken. Popeye's is much more juicy and flavorful with less flour and salt and has a nice spicy flavor available. Ron's Crispy Fried Chicken (Finger Lickin Good - they around anymore?) was even better.
Windows XP was the point when the two product lines merged their underlying technology.
Not quite. Windows 2000 was the point where they finally managed to give Windows NT basically full support for all 95/98(and ME) software. Windows XP, the sequel to 2000, was the operating system that officially replaced the 95/98/ME line. And still wrong. Win2K was where they stabilized the NT kernel and were able to start DirectX development in earnest, which allowed them to roll out Win XP for both home and business. The major problem with converting home users from the Win9x line was games and the way they were written. They didn't create an NT kernel able to run all Win9x code, they converted new Win9x code to an API shared across both platforms, so that about 7 years later they were able to convert everyone to a single code branch.
This is actually one area where MS succeeded. If you think this isn't true, try getting games circa 1994-98 written for Win9x to run on an XP system. You can also try various software, including some MS non-game software which unfortunately I don't recall off-hand that didn't work on the NT kernels. Check DejaNews for incompatibilities, if you're really interested. There were tons of things that didn't run on Win2K or WinXP when they came out, and never will.
I don't know if it was eloquent, but thanks for thinking so!
As for Intel, I'm aware they do more than just CPUs. I'm just targeting their CPU side of the business, because that's the one that's causing the grief, as I see it.
Their steadfast devotion to x86 has nothing to do with their "vision", unless that includes IBM's insistence on the cross-license that was required to get the x86 chip into the IBM PC in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess IBM doesn't sell Power chips anymore, nor Sun UltraSparc? (If you're talking in that price range, then those become contenders.)
You're an imbecile.
Here's my finger. Stop lying. Evidently ID and maturity correlate well in your case. When you're done with puberty, maybe you'll be rational. Then again, you could always have a terminal case of assholitis. At least it gives you a place to keep your finger.
I didn't see a 1.8L in there, but the 320 as far as I know is not available in the US. The 335 is a twin turbo model, which in the past would more accurately have been designated as a 330Ti. FYI, the convertible has a 'C' designation, such as 330Ci.
Uh, WHAT?
http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-SD-H400-Combination
There's one right there. If you'll check your link again, you'll note that it's an informational listing only. There's no item for sale there. No, what really happens is that you thought TiVo didn't have a free service, and when shown to be wrong, you rushed to find qualifiers to discount what you had overlooked.
You were wrong. Be a fucking man and admit it, instead of making up silly caveats to try and weasel out. I think the real issue is the TCO for 'x' year(s) of service vs MythTV. You can't get a Tivo and service for $100. Per the above math, by the time you factor in everything, you'll have a very nice MythTV box for less than running a Tivo box for 2 years, no matter how you slice and dice it.
Here's your pie.
I'm confused. You started out agreeing with a poster saying that a laptop was a perfectly good substitute "as a personal workstation" for a desktop. Yet all your counterpoints revolve around essentially turning a laptop into a desktop by plugging in external drives, LCDs, etc - thus pretty much removing all its advantages as a laptop, without bringing even close to the capabilities of a genuine desktop.
Well, I do agree that for most uses, a laptop is perfectly suitable as even a very powerful desktop machine with the addition of a few external components. Ext drives add I/O speed and capacity. LCDs add large screen real estate.Exactly what are your specs for a genuine desktop? I have to wonder, since the majority come with less than 2GB RAM, a 17" or smaller LCD (although very recently, this may have moved to 19") and a single 7200 rpm drive. Compared to that desktop, almost any laptop will do.
Mac laptops, with the exception of the just-released 17" MBP, have relatively low screen resolutions.
The resolution on Macs are dpi based. Check it out sometime.Even the ~80M/sec FW800 tops out at isn't *that* fast, compared to what's possible with a relatively modest desktop machine.
That will pretty much kill your battery life. What even semi-mainstream laptop builder offers that configuration in a sub 7# laptop with more than a max 2 hours of battery life?
None. Which is the whole freaking point I'm trying to make.
Most desktops, until you get to server quality machines, which I freely admit can make dandy desktops, have a maximum capacity as shipped of 4 drives. Should you buy a total of 4 drives and RAID0 them, the maximum peak theoretical throughput you'll get with modern HDs is less than 120MB/s and more than likely you'll be running near 80MB/s. Seems like FW800 is just fine in that ball park. Oh, and you still have the internal HD too, where your system is running.Again, you miss the point. "Price" is standalone argument. If you're buying a bunch of PCs for a room full of office workers, buying them all laptops is just stupid. I.e. this is another situation where a laptop is a poor substitute for a desktop.
