Im pretty sure about 95% of the worlds email and web browsing not being able to work does not constitute "the internet working fine".
The Internet is not the WWW. The WWW uses the Internet as it's transport.
The intenet would still function fine at the IP level that it was originally designed for. The complete failure of the DNS system would merely harm users reliant on names as network addresses.
My first email account was made up of numbers.
How about RAID-0 that gives a performance gain?
on
Linux 3.0
·
· Score: 2
Back when I was using 2.2 kernels, Linux software RAID-0 was giving me 30% or more transfer rate increases. I was kinda hoping for something in the 80%+ area but anyway.
Linux 2.4 has been giving me transfer rates that are slower than a single drive! Since I've pretty much moved completely over to the BSD's for many months now, can anyone tell me if software RAID-0 performance under Linux after 2.2 is now decent?
Re:3.0? bah
on
Linux 3.0
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And of those, the only decent ones are
98SE and 2000 (4.1.2222 and 5.0.2195).
Actually I agree with you. 95 is best left to die. 98 is decent.
What the hell are you guys smoking?! : )
Win2k is great, and NT4 OK, comparitively speaking. But ALL of the DOS based Windows suck severely. I've been supporting them all since 3.0, I'm amazed there is *anyone* who thinks 98 is at all decent.
XP is just incredible. Decent foundation with 95 stability and quirks. I fail to see how MS could possibly have made it so damn bad.
Re:2.4.x still compiles on mine too, (in 3 hours)
on
Linux 3.0
·
· Score: 2
I wrote a script to log the start & end times and let it run.
Why bother? Just use time. You won't have to do any math either!
There is no mention in this article of ripple performance for these PSU's under their rated loads.
Ripple is the amount of AC left in the DC output of a DC power supply. Real engineers and technicians measure this and take it into consideration to assure the reliable and healthy operation of the equipment being powered. There is no point in having a PSU that can deliver the required amount of power if it is also delivering the parts in the computer noisy power that may lead to instabilities.
The PSU's that actually were able to deliver more than their rated power, may have in fact been designed so that they actually deliver low ripple power at their rated levels. With power beyond that starting to show what the designers would deem, unsatisfactory ripple levels (Ripple becomes more apparent with higher loads).
A quiet (electrical) supply is a good thing for computers of any size and seeing an article at Tom's omit this amongst pages and pages of a "test" comparison does not surprise me.
Blah blah blah. People who know better, don't read Tom's, they "do it" themselves, properly. But the chance to test 21 different PSU's is something few geeks can do, so Tom ought to get things done correctly if he is to pass his site off as a valuable technical hardware resource.
But what I think is the real killer, is that Tom tests the noise levels of these PSU's, but not the electrical noise, the audible! Which kinda shows in a glaring manner the level of technical prowess his site staff and readership posses. Hell, they had multimeters, how hard was it to at least set them to AC and read the amplitude of the ripple!
"Test results in detail" my arse.
I'm not being picky BTW, ripple testing is a must do in PSU design and testing for most applications of a DC supply. Proper "test results in detail" would have included oscilloscope printouts of the ripple, IMHO.
I met up with a friend who wanted to see my 1/8th scale landmax Evo in action. He brought his little Tamiya electric so that we could play together...
By the time I fueled my car and got it started, his batteries had run out. : )
Once mine was running, he put his away in disgust. Anyone who's never seen Nitro RC in action has not a clue of the incredible performance.
Mine gets up to 70kph with the single speed gearbox and 140kph(!) with the automatic 3 speed gearbox (which I wish I had).
They can be finicky to tune though, even with a slight change in fuel.
I get nervous every time I take it out and fire it up. Once I rather stupidly (in all the excitement) started the engine before switching on the transmitter. I pulled the rip cord and then WAAAHHHHH... off it took all on it's own, fully open (carb). Luckily I did remember to switch on the receiver so all I had to do was grab the transmitter and switch it on quickly to avoid slamming the thing into something.
I like to think of it as an RC car that goes on 67% Indycar fuel, 15% dymamite, 18% lube. : )
No matter where I take this thing, kids just come out of the woodwork from all directions, it's amazing what attention you get. People driving by stop and watch, kids or no kids. : )
"they're so reliable and cheap, you won't need a warranty anyway"
If they're so reliable, the manufacturers have little to loose by giving a 3 year warranty, right?
