I think the "silver bullet" comment made me read it that way.
Java's not a silver bullet. It's damn good at what it does, but even then I've seen it often misused, pretty much like any tech. I've also seen a dumbing down of "coders", as Java can let almost anyone write "functioning" code after a short time, provided they're somewhat adept. Then again, I know that this is true of many languages, and that in general there are many poor coders out there for every "good" coder. A lot like musicians or artists.
Actually I think most datacenters are caring about pure power consumption. In that the useful life of gear is fairly low, and must be replaced often.
That's funny. I'm intimately familiar with datacenters in 5 different companies, and all have equipment that is as much as 6 years old. Granted, the older the equipment, usually, the less important the applications it supports. Basically trickle-down economics that works - new eq goes to the "important money making applications" whose now useless eq gets handed down to less noteworthy applications, like logging, monitoring, internal administrative etc applications, whose boxes are usually junked. Frequently, consolidation happens at the scavenging end of this process at the same time. Admins seem to hate managing excess boxes.
But, that aside, if your biz app still runs fine on the 1.2 box, the only reason I'd replace the box is if I was short on space, and needed to cram 3 more like apps onto said box. Or, say, that I'm running on Sun hardware, was running on 18 V880s, and am now upgrading to a full blown pair of E10Ks to support what was originally 18 V880s. My points of failure have decreased, as has the amount of items I have to manage, at a cost of slightly increased complexity in the two remaining servers.
There's all sorts of reasons to upgrade. Upgrading a box purely because it's "obsolete" is rarely one of them, as consolidation and increased load will usually upgrade or out a box long before it's that obsolete.
First off - it's a shared L3 cache, which may wind up having some of the same benefits as the Core 2 (speculation!) although I don't recall any sort of prefetch capabilities being mentioned. I will agree that L3 or even L2 cache's benefit to performance depends upon the application.
The shared L2 cache in Conroe is of significant benefit when both cores are utilized by the same application. If each core has it's own application, the only benefit of the shared cache is that the cache could be dynamically utilized as necessary by each core.
I will refrain from making direct statements on degree of improvement, although a 70% improvement over today's chips could be feasible with 4 cores and a smaller die, plus more close cache, given AMD's design and scaling history. That would depend upon the application being able to utilize all 4 cores, of course.
If Woodcrest does not utilize a shared FSB, that would solve potential bandwidth problems in 2P configurations. It's not what I've read though, which is that Woodcrest is only designed for 2P systems because of the shared FSB. If you have a link, I'd be happy to read it. I believe Anandtech mentioned that the FSB bandwidth issue could become problematic for 4 cores (2P or quad). He was a bit vague and I was reading a bit fast, so maybe I misinterpreted it.
Well, despite the obviously large helping of crow such a move would entail on Intel's part, what would the market reaction be at this point if Intel did make such a move? I can imagine the headlines now already.
Troll or not - JDK 1.5 onward - check the java.util.concurrency package for starters.
Then realize that if you're using these, you better have an understanding of parallelism, or you'll be wondering why your system does everything but what you want it to.
Most people don't care if it's four cores on the die, or two dies inside the package. They both have four cores and plug into a single socket.
They won't care until one performes significantly better than the other.
o far Intel's Core 2 Duo dual cores are beating AMD64-X2 at the top of the market. It's rash of you, to say the least, that when two Intel cores are beating two AMD cores, that somehow four AMD cores will beat four Intel cores.
Conversely, it's rash of you to make TBBA's. (That's Truth by Blatant Assertion). Let me show you how that works, prior to Core 2 - It's rash of you to say the new CPU with 2 Intel cores will beat 2 AMD cores, since even a single AMD core already trounces the Pentium Dual Core CPU.
It completely ignores all relevant facts. The new AMD cores will most likely be 65nm, putting them on the same footing as Intel's new chips. The AMD quad to Intel quad can be closely compared to the previous Intel Pentium "Dual Core" - 2 slapped together cores - vs AMD's dual core on a single die. Many of the same dynamics exist, with one major difference - AMD is doing with the quad what Intel did with the Core 2 - the AMD quad is sharing 4MB of L3 cache. That's one more level than Intel's offering, btw. Intel's quad will be 2 Core 2's slapped together, sharing a single FSB. AMD doesn't have a FSB bottleneck. Anandtech's review of the Core 2 comes up just short of stating that the FSB is going to bottleneck Intel's 2P system (Woodcrest) probably, and wisely, waiting until 2P benchmarks come in. We're all waiting on those, as they will reveal much.