These would be hardly the people that would stress a desktop (or a laptop)? But, I agree that if the machine's not being moved, why buy a laptop? Now, if it's a support person that requires a machine when they're on the go.... Or perhaps a developer...You're wanting performance, that always comes at a premium, esp when you want it in a laptop configuration. Then there's the physical limitations of power requirements vs heat vs battery life.
You seem to be completely missing the point of my argument, which is that laptops *aren't* clear-cut substitutes for desktops because the above reasons. I don't understand why you're trying to argue that the above requirements are a poor fit for a laptop, when the whole reason I posted them was to illustrate exactly that.
Like I said originally. There are a whole bunch of very good reasons why laptops make poor desktop substitutes. This is not to deny there are some people for whom they do, but to agree a sweeping, general statement like "these days there's little reason to invest in a computer that I can't take with me should I need to" when there are so many clear reasons why it is wrong, is just silly.
The question, I believe, was whether a laptop could be a desktop replacement. The answer is yes, in almost all cases. That doesn't mean it should be. That's a different question.4 calls and 2 techie visits across 1.5 weeks ending in a supposed cross-shipment begs to differ with you on Dell support. Can't comment on Apple support, haven't had to use it.
You have to admit that a Mac Pro @ $2500 for 4 cores, $4K for 8 cores, is a heck of a machine. FB-DIMM is a problem though, but you can blame Intel for that one.
Unfortunately, I needed a dual-core 2GB system with a 160GB HD in it and a 15" wide screen, sub 6# weight, and sturdy frame w/ wireless G, Bluetooth, FW400/800, and USB 2.0 hi-speed support. Dang, Dell comes in at $3K for that, and fails to meet the FW and weight limits, never mind the battery life.
Not as a personal workstation.
Yes, as a "personal workstation":
* Multiple displays (I eagerly await the first laptop than can drive 2+ LCDs. I'm actually quite surprised Apple hasn't done it already. No, hacks like that Matrox thing don't count.)
I'm not sure Apple hasn't done it. Since "The 30-inch display takes advantage of the MacBook Pro's support for dual-link DVI" and they're running nVidia's 8600M chipset, I have to wonder whether currently it's merely a driver issue. * Screen resolution (somewhat of an Apple-specific problem) What's your screen resolution beef? I'm not sure I follow. My MBP drove this Dell LCD to its max 1600X1200 (yes, sigh, not a wide screen) and the home LCD goes to 1920X1050, IIRC. I'll double check that though. Their max resolution is 2560-by-1600. * Good IO performance Don't follow here either. Drives the FW800 RAID0 and FW400 drives just fine with the expected performance. (You weren't asking for internal RAID, were you? I'd rather live without the weight.) * 4+ cores and/or >2.4Ghz That will pretty much kill your battery life. What even semi-mainstream laptop builder offers that configuration in a sub 7# laptop with more than a max 2 hours of battery life? * 4+ GB RAM This was an Intel chipset limitation, addressed by the Santa Rosa chipset. Check out the new MBPs. * PriceIn short, there are numerous quite good reasons why laptops are not the computing nirvana some people seem to think they are.
For your requirements, Price really becomes a secondary factor. You're wanting performance, that always comes at a premium, esp when you want it in a laptop configuration. Then there's the physical limitations of power requirements vs heat vs battery life.But, wait another couple of months and you may start seeing precisely what you're asking for. After all, 4+ cores just started showing up in personal desktop workstations within the last few months, and are by no means considered normal (unless you're looking at a Mac Pro, in which case you can get 8 cores!). But seriously, laptops can be personal workstation replacements for the majority of people, as they'll handle browsing, email, processing, photo editing, video processing, and even development just fine as long as you have the accessories. No one said it was cheap, and certianly not cheaper than a desktop, but for most it will suffice. If you're doing performance development and testing and the like, then a laptop is insufficient and is the reason I'm getting a couple of server class machines to temporarily sit next to my laptop at work.
There's another whole market that you may be unaware of. Java developers seem to be flocking to Macs. Almost every mid level on up developer I know either already has converted to a Mac, or is in the process of considering it. That's a lot of developers. Many of those that already switched are also not solely Java developers, but are proficient in multiple languages. This can only be good news for Apple.
And there's another market as well: that of the parents/relatives who constantly need hand-holding to correct this and that problem on their windows system. When it comes time to buy a new system, a mac mini is a perfect option for these folks. Much less maintenance and does everything they need.