I guess they have done their sums, figured out how much they will save by dropping 2 years off the warranty and like what they see. Plus they might be trying to give themselves a boost after the enconomy slump.
In fact, in these cases the bottleneck is actually the device the raw data is being read off of.
Absolutely.
So the claim that the altivec unit is wasted because of memory bottlenecks is silly-- the limiting factor when encoding DV video to MP4 is the hard drive, not the altivec unit.
Hehe, I think they really peaked with W2K and it's all downhill from there. Oh well, they nearly made it.
I've read somewhere that MS will be phasing out W2K in favour of XP. So I have to wonder, is the IT World going broke and loosing money because W2K is so much more reliable? ; )
These things you have described are processor intensive. Encoding MP3's and video will easily make the CPU the bottleneck.
Every situation does not fall into one category you know.
Think about it-- what is the uncompressed bitrate of DV video or CD data?
CD data, I assume you mean CD audio, since CDROM could be using any compression, proprietary or open. Well CD audio data is uncompressed to begin with. You want math, so 16bit samples * 2 channels * 44100 samples per second = 176,400 bytes/second. Of course, who does DAE at 1x? So what is your point?
more than sufficient to keep the altivec processor fed.
AltiVec is not always used and when it is, it tends to be with apps that are obviously CPU intensive and thus not memory bound. One will be a limiting factor, though this can be vice versa depending on the application at hand. Hell, in databases disk is usually the limited factor, unless your db is small enought to fully sit in RAM.
What you just repeated is one of the many myths that people spread about the powerpc, but it simply isn't true.
So you think the performance people see with DDR in memory bound apps are figments of their imagination? You think these new memory technologies are worthless? The quicker the main memory can burst the required data into the CPU registers, the quicker the CPU will operate on that data and burst it back. Even in CPU bound applications, faster memory can enable small performance improvements through reduced propagation delays. There is more to data transmission performance in CS than bandwidth considerations.
Clearly MHz is irrelevant in itself - but so is 'computational power per MHz', which you seem to believe is what matters.
A high computational power at a low MHz usually results in a lower power consumption, and this DOES matter to some people for some situations. ARM CPU's excel here for embedded apps.
What matters is up to the individual. My stance is that I would like to run OSX on a fast machine. I would like to see Apple do it with CPU's that use brains before brute force.
Thanks for the link, but it does not seem to give me this (also it is more than a year old).
I provided that link merely to illustrate that MHz is not the only factor in computational power. By the same token, the fastest PPC at that link is only a 450MHz G4. Apple supplies dual G4's now at 2.8 times that clock rate (which of course is just a MHz rating that even between CPU revisions can give better or worse gains than 2.8 times, depending on bottlenecks that did not change and improvements to the CPU etc.).
Apples major bottleneck is the main memory bus. Something that will not change easily. Maybe they'll get a better G4 out before the next CPU, though I wouldn't bet on it.
It just works. Not just as in "simply", just as in "barely".
I have been unable to boot the Win2k CDROM from any PC with an ATAPI or SCSI CDROM, having to make *FOUR* install floppies (All the BSD's, a bunch of Linux distros and Solaris 8 x86, UnixWare 7 and QNX boot from these machines CDROM's). After a successful 60 minute install, it wants me to supply drivers for my video card... another time for a client of mine it auto detects the NIC and mouse incorrectly... When I plug a USB mouse in to Win98SE I am prompted for a driver...
When I plug the same mouse (logitech wheel optical) into my iBook for the very first time, with OSX within about one second it is working without any prompting at all. Oh and the OSX CD boots too. (I've made a ton of custom bootable x86 CD's, so why doesn't W2k boot for me? I seem to remember NT 4.0 booting.)
External Sony floppy drive?... Win98 says WTF!? Win2K wants a driver... OSX appears to do nothing, until I insert a floppy and I get the removable disk icon appear on the desktop.
Apple stuff, really does just work, without any hassle.