In any case, I am speculating and stated as much as I backed my speculation with what information has been released to date. You are free to draw your conclusions however you'd like, but do so with some basis on known facts.
There is no major architecture change in the AMD 4 cores, so it won't blow the intel solution away.
I guess you missed a few stories. The new cores will most likely be on a 65nm process and will also have 4MB of L3 cache.
That's more than a slight variation from today's CPU.
I agree though, I'm looking forward to more affordable near super-computing power on my desktop. If you compare today's PCs with the super computer I used to run on years ago, it's almost frightening what that little desktop box is capable of. The direct effect of these new CPU releases is to benefit those of us who desire more power in our PCs.
No, AMD's response was several years. Do you think they taped about their two core processors and then sat around on their butts for a year? They started right into their next design, just like every other processor comany does when they finish a project.
Of course they did. The point is, they're coming out with their "response" in less than 12 months. Intel's not going to have a new architectural response for at least 3 years after that, based on their recent history. I admit to somewhat misleading statements by somehow implying AMD is responding within a single year. Both companies' roadmaps are laid out well in advance, and while Intel hid the P-M redesign for a while, everyone pretty much knew they had to do something like it. It wasn't really a secret.
Core 2 has been designed from the begining to be a duel core product and so they don't suffer from many of the old bottlenecks.
It has been designed to work as a dual core product with a FSB limitation. It does this extremely well, as today's benchmarks show on 1P machines. I'm still waiting on 2P benchmarks (Woodcrest).
Intel's Core 2 has more advantages than just raw performance (which it has in spades!). If you read the latest MaximumPC magazine, the one with their dream machine, you will find that they love Core 2. They said the processor doesn't even need active cooling! When they unplugged the fan on the heatsink the processor's temp only went up a few degrees. Can AMD's duel core processors say that? Will their four core processors?
I've read the reviews. I agree Core 2 is at the top of the heap at the moment. Do realize that the new AMD architecture, K8L, is more than a minor variation, and will most likely be on a 65nm process. So the CPU wars will continue into 2007. May we consumers reap the benefits.
The implication is that these will be 65nm. In a separate article a couple of weeks ago, AMD also stated the K8L chips would have 4MB of shared high speed L3 cache.
The thing there is though that it will take Intel an estimated 3-5 years to get to where AMD is today without infringing on any of AMD's IP with the assumption that hell would disappear before AMD would agree to cross-license their hypertransport IP. That estimate was from an article on CPU design about a year ago, so the time factor may or may not have diminished - the main point is that AMD enjoys a huge first to market advantage that won't go away before main adoption is underway.
Intel's basically screwed itself into a very small nasty tight corner. The P4 was a miserable failure. Core 2 still suffers the same main shortcomings of P-M and P4 designs wrt to multiple cores/CPUs- it depends upon FSB. Evidently this is coming to haunt them in a big way, as IBM, HP, Sun, and Dell (yes, that Dell) have all signed on for AMD to power their server lines.
This is the same argument proferred in the first round a couple of years ago when AMD went 2 cores on a single die vs Intel's 2 separate cores slapped together. Did we forget the outcome of that battle so quickly? (Refresher: Intel got their ass handed to them)
While I don't disagree with your point about the potential for increased failure rates of 4 cores on a die vs 2 cores, also note that we're at least one more generation advanced in fab facilities, which one hopes will help ameliorate the failure rates.
Also, think about this - there's more to the new AMD chips than merely 4 cores on a single die. So I don't doubt they'll be slightly more expensive than Intel's offering while trouncing them in every way. Sort of like the Core 2 today. The difference between them? Core 2 took 3 years after AMD's first Opteron release, AMD's response to Core 2 will be less than 12 months.
PCIe should be it for a while. The bus is no longer a bottleneck, at least for the foreseeable future. SATA II is brand-new, and there's not a drive made that will saturate a SATA connection. Unless you're going to hang some sort of drive array off of a single SATA port, I think that's going to be it for drive connections for the home market for a few years.
DDR2 provides miniscule improvements over DDR, but it is less expensive. FB-DIMM for the next few years will be much like RAMBUS, too expensive for a negligible performance gain.
Gb LAN is pretty much the standard for home networks (ok, maybe the aspired to home network).
Everything else is a card that I plug into my system (primarily audio and video related items).