I've successfully done hot swaps without any issues whatsoever, and only minor hit to throughput. Of course, this was between 96 and 2001, running on RAID systems that cost between $4K and $7K per array. I also played with cheap IDE RAID, which is just about worthless. It's much better to go with software RAID vs any cheap hardware solution and put the extra money into a few extra drives. Then implement RAID 10 (a stripe set consisting of mirrored arrays) for the best performance and fault tolerance and fault recovery, for high availability/reliability sites (not what the OP was interested in)
For the OP's solution, it'd be better to just have JBOD and make a backup copy onto an external set of disks that he then removes. Yes, you still have double the diskspace, but you also have an offline backup. For video/audio files, this is the cheap way of doing it. The proper way would be to have two external drives for each system drive, and rotate backups between them, keeping one set off site (ie - at work) in case of catastrophic issues (fire at home). Odds are, once filled, each drive will remain mostly static and never need backing up again. Change out backup disks about every 2-3 years (rotate backup into prime use rotation) and you should remain drive failure free and be able to upgrade to the then current best buy for disk size.
I'm aware the MBPs use the ATI chipset, I probably should have mentioned that. I cannot comment on any Windows ATI driver issues with dual head, because I've never had a windows laptop with an ATI chipset. (I downloaded bootcamp but haven't installed it yet as my need for windows ever shrinks:) I have used a desktop windows system with dual head, and I like their implementation a little better than nVidia's.
As for Linux, all my linux installs except for 1 are headless and that one only has 1 very old CRT attached.
It's only been in the past 6 months or so that DDR2 prices fell below DDR prices.
I've used both for some time now, although not the latest incarnations. (ATI 9800 Pro, nVidia 7900 GS latest two) They both work well in single and dual monitor use, although I like the ATI dual monitor setup better. I should also note that my new Dell laptop can't ever seem to get the dual monitor thing right (nVidia) with something that is modified from a standard configuration. This is not a problem on my Macbook Pro, so it must be a Windows nVidia driver issue.
nVidia definitely has the crown in games currently, even though the R600 has specifications that would make any gamer drool. Hopefully AMD/ATI's drivers will get the boost they need to make the hardware work (I can't imagine the hardware sucks as badly as the tests make it out to at the moment)
Either way, as you can tell, I'm no longer on the cutting edge of graphics, so I can afford to wait until the driver issue is resolved and the prices come down to where it's a small purchase.
You are right, but not quite accurate: multi core systems share the L1/L2 cache between processors, this primarly means that they are not such a big improvement in performance as they are supposed to be (small cache = low computer); the side effect is that multiple threads can pass messages and data to each other much faster than on "classic" multiprocessor systems, where the data had to be moved through a much slower bus. L1 caches are tied to a single core. L2 caches on Core 2 Duo chips are shared between 2 cores. The current Intel quad core CPUs have 2 L2 caches. On AMD Opteron dual core chips, L2 caches are single core. On AMD's Barcelona quad core CPUs, L2 caches are still 1:1, but the L3 cache is shared among all 4 CPUs.
There is still context switching overhead between threads on different cores accessing the same data, but the latency involved drops if L2 or L3 caches are shared and the data resides in one of those. This still doesn't address multiple CPU systems though which do not benefit from shared caches.
Back to the topic of Excel/Word. Both of these most certainly would benefit from multi-threaded design. Imagine being able to continue working on a spreadsheet while another spreadsheet renders/saves/recalcs/draws/loads/prints/is emailed. Is there any reason I can't work on a word document while images are loaded asynchronously in the background? Just a couple of the single-threaded bottlenecks I personally experience with Word/Excel.
I'd be interested in what you use to process your music prior to encoding.
I'm currently using EAC which does a great job of ripping WAVs, and will automatically encode in FLAC and MP3 or other formats if you want (and multi-threaded too!). But what else are you using? I'd like to do some analysis and possibly equalization compensation for some badly recorded (early) CDs.
If you'll check the latest stories about NASA and bodies like Mars, Europa, Titan etc, you'll note that they're very concerned about potential contamination with Earth biology.
A literary work first must have intrinsic artistic value. Then, it must have intellectual value. Then, it must be creative.