Just as in barely is an exageration. Even with OSX's pretty face, it doesn't seem to feel bloated.
After about 11 years with PC's, and the never ending difficulties with MS OS and others, Apples are pretty refreshing. (I mostly deploy OpenBSD for servers and firewall/routers and use it for my PC desktop. Here I don't mind jumping through hoops since you tend to get through them and then never have to go through them again until an advisory affects you, which is infrequent).
how will they be able to spin it when they have to explain it in terms of Apples vs Apples?
Just tell the truth about the new technology, in marketing speak of course. The truth should be able to confuse 98% of end users into belief and convice the geeky 2% anyway. So finishing up with impressive bar graphs that don't start at zero ought to finish it off. : )
There is no spin on the megahertx myth because what they're saying about an Intel MHz != a PPC MHz for computing power is true.
If they try to say now that their machines are computationally faster than the fastest P4's, then they may be shooting themselves in the foot when all the magazines publish benchmark results that show the opposite. This may cause people to distrust Apple and avoid the new machines that hopefully really will be speed demons.
Slashdot Mirror
/.?
Im pretty sure about 95% of the worlds email and web browsing not being able to work does not constitute "the internet working fine".
The Internet is not the WWW. The WWW uses the Internet as it's transport.
The intenet would still function fine at the IP level that it was originally designed for. The complete failure of the DNS system would merely harm users reliant on names as network addresses.
My first email account was made up of numbers.
Back when I was using 2.2 kernels, Linux software RAID-0 was giving me 30% or more transfer rate increases. I was kinda hoping for something in the 80%+ area but anyway.
Linux 2.4 has been giving me transfer rates that are slower than a single drive! Since I've pretty much moved completely over to the BSD's for many months now, can anyone tell me if software RAID-0 performance under Linux after 2.2 is now decent?
And of those, the only decent ones are
98SE and 2000 (4.1.2222 and 5.0.2195).
Actually I agree with you. 95 is best left to die. 98 is decent.
What the hell are you guys smoking?! : )
Win2k is great, and NT4 OK, comparitively speaking. But ALL of the DOS based Windows suck severely. I've been supporting them all since 3.0, I'm amazed there is *anyone* who thinks 98 is at all decent.
XP is just incredible. Decent foundation with 95 stability and quirks. I fail to see how MS could possibly have made it so damn bad.
I wrote a script to log the start & end times and let it run.
Why bother? Just use time. You won't have to do any math either!
There is no mention in this article of ripple performance for these PSU's under their rated loads.
Ripple is the amount of AC left in the DC output of a DC power supply. Real engineers and technicians measure this and take it into consideration to assure the reliable and healthy operation of the equipment being powered. There is no point in having a PSU that can deliver the required amount of power if it is also delivering the parts in the computer noisy power that may lead to instabilities.
The PSU's that actually were able to deliver more than their rated power, may have in fact been designed so that they actually deliver low ripple power at their rated levels. With power beyond that starting to show what the designers would deem, unsatisfactory ripple levels (Ripple becomes more apparent with higher loads).
A quiet (electrical) supply is a good thing for computers of any size and seeing an article at Tom's omit this amongst pages and pages of a "test" comparison does not surprise me.
Blah blah blah. People who know better, don't read Tom's, they "do it" themselves, properly. But the chance to test 21 different PSU's is something few geeks can do, so Tom ought to get things done correctly if he is to pass his site off as a valuable technical hardware resource.
But what I think is the real killer, is that Tom tests the noise levels of these PSU's, but not the electrical noise, the audible! Which kinda shows in a glaring manner the level of technical prowess his site staff and readership posses. Hell, they had multimeters, how hard was it to at least set them to AC and read the amplitude of the ripple!
"Test results in detail" my arse.
I'm not being picky BTW, ripple testing is a must do in PSU design and testing for most applications of a DC supply. Proper "test results in detail" would have included oscilloscope printouts of the ripple, IMHO.
I met up with a friend who wanted to see my 1/8th scale landmax Evo in action. He brought his little Tamiya electric so that we could play together...
By the time I fueled my car and got it started, his batteries had run out. : )
Once mine was running, he put his away in disgust. Anyone who's never seen Nitro RC in action has not a clue of the incredible performance.
