Great, now all 8 people who have streaming Ogg plugins installed on their BeBoxes running Amegia OS can watch your video! Ogg is great and all, but the guy wants average people to be able to watch this without installing a new plugin, browser, and operating system.
Only reason they don't do it any more is the fact that Nintendo has adopted completely unrealistic policties since the GameCube came out. Think about it, Nintendo 64 ruled the world for years, then GameCube came out, the same time as three other consoles, what kept it from ruling again?
1. Nintendo figured gameplay was more important than spiffy graphics. Wrong. Gamers older than 5 years old want more polygons and better dynamic lighting effects, even if the game sucks.
2. Nintendo figured game consoles were game consoles, and DVD players were DVD players. Wrong, nobody could have really called this, but as it turned out, people want a console that is very multifunction. The only other thing the gamecube can be used for besides gaming is as a bookend.
3. Nintendo has a policy encouraging family oriented games, with more innovative features and a slower developement time. This was a good idea in the 1980s, when people wanted something new, but by the time the gamecube came out, pretty much every game genre people could want was invented. While PS2 and XBox churned out dozens of FPS and racing games, Gamecube had only a trickle of new games available. Nintendo also forgot that "innovative" often means "stupid" and "flop", many of the "innovative" games weren't fun or worth their developement cost. Family oriented games are well and good, but you don't see "Reading with Sesame Street" outselling Doom 3 or Halo2, do you? Nintendo alienated the biggest spending audience by focusing on Elmo and not Samus.
Worse, Nintendo stuck to their policies long after it became terribly clear that they were wrong. When PS2 and XBox came out, there was a shortage of good games for them too. It was clear that people were lusting after good FPS, racing and RPG games, but Nintendo didn't develop any. The GameCube has multiple expansion ports to add features, but Nintendo never really took advantage of it to add features players wanted, like networked gaming or a hard drive. All we got were bongos and a gameboy emulator.
I said USUALLY. The exception is when the new generation of cards come out, and you compair a high end new card to a mid end old card. In a month or two, there will be a 7600 or something that is a lot closer to 15%, and another 2 months down the line, a 7700GT or whatever it is to be named will offer awsome performance for $250. Anyway, my point was that while processors go like this:
Well then I guess processors can't be named at all. We might as well just label them all "Processor", and charge random prices for them, like for airline tickets.
Thats the problem with naming processors based on their "performance". Intel and AMD don't acutally do this, because if an $200 A64 3000+ became say, a 500, then a $600 A57 would become a 515 or something. Same is true of intel, the 600s and 500s perform the same, and the 300 celerons aren't actually that far behind. The 700 Pentium Ms perform SLOWER than the 500s & 600s. I think we should go back to having processors named "Pentium 4, 3.6 GHz, 2MB L2 cache, x64", or at least a condensed version: "Pentium 4362064". A celeron 3.0 512k 32bit would be "C300532". It makes some sense at least.
You might be suprised there. I have seem similar tests on graphics cards, and the result is not the same. Basically, the lowest end cards (sub $100) are renamed 3 generation old crap (GeForce MX4000 is a geForce2). There is a sweet spot somewhere around $150 or so. Above that, the cards performance increase decreases quite fast, and you are usually within 15% of the performance of a $500 at around $250, which you could say is the sweet spot for gamers.
My Pentium D has 2MB L2 cache, 1MB per processor, how much does the Xeon have. It better have like 512 MB for the amount of power it sucks, and if it has that much, how come its performance sucks so much?
I didn't read the article. Is this ONE Xeon using 400W? That would be rediculous. How can they do that? I have a dual core Pentium 4 820, which UNDER LOAD uses about 130W. The Xeon has a few extra features, but is really not that different. How is it so much less efficient?
Isn't the 400W while idling for TWO Xeons (4 cores) and the rest of the system? That works out to 100W per core, which isn't bad for a modern CPU under load.