It's been a while since I dealt literature at this level, but let's take a quick look: Some good books with poor literary value:
- Any good technical book (agreed: fails on #1 and #3)
- Harry Potter and all fiction/fantasy books (It could possibly fail #2 IMHO, but that's it - this doesn't mean it's great art or not)
- 1984 (possibly fails #1 - it's been years since I last read it so my memory's a little fuzzy on it)
Some good literary works, but poor books:
- The Lusiads (who? looked it up and it sounds like it'd be as much fun as reading the Cantebury Tales in original format)
- Most of Shakespeare work (I'd say most of Shakespeare fails on #2)
- Anything by Dostoevsky (some of the most painful reading in the classics I ever did, other than Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, which I'd argue is the most worthless drivel to waste ink and paper I've seen - as far as classics go)
Some good literary works that are also good books:
- Brave New World (this is better than 1984 how?)
- Dracula (didn't read it, made multiple bad movies although an enjoyable character)
- Frankenstein (slow reading, movies were so-so)
- The Three Musketeers (Horribly slow reading, long-winded passages, easy to put down)
- Mobydick (didn't read Moby Dick, but Billy Budd, a slightly lesser known work, was pretty interesting)
For good books I'd have added Animal Farm from Orwell, The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer, and possibly something newer like Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet (while a fictional story, draws a vivid picture of life in the middle ages via the lives of those constructing a cathedral - something that probably will invalidate it as being "great literature";).
Personally I'd say that what critics have regarded as "great literature" is usually something worth reading despite the incredible drudgery required to get through it (Walden Pond), much like learning higher mathematics. Others just because they show the evolution of literature over the ages (Homer, Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare). When is the last time that "great literature" was also an enjoyable page turner? (Pride and Prejudice? Jane Eyre? Dostoevsky? Camus?)
It's much easier to say what is not great literature, the horrible forced 3rd grade babble of Patricia Cornwell's characters made getting to and past page 50 a Herculean task. She's certainly not alone in the successful but terrible category. (Actually, thinking about this made me just realize that being a successful writer, financially and/or being on the best-seller list, in no way corresponds to being a good writer, much like being a successful musician at the top of the charts has little relation to the ability to sing or play an instrument)
Time is only a factor if you consider "surviving the test of time", which is usually the case. Since I don't think it is always the case (many good books and authors end up forgotten, for whatever reasons), I didn't list it before. But it is a valid clue.
I hope this helps to clarify my point of view, even if you don't agree with me (not my intention to convince anyone).
I'd agree that to be great literature a work would need to be able to stand the test of time. The biggest problem with that is that our environmental and cultural references are changing so quickly at the present, that very few works will be able to stand the test of time, as the references will fade or disappear entirely. Even now, many of the nuances of a Shakespearean work are lost because we lack the cultural references that would allow us to see the depth of an insult, or the wittiness of a retort. Throw in the archaic language and
I'd agree. Playing Ogg or Flac isn't really high on the list, there's always Apple's lossless codec for that which is just fine. If you want direct access to your iPod, you always have something like ephpod. (Wait, you don't have to use iTunes? OMG!!!)
Other than those potential issues, the interface is well-thought out, easy to use on the go, small, light, and reliable. (Yes, I own 3, one of them for 2 years already)
Kentucky Fried Chicken is the McDonalds of chicken. Popeye's is much more juicy and flavorful with less flour and salt and has a nice spicy flavor available. Ron's Crispy Fried Chicken (Finger Lickin Good - they around anymore?) was even better.
Not quite. Windows 2000 was the point where they finally managed to give Windows NT basically full support for all 95/98(and ME) software. Windows XP, the sequel to 2000, was the operating system that officially replaced the 95/98/ME line. And still wrong. Win2K was where they stabilized the NT kernel and were able to start DirectX development in earnest, which allowed them to roll out Win XP for both home and business. The major problem with converting home users from the Win9x line was games and the way they were written. They didn't create an NT kernel able to run all Win9x code, they converted new Win9x code to an API shared across both platforms, so that about 7 years later they were able to convert everyone to a single code branch.
This is actually one area where MS succeeded. If you think this isn't true, try getting games circa 1994-98 written for Win9x to run on an XP system. You can also try various software, including some MS non-game software which unfortunately I don't recall off-hand that didn't work on the NT kernels. Check DejaNews for incompatibilities, if you're really interested. There were tons of things that didn't run on Win2K or WinXP when they came out, and never will.
Go with "Grammer Nazi's affect a female repelling effect"
I don't know if it was eloquent, but thanks for thinking so!
As for Intel, I'm aware they do more than just CPUs. I'm just targeting their CPU side of the business, because that's the one that's causing the grief, as I see it.
Their steadfast devotion to x86 has nothing to do with their "vision", unless that includes IBM's insistence on the cross-license that was required to get the x86 chip into the IBM PC in the first place.