Mine gets up to 70kph with the single speed gearbox and 140kph(!) with the automatic 3 speed gearbox (which I wish I had).
They can be finicky to tune though, even with a slight change in fuel.
I get nervous every time I take it out and fire it up. Once I rather stupidly (in all the excitement) started the engine before switching on the transmitter. I pulled the rip cord and then WAAAHHHHH... off it took all on it's own, fully open (carb). Luckily I did remember to switch on the receiver so all I had to do was grab the transmitter and switch it on quickly to avoid slamming the thing into something.
I like to think of it as an RC car that goes on 67% Indycar fuel, 15% dymamite, 18% lube. : )
No matter where I take this thing, kids just come out of the woodwork from all directions, it's amazing what attention you get. People driving by stop and watch, kids or no kids. : )
are you sure he didn't mean Macintosh G4?
No no no! The AltiVec is single precision! Those analog computers are infinite precision that respond continuously and near instantly! : )
(I am kidding of course, the analog computers accuracy is limited by amplifier, transducer and received noise, etc).
Sorry, I did mean the original.
Linux...a system that is secure
Well, if they're going to use a free Unix like OS, with security in mind, they ought to be looking at OpenBSD.
Though no networked system is absolutely secure.
Actually Joe [farviolet.com] is much more like Wordstar. There's nothing wrong with it.
Oh I'm not saying there is, I prefer to use vi.
Thanks for the link.
If wordstar and typewriters are working, why spend $6b to replace them?
Actually, funnily enough, this is a big concept that at least the Australian Navy seems to use.
When I left in 1989, I was told the HMAS Hobart had a combined computing power on the whole ship, of a Macintosh Classic.
Then again, when I left they were still mostly relying on analog computers.
I remeber Wordstar back when I worked for the Navy in the late 80's!
If they're willing to use Wordstar, they may as well just use vi. : )
"they're so reliable and cheap, you won't need a warranty anyway"
If they're so reliable, the manufacturers have little to loose by giving a 3 year warranty, right?
I guess they have done their sums, figured out how much they will save by dropping 2 years off the warranty and like what they see. Plus they might be trying to give themselves a boost after the enconomy slump.
In fact, in these cases the bottleneck is actually the device the raw data is being read off of.
Absolutely.
So the claim that the altivec unit is wasted because of memory bottlenecks is silly-- the limiting factor when encoding DV video to MP4 is the hard drive, not the altivec unit.
Wouldn't argue with that.
That would make a P3 clocked at 454.5 MHz a G3 450's equal.
Which goes to show even more, that considering MHz alone is crazy. Differing CPU design and application requirements can give wildly varying results.
Hehe, I think they really peaked with W2K and it's all downhill from there. Oh well, they nearly made it.
I've read somewhere that MS will be phasing out W2K in favour of XP. So I have to wonder, is the IT World going broke and loosing money because W2K is so much more reliable? ; )
Are you sure that W2K CD is bootable?
I'm guessing not, which really surprises me, since I think W2K is pretty good (for an MS OS). : )
The W2K CD's I've tried to install are just (from memory) W2K Pro SP1 (on disc).
the argument is not that a 1ghz P4 beats a 1ghz G4
The argument is regarding the MHz Myth, which is regarding computing power at a 1MHz:1MHz level.
I'm not even disputing that Apple's best are not quicker than Intels cheapest!
My feeling is that Apple is being let down by it's CPU supplier not being able to supply a part with a faster core and memory bus.
I'm not flying any flags for either side.
Unfortunately, most people don't do the math.
Actually, with HP48GX in hand, I do.
These things you have described are processor intensive. Encoding MP3's and video will easily make the CPU the bottleneck.
Every situation does not fall into one category you know.
Think about it-- what is the uncompressed bitrate of DV video or CD data?
CD data, I assume you mean CD audio, since CDROM could be using any compression, proprietary or open. Well CD audio data is uncompressed to begin with. You want math, so 16bit samples * 2 channels * 44100 samples per second = 176,400 bytes/second. Of course, who does DAE at 1x? So what is your point?
more than sufficient to keep the altivec processor fed.