So, it's quite possible that today's MB will be good for at least a few years. (I don't see applications or OSes for the desktop exceeding the current 8GB max supported RAM for a little while, you can even fit most DVDs into RAM with 8GB.)
Heck, to be honest, I can't wait for the benchmarks between a 2P woodcrest machine and a 2P dual -core opteron box. The quads are drool worthy, but I probably won't get one of those for a couple of years yet. I'll wait for the initial premium prices to drop.
Unfortunately, the AM2 chips appear to be for single CPU boards only, Socket F is the new Opteron socket. But, the way I'm going, just to be able to drop in a new quad CPU will meet my needs in a year or two for the next couple of years, at least. (I don't intend on running Vista....;)
Inside the linked stories, they mention how Deerfield (the 65nm process chips) have dropped from the roadmap. They extrapolate that to mean that these will be the only 65nm chips.
Another decrease in power consumption can be obtained by lowering voltages, which I understood from another article to be handled on K8L by introduction of another new tech - but I don't have that link at the moment.
And lastly, it's not just pure power consumption you're worried about these days, but power consumption per computational unit. What do I care if a 4 way processor consumes twice as much power as a 2 way processor, if it can do 8 times the work? That's still a halving of power consumption in my book.
In brief, AMD is putting together 4 cores on a single die, like their current dual core design. Intel just got to the 2 cores per die stage. Their 4 core design is 2 dual cores slapped together.
This story is about the fact that the next gen of AMD's chips are design complete. More importantly, AMD claims it is going to have a working prototype this year. The importance of this is that if AMD succeeds, they will be able to display a working copy of their next generation CPU when Intel intends to ship their first quads. It could do untold damage to Intel's ability to sell those quads if AMD's quad solution blows it away, as I strongly suspect it will. So does IBM, HP, Sun, and Dell, as all have signed on for AMD to power their servers.
This puts the shoe firmly back on Intel's foot. I'm sure Intel was hoping to not wear it for at least a little while.;)
To be honest, I don't see the point. I have a Canon Rebel XT. I shoot in RAW mode (8.9MB/pic). I have a 4GB card, which results in 420 or so pics. I have yet to take 420 pictures in a single shooting before accessing my PC to offload pictures, but, just in case I do - I have a 1GB backup card (at a whole $29 these days, who can't afford one if they can afford the camera in the first place?)
Using the LCD for any purpose other than a quick look-see to show someone else is pointless IMHO. The Canon doesn't even allow you to frame with the LCD, you have to look through the finder just like with the old film cameras. Battery life would go to hell if the LCD were used for this. Without the LCD turned on at all, you get about 1100 pictures out of a single charge. With each shot (or series of shots in rapid fire mode) showing for a mere 2s, you get about 550 pictures. That's a serious drain.
As I also have a point and shoot that does have the LCD shooting paradigm, I have to say that when it comes to the types of pictures I take with the Canon, the LCD is virtually useless. With the point and shoot, it's handy. However, I don't think I'd trade battery life for higher resolution on the screen, since the previous argument applies about memory cards being plenty big - just buy an extra one and do your processing on a computer (much much faster and easier).
So what's that leave for the LCD point and shoot paradigm? Framing, really. You have very little real control with those cameras for any other purpose that higher resolution would be handy for. I personally haven't found the LCD resolution to be limiting my framing abilities.
Actually, I believe every EULA I've ever bothered to read states something along the lines that the software maker does not represent this software as fit for any particular purpose, or phrasing similar to that effect.
So, since I'm using it for something they don't certify it for, I promptly disregard the EULA.:)
Studies can prove anything if you screen out the data that doesn't support what you want to find.
Whether reputable or not, your statement brings into question your own referenced study. Sort of like the studies that found no links to cancer from smoking, or that smoking is not addictive, or that black lung disease was not caused by coal dust - the list of bad studies goes on and on.
On this topic - cigarette smoke contains carcinogens and irritants. This is indisputable. Whether the levels in the smoke bother you is irrelevant. They exist.
That is about as much scientific proof as some of the studies you cite have... I hang around smokers all the time and the worst thing that happens is my clothes smell like an ashtray... Maybe you have a helath problem that is amplified by smoke, but I doubt that smoke is the cause of your problem.
Actually - it's quite scientific - expose me to smoke, the sinus issues commence. Remove smoke, they abate. It's repeatable. Matter of fact, using the repeatable nature, I know what my tolerance limit is, and that it can be altered by continuous exposure or in closely spaced windows of exposure. I also know that being removed totally from it for 3 weeks or more reduces my tolerance back to its original level. (I used to have a smoking roommate that traveled, plus the singles scene at bars way back when, as well as residing in areas where smoking was allowed in the work-place.)
My health problem? I believe it's not a "health problem", but just the natural tolerance level. You'll get the same reaction in any non-smoker, it's merely a question of what level of smoke is required to trigger it. Much like the sun and sunburn/skin cancer. Just because 20 minutes of being outside in the sun doesn't bother someone, doesn't mean it won't bother someone else. And, if you take that same person and expose them to little bits of sun and acclimate them to it, anyone that can create melannin will become much more tolerant, and can spend hours in the sun. Take them out of the sun for a couple of months, and they're back to square one.
So - do people who sunburn in 20m or less have a "health problem"? No, they don't. (I'm excluding a small class of people who cannot tan and therefore don't increase their tolerance to sun exposure over time)
Anyway, to respond to your last ponderance - I don't have a health problem - smoke is the health problem, and hence reports are growing that state this fact. Matter of fact, this is the basis for the "blowing lead" statement several posts back. The potential effect is different only in degree.
Yes, I'd rather keep my laptop and camera gear within arm's reach. Luckily I don't have to carry any liquid, since the flight attendants are always willing to serve up water for free.
My camera/laptop won't leave my sight. I'm willing to check batteries, but I'm betting that the "new improved regs" will make that impossible as well.
So I won't fly if I have any choice in the matter until these regs are gone. FYI: I've already experienced the joy of mistakenly checking valuables once. Let's just say that my baggage arrived, sans valuables. And this was before they checked everything.
As for the water, you should check the stories about water. I'll only accept bottled water, and that's usually $3. (unless you're flying in enhanced classes) If they included free bottled water, or at least just @ cost water and drinks, that would make at least the no drinks part more acceptable.
The smoking ban laws were never for health reasons, they were because A) people want to tell other people what to do B)people don't like the smell, think it is disgusting etc. Don't blow smoke up my ass (pun intended) about wanting to protect my or other's health - the truth is no reputable study that indepenedent researchers can verify that proves any link between cancer and second hand smoke.
Not for health reasons? Really? I don't know about you, but whenever I'm around smokers, I wind up with a headache for a day or more, due to serious sinus congestion. I'm not even asthmatic. I can't imagine what it'll do to someone with a real sensitivity.
But, I'll grant you that A) and B) had something to do with it (and you forgot the ever all-important "Think of the Children!!!"). For me, A) doesn't matter, but my personal issues go far beyond B) - the smell does remind me of ass, but even that's not enough to bother me to the extreme - so do many perfumes. It's the rather quick closing off of nasal passages that gets me, along with excessive mucus build-up, when exposed to "excessive" smoke. Prolonged exposure results in extended symptoms.
Now, I don't know about you, but that's definitely not a good thing. It even sounds like the symptons experienced by many who try a cigarette for the first time. Nausea is another factor, although that only hit me once during a prolonged stay in a very smoky bar during a snow storm.
But this is all anecdotal. If I had more time, I'd reference some of those studies you claim don't exist. I saw one just a week or three ago on CNN.
Funny then that even Paul himself stated last week that "Hell No" Vista is not ready. Not ready in the way that features are not complete. Things are missing, or way bad.
So, to follow your reasoning, they may remove the rest of the broken things to ship a workable OS, maybe, then Vista may have many fewer features than Leopard.
Really? Check Google for an interesting eye-opener. But, for the record, I never claimed to be shooting people. I just want to randomly pull the trigger. This is much closer to the second-hand smoke analogy.
why not ban fat people from eating McDonalds?
Because, perhaps, McDonalds isn't hurting anyone other than the person eating there? If you notice, I stated I'm perfectly fine with you figuratively shooting yourself in the foot, or elsewhere, in the GP. That goes for smoking too, I personally don't care if you smoke, just don't subject me to it. I don't support laws that attempt to control people for their own best interest.
Hell, cars kill more people more year than "second hand smoke", why not ban cars also?
That's the closest thing to an argument you presented, as at least it matches conditions. The same type of laws apply to driving that apply to smoking: you may only do so in designated areas. There are legal deterrents for attempting to do either outside of those areas (ie, inflicting your deed upon others).
There's one corollary to this: if you wish to engage in risky behavior, don't expect others to pick up the tab if it hurts you. Drivers pay insurance (supposed to anyways). Standard Life insurance usually has clauses excluding activities like sky-diving, you get to pay an extra premium if you wish your heirs to collect and you engage in those activities. And so forth.