AltiVec is not always used and when it is, it tends to be with apps that are obviously CPU intensive and thus not memory bound. One will be a limiting factor, though this can be vice versa depending on the application at hand. Hell, in databases disk is usually the limited factor, unless your db is small enought to fully sit in RAM.
What you just repeated is one of the many myths that people spread about the powerpc, but it simply isn't true.
So you think the performance people see with DDR in memory bound apps are figments of their imagination? You think these new memory technologies are worthless? The quicker the main memory can burst the required data into the CPU registers, the quicker the CPU will operate on that data and burst it back. Even in CPU bound applications, faster memory can enable small performance improvements through reduced propagation delays. There is more to data transmission performance in CS than bandwidth considerations.
Clearly MHz is irrelevant in itself - but so is 'computational power per MHz', which you seem to believe is what matters.
A high computational power at a low MHz usually results in a lower power consumption, and this DOES matter to some people for some situations. ARM CPU's excel here for embedded apps.
What matters is up to the individual. My stance is that I would like to run OSX on a fast machine. I would like to see Apple do it with CPU's that use brains before brute force.
Thanks for the link, but it does not seem to give me this (also it is more than a year old).
I provided that link merely to illustrate that MHz is not the only factor in computational power. By the same token, the fastest PPC at that link is only a 450MHz G4. Apple supplies dual G4's now at 2.8 times that clock rate (which of course is just a MHz rating that even between CPU revisions can give better or worse gains than 2.8 times, depending on bottlenecks that did not change and improvements to the CPU etc.).
Apples major bottleneck is the main memory bus. Something that will not change easily. Maybe they'll get a better G4 out before the next CPU, though I wouldn't bet on it.
It just works.
Not just as in "simply", just as in "barely".
I have been unable to boot the Win2k CDROM from any PC with an ATAPI or SCSI CDROM, having to make *FOUR* install floppies (All the BSD's, a bunch of Linux distros and Solaris 8 x86, UnixWare 7 and QNX boot from these machines CDROM's). After a successful 60 minute install, it wants me to supply drivers for my video card... another time for a client of mine it auto detects the NIC and mouse incorrectly... When I plug a USB mouse in to Win98SE I am prompted for a driver...
When I plug the same mouse (logitech wheel optical) into my iBook for the very first time, with OSX within about one second it is working without any prompting at all. Oh and the OSX CD boots too. (I've made a ton of custom bootable x86 CD's, so why doesn't W2k boot for me? I seem to remember NT 4.0 booting.)
External Sony floppy drive?... Win98 says WTF!? Win2K wants a driver... OSX appears to do nothing, until I insert a floppy and I get the removable disk icon appear on the desktop.
Apple stuff, really does just work, without any hassle.
Just as in barely is an exageration. Even with OSX's pretty face, it doesn't seem to feel bloated.
After about 11 years with PC's, and the never ending difficulties with MS OS and others, Apples are pretty refreshing. (I mostly deploy OpenBSD for servers and firewall/routers and use it for my PC desktop. Here I don't mind jumping through hoops since you tend to get through them and then never have to go through them again until an advisory affects you, which is infrequent).
(about to retire my Beige G3 in fact)
Need a server, firewall or router? OpenBSD perhaps?
I can't go WindowMaker or AfterStep because I end up using KDE apps anyway
Last time I was running KDE, you didn't need to run the KDE GUI to use KDE apps, just have the KDE libraries installed.
This was with X.2 by the way.
Why must things happen instantly for you? You ought to re-write yourself as a QNX app.
how will they be able to spin it when they have to explain it in terms of Apples vs Apples?
Just tell the truth about the new technology, in marketing speak of course. The truth should be able to confuse 98% of end users into belief and convice the geeky 2% anyway. So finishing up with impressive bar graphs that don't start at zero ought to finish it off. : )
There is no spin on the megahertx myth because what they're saying about an Intel MHz != a PPC MHz for computing power is true.
If they try to say now that their machines are computationally faster than the fastest P4's, then they may be shooting themselves in the foot when all the magazines publish benchmark results that show the opposite. This may cause people to distrust Apple and avoid the new machines that hopefully really will be speed demons.