In a nutshell, because we don't live in Communist China. The government can regulate business, but short of passing laws and enforcing them, they can't force a business to do something that is within their legal rights.(With the exception of the anti-smoking in private business laws, which are completely unAmerican)
I'm perfectly fine with the anti-smoking laws. They're just as american as the ones that prevent me from "blowing" lead your way when you blow smoke mine. If you wish to remove the former, also remove the latter.
"Wait, it's not the same thing" you say? I'd beg to differ. The only difference is in speed of effect. (Hint, the lead's just "blowing" in your general direction - it might hit, it might not. Do you feel lucky?)
And we need less "hand-holding" "protect us from ourselves" laws. If a business, or you at home wants to block those ports, feel free - but the government shouldn't be involved. I think that decision should be left to the individuals, and not mandated.
The proper thing would be for Microsoft (yes, good ole MS) to stop shipping machines that default to "please pwn me". Second would be to encourage ISPs ship those little DLS/Cable routers with the FW enabled with ports below 1024 blocked.
It's not about protecting people from themselves, but more about protecting me from you in my view. I'm perfectly fine with you shooting yourself in the foot, or elsewhere, and firmly believe you should have the right to do so.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the "silver bullet" comment made me read it that way.
Java's not a silver bullet. It's damn good at what it does, but even then I've seen it often misused, pretty much like any tech. I've also seen a dumbing down of "coders", as Java can let almost anyone write "functioning" code after a short time, provided they're somewhat adept. Then again, I know that this is true of many languages, and that in general there are many poor coders out there for every "good" coder. A lot like musicians or artists.
That's funny. I'm intimately familiar with datacenters in 5 different companies, and all have equipment that is as much as 6 years old. Granted, the older the equipment, usually, the less important the applications it supports. Basically trickle-down economics that works - new eq goes to the "important money making applications" whose now useless eq gets handed down to less noteworthy applications, like logging, monitoring, internal administrative etc applications, whose boxes are usually junked. Frequently, consolidation happens at the scavenging end of this process at the same time. Admins seem to hate managing excess boxes.
But, that aside, if your biz app still runs fine on the 1.2 box, the only reason I'd replace the box is if I was short on space, and needed to cram 3 more like apps onto said box. Or, say, that I'm running on Sun hardware, was running on 18 V880s, and am now upgrading to a full blown pair of E10Ks to support what was originally 18 V880s. My points of failure have decreased, as has the amount of items I have to manage, at a cost of slightly increased complexity in the two remaining servers.
There's all sorts of reasons to upgrade. Upgrading a box purely because it's "obsolete" is rarely one of them, as consolidation and increased load will usually upgrade or out a box long before it's that obsolete.
First off - it's a shared L3 cache, which may wind up having some of the same benefits as the Core 2 (speculation!) although I don't recall any sort of prefetch capabilities being mentioned. I will agree that L3 or even L2 cache's benefit to performance depends upon the application.
The shared L2 cache in Conroe is of significant benefit when both cores are utilized by the same application. If each core has it's own application, the only benefit of the shared cache is that the cache could be dynamically utilized as necessary by each core.
I will refrain from making direct statements on degree of improvement, although a 70% improvement over today's chips could be feasible with 4 cores and a smaller die, plus more close cache, given AMD's design and scaling history. That would depend upon the application being able to utilize all 4 cores, of course.
Single user apps that would benefit:
That's enough
Well, despite the obviously large helping of crow such a move would entail on Intel's part, what would the market reaction be at this point if Intel did make such a move? I can imagine the headlines now already.
Troll or not - JDK 1.5 onward - check the java.util.concurrency package for starters.
Then realize that if you're using these, you better have an understanding of parallelism, or you'll be wondering why your system does everything but what you want it to.
They won't care until one performes significantly better than the other.
Conversely, it's rash of you to make TBBA's. (That's Truth by Blatant Assertion). Let me show you how that works, prior to Core 2 - It's rash of you to say the new CPU with 2 Intel cores will beat 2 AMD cores, since even a single AMD core already trounces the Pentium Dual Core CPU.
It completely ignores all relevant facts. The new AMD cores will most likely be 65nm, putting them on the same footing as Intel's new chips. The AMD quad to Intel quad can be closely compared to the previous Intel Pentium "Dual Core" - 2 slapped together cores - vs AMD's dual core on a single die. Many of the same dynamics exist, with one major difference - AMD is doing with the quad what Intel did with the Core 2 - the AMD quad is sharing 4MB of L3 cache. That's one more level than Intel's offering, btw. Intel's quad will be 2 Core 2's slapped together, sharing a single FSB. AMD doesn't have a FSB bottleneck. Anandtech's review of the Core 2 comes up just short of stating that the FSB is going to bottleneck Intel's 2P system (Woodcrest) probably, and wisely, waiting until 2P benchmarks come in. We're all waiting on those, as they will reveal much.
In any case, I am speculating and stated as much as I backed my speculation with what information has been released to date. You are free to draw your conclusions however you'd like, but do so with some basis on known facts.
I guess you missed a few stories. The new cores will most likely be on a 65nm process and will also have 4MB of L3 cache.
That's more than a slight variation from today's CPU.
I agree though, I'm looking forward to more affordable near super-computing power on my desktop. If you compare today's PCs with the super computer I used to run on years ago, it's almost frightening what that little desktop box is capable of. The direct effect of these new CPU releases is to benefit those of us who desire more power in our PCs.
Of course they did. The point is, they're coming out with their "response" in less than 12 months. Intel's not going to have a new architectural response for at least 3 years after that, based on their recent history. I admit to somewhat misleading statements by somehow implying AMD is responding within a single year. Both companies' roadmaps are laid out well in advance, and while Intel hid the P-M redesign for a while, everyone pretty much knew they had to do something like it. It wasn't really a secret.
It has been designed to work as a dual core product with a FSB limitation. It does this extremely well, as today's benchmarks show on 1P machines. I'm still waiting on 2P benchmarks (Woodcrest).
I've read the reviews. I agree Core 2 is at the top of the heap at the moment. Do realize that the new AMD architecture, K8L, is more than a minor variation, and will most likely be on a 65nm process. So the CPU wars will continue into 2007. May we consumers reap the benefits.
The implication is that these will be 65nm. In a separate article a couple of weeks ago, AMD also stated the K8L chips would have 4MB of shared high speed L3 cache.
Would those 2 items be worth waking up for?
The thing there is though that it will take Intel an estimated 3-5 years to get to where AMD is today without infringing on any of AMD's IP with the assumption that hell would disappear before AMD would agree to cross-license their hypertransport IP. That estimate was from an article on CPU design about a year ago, so the time factor may or may not have diminished - the main point is that AMD enjoys a huge first to market advantage that won't go away before main adoption is underway.
Intel's basically screwed itself into a very small nasty tight corner. The P4 was a miserable failure. Core 2 still suffers the same main shortcomings of P-M and P4 designs wrt to multiple cores/CPUs- it depends upon FSB. Evidently this is coming to haunt them in a big way, as IBM, HP, Sun, and Dell (yes, that Dell) have all signed on for AMD to power their server lines.
This is the same argument proferred in the first round a couple of years ago when AMD went 2 cores on a single die vs Intel's 2 separate cores slapped together. Did we forget the outcome of that battle so quickly? (Refresher: Intel got their ass handed to them)
While I don't disagree with your point about the potential for increased failure rates of 4 cores on a die vs 2 cores, also note that we're at least one more generation advanced in fab facilities, which one hopes will help ameliorate the failure rates.
Also, think about this - there's more to the new AMD chips than merely 4 cores on a single die. So I don't doubt they'll be slightly more expensive than Intel's offering while trouncing them in every way. Sort of like the Core 2 today. The difference between them? Core 2 took 3 years after AMD's first Opteron release, AMD's response to Core 2 will be less than 12 months.
PCIe should be it for a while. The bus is no longer a bottleneck, at least for the foreseeable future. SATA II is brand-new, and there's not a drive made that will saturate a SATA connection. Unless you're going to hang some sort of drive array off of a single SATA port, I think that's going to be it for drive connections for the home market for a few years.
DDR2 provides miniscule improvements over DDR, but it is less expensive. FB-DIMM for the next few years will be much like RAMBUS, too expensive for a negligible performance gain.
Gb LAN is pretty much the standard for home networks (ok, maybe the aspired to home network).
Everything else is a card that I plug into my system (primarily audio and video related items).
So, it's quite possible that today's MB will be good for at least a few years. (I don't see applications or OSes for the desktop exceeding the current 8GB max supported RAM for a little while, you can even fit most DVDs into RAM with 8GB.)
Heck, to be honest, I can't wait for the benchmarks between a 2P woodcrest machine and a 2P dual -core opteron box. The quads are drool worthy, but I probably won't get one of those for a couple of years yet. I'll wait for the initial premium prices to drop.
Unfortunately, the AM2 chips appear to be for single CPU boards only, Socket F is the new Opteron socket. But, the way I'm going, just to be able to drop in a new quad CPU will meet my needs in a year or two for the next couple of years, at least. (I don't intend on running Vista....;)
Write your code in Java. Concurrency utilities are built right into 1.5 on up. With these processors, it should no longer be an issue...
;)
Now I know I just lost any karma this story might have gained me....
Inside the linked stories, they mention how Deerfield (the 65nm process chips) have dropped from the roadmap. They extrapolate that to mean that these will be the only 65nm chips.
Another decrease in power consumption can be obtained by lowering voltages, which I understood from another article to be handled on K8L by introduction of another new tech - but I don't have that link at the moment.
And lastly, it's not just pure power consumption you're worried about these days, but power consumption per computational unit. What do I care if a 4 way processor consumes twice as much power as a 2 way processor, if it can do 8 times the work? That's still a halving of power consumption in my book.
In a word, no.
;)
In brief, AMD is putting together 4 cores on a single die, like their current dual core design. Intel just got to the 2 cores per die stage. Their 4 core design is 2 dual cores slapped together.
This story is about the fact that the next gen of AMD's chips are design complete. More importantly, AMD claims it is going to have a working prototype this year. The importance of this is that if AMD succeeds, they will be able to display a working copy of their next generation CPU when Intel intends to ship their first quads. It could do untold damage to Intel's ability to sell those quads if AMD's quad solution blows it away, as I strongly suspect it will. So does IBM, HP, Sun, and Dell, as all have signed on for AMD to power their servers.
This puts the shoe firmly back on Intel's foot. I'm sure Intel was hoping to not wear it for at least a little while.
To be honest, I don't see the point. I have a Canon Rebel XT. I shoot in RAW mode (8.9MB/pic). I have a 4GB card, which results in 420 or so pics. I have yet to take 420 pictures in a single shooting before accessing my PC to offload pictures, but, just in case I do - I have a 1GB backup card (at a whole $29 these days, who can't afford one if they can afford the camera in the first place?)
Using the LCD for any purpose other than a quick look-see to show someone else is pointless IMHO. The Canon doesn't even allow you to frame with the LCD, you have to look through the finder just like with the old film cameras. Battery life would go to hell if the LCD were used for this. Without the LCD turned on at all, you get about 1100 pictures out of a single charge. With each shot (or series of shots in rapid fire mode) showing for a mere 2s, you get about 550 pictures. That's a serious drain.
As I also have a point and shoot that does have the LCD shooting paradigm, I have to say that when it comes to the types of pictures I take with the Canon, the LCD is virtually useless. With the point and shoot, it's handy. However, I don't think I'd trade battery life for higher resolution on the screen, since the previous argument applies about memory cards being plenty big - just buy an extra one and do your processing on a computer (much much faster and easier).
So what's that leave for the LCD point and shoot paradigm? Framing, really. You have very little real control with those cameras for any other purpose that higher resolution would be handy for. I personally haven't found the LCD resolution to be limiting my framing abilities.
Actually, I believe every EULA I've ever bothered to read states something along the lines that the software maker does not represent this software as fit for any particular purpose, or phrasing similar to that effect.
:)
So, since I'm using it for something they don't certify it for, I promptly disregard the EULA.
Whether reputable or not, your statement brings into question your own referenced study. Sort of like the studies that found no links to cancer from smoking, or that smoking is not addictive, or that black lung disease was not caused by coal dust - the list of bad studies goes on and on.
On this topic - cigarette smoke contains carcinogens and irritants. This is indisputable. Whether the levels in the smoke bother you is irrelevant. They exist.
Actually - it's quite scientific - expose me to smoke, the sinus issues commence. Remove smoke, they abate. It's repeatable. Matter of fact, using the repeatable nature, I know what my tolerance limit is, and that it can be altered by continuous exposure or in closely spaced windows of exposure. I also know that being removed totally from it for 3 weeks or more reduces my tolerance back to its original level. (I used to have a smoking roommate that traveled, plus the singles scene at bars way back when, as well as residing in areas where smoking was allowed in the work-place.)
My health problem? I believe it's not a "health problem", but just the natural tolerance level. You'll get the same reaction in any non-smoker, it's merely a question of what level of smoke is required to trigger it. Much like the sun and sunburn/skin cancer. Just because 20 minutes of being outside in the sun doesn't bother someone, doesn't mean it won't bother someone else. And, if you take that same person and expose them to little bits of sun and acclimate them to it, anyone that can create melannin will become much more tolerant, and can spend hours in the sun. Take them out of the sun for a couple of months, and they're back to square one.
So - do people who sunburn in 20m or less have a "health problem"? No, they don't. (I'm excluding a small class of people who cannot tan and therefore don't increase their tolerance to sun exposure over time)
Anyway, to respond to your last ponderance - I don't have a health problem - smoke is the health problem, and hence reports are growing that state this fact. Matter of fact, this is the basis for the "blowing lead" statement several posts back. The potential effect is different only in degree.
My camera/laptop won't leave my sight. I'm willing to check batteries, but I'm betting that the "new improved regs" will make that impossible as well.
So I won't fly if I have any choice in the matter until these regs are gone. FYI: I've already experienced the joy of mistakenly checking valuables once. Let's just say that my baggage arrived, sans valuables. And this was before they checked everything.
As for the water, you should check the stories about water. I'll only accept bottled water, and that's usually $3. (unless you're flying in enhanced classes) If they included free bottled water, or at least just @ cost water and drinks, that would make at least the no drinks part more acceptable.
Not for health reasons? Really? I don't know about you, but whenever I'm around smokers, I wind up with a headache for a day or more, due to serious sinus congestion. I'm not even asthmatic. I can't imagine what it'll do to someone with a real sensitivity.
But, I'll grant you that A) and B) had something to do with it (and you forgot the ever all-important "Think of the Children!!!"). For me, A) doesn't matter, but my personal issues go far beyond B) - the smell does remind me of ass, but even that's not enough to bother me to the extreme - so do many perfumes. It's the rather quick closing off of nasal passages that gets me, along with excessive mucus build-up, when exposed to "excessive" smoke. Prolonged exposure results in extended symptoms.
Now, I don't know about you, but that's definitely not a good thing. It even sounds like the symptons experienced by many who try a cigarette for the first time. Nausea is another factor, although that only hit me once during a prolonged stay in a very smoky bar during a snow storm.
But this is all anecdotal. If I had more time, I'd reference some of those studies you claim don't exist. I saw one just a week or three ago on CNN.
Funny then that even Paul himself stated last week that "Hell No" Vista is not ready. Not ready in the way that features are not complete. Things are missing, or way bad.
So, to follow your reasoning, they may remove the rest of the broken things to ship a workable OS, maybe, then Vista may have many fewer features than Leopard.
Really? Check Google for an interesting eye-opener. But, for the record, I never claimed to be shooting people. I just want to randomly pull the trigger. This is much closer to the second-hand smoke analogy.
Because, perhaps, McDonalds isn't hurting anyone other than the person eating there? If you notice, I stated I'm perfectly fine with you figuratively shooting yourself in the foot, or elsewhere, in the GP. That goes for smoking too, I personally don't care if you smoke, just don't subject me to it. I don't support laws that attempt to control people for their own best interest.
That's the closest thing to an argument you presented, as at least it matches conditions. The same type of laws apply to driving that apply to smoking: you may only do so in designated areas. There are legal deterrents for attempting to do either outside of those areas (ie, inflicting your deed upon others).
There's one corollary to this: if you wish to engage in risky behavior, don't expect others to pick up the tab if it hurts you. Drivers pay insurance (supposed to anyways). Standard Life insurance usually has clauses excluding activities like sky-diving, you get to pay an extra premium if you wish your heirs to collect and you engage in those activities. And so forth.
I'm perfectly fine with the anti-smoking laws. They're just as american as the ones that prevent me from "blowing" lead your way when you blow smoke mine. If you wish to remove the former, also remove the latter.
"Wait, it's not the same thing" you say? I'd beg to differ. The only difference is in speed of effect. (Hint, the lead's just "blowing" in your general direction - it might hit, it might not. Do you feel lucky?)
The proper thing would be for Microsoft (yes, good ole MS) to stop shipping machines that default to "please pwn me". Second would be to encourage ISPs ship those little DLS/Cable routers with the FW enabled with ports below 1024 blocked.
It's not about protecting people from themselves, but more about protecting me from you in my view. I'm perfectly fine with you shooting yourself in the foot, or elsewhere, and firmly believe you should have the right to do so.