True. The point I was trying to make is that there are now a handful of devices that completely replace the PDA for functionality. A cell phone or PDA can keep track of contacts and your schedule, while 3lb laptops, which were pretty much non-existant in 1998 (except for one or two, the Libretto and Sony Picture Book, both of which were wimpy and insanely priced) now serve great for taking notes and many of the other more intense tasks that PDAs once handled.
The Treo is a bit of an exception, although I think you will find that your battery doesn't last that long if you play an MP3 with the backlight on. The problem with most PDAs is that they run on 300-600 MHz processors with 128-256 MB of RAM (not flash) with QVGA or VGA screens. This is WAY overkill for what a PDA was meant for. It not only drives the price up, but kills the battery. I have a Palm Vx that is my sole PDA. It has a 20 Mhz Processor, 8MB of RAM, of which I am using 500k to keep track of todo lists, contacts, my schedule, and a little tetris.;) It will run for about 2-3 weeks between charges, which I figure works out to about 8 hours of continuous use. It is made out of absolutely indescructable aircraft grade aluminum (probably 6061-T6). If companies were putting out PDAs with equivilant specs to the Palm V, but at today's prices (what could it cost to mass produce the Palm V today?) I think the PDA might come back.
Clue #1 Cellphones have become PDAs (3 day battery life)
Clue #2 iPods have become PDAs (18 hour battery life)
Clue #3 Laptops have become PDAs (my 3lb Centrino) (4 hour battery life)
Clue #4 PDAs have become desktop computers (2-3 hour battery life)
If you install Linux on a 3G or 4G iPod, you can record in 44.1 or ever 48 kHz WAV direct from a microphone plugged into the headphone jack. That might indicate that the pins are hooked up.;) They haven't gotten the MP3 incoding working yet.
I would imagine the higher resolution the video, the more work the video processor does, and the shorter the battery life. Given that it is already 2 hours (30GB) or 3 hours (60 GB), I dont think many people would want to go shorter. Plus, just because the hardware supports it doesn't mean apple enables it. For instance, every iPod ever made (except shuffle) has a chip in it capible of recording 44.1kHz stereo mp3 audio. However, until now, Apple has only unlocked very low quality monoral 22.1 kHz WAV recording, and not even that on the iPod mini, plus it only works if you have extra hardware. With ipod linux you can get the full shabang by just plugging a microphone into the headphone slot, but with a crappy interface and battery life.
I think so. I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure that a human on a bike is still more efficient. For instance, you can go on a 25 mile bikeride and use much less chemical energy than is in a gallon of gas (a lot more than is in the equivalent sized serving of pasta). You have to figure that the majority of people in cars are carrying less than 4 people. A bus makes much more polution than a car, but is cleaner because it caries 30 people. If everyone drove around with no less than 4 people at all times, we wouldn't be in the environmental tight spot we are today. Also, you can figure that a bicycle is about 90% efficient in delivering power from the pedals to the road (losses due to friction in axle, chain, tires, ect... A car can never be, by the nature of internal combustion engines, more than about 35% efficient. This is why electric cars could be a better mode of transportation. Powerplants generate electricity at much better than 35% efficiency, so if high efficiency electric motors and batteries developed, cars could potentially be a lot cleaner than now.
No it isn't. Dual core means two processors on chip. Hyperthreading is an interesting but not incredibly useful technology intel uses that makes one processor look like two slower processors, for instance, 1 3.0GHz processor turns into 2 1.5 GHz processors. I won't go over how it works. In fact, the new Xeons support both, so when you boot, it looks like you have four processors, two actual ones each pertending to be two more.
The initiative will be ignored by every manufacturer and even consumer, as each will want their own pocket distrobution, and pocket linux will be back where it was, nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, now all 8 people who have streaming Ogg plugins installed on their BeBoxes running Amegia OS can watch your video! Ogg is great and all, but the guy wants average people to be able to watch this without installing a new plugin, browser, and operating system.
Only reason they don't do it any more is the fact that Nintendo has adopted completely unrealistic policties since the GameCube came out. Think about it, Nintendo 64 ruled the world for years, then GameCube came out, the same time as three other consoles, what kept it from ruling again?
1. Nintendo figured gameplay was more important than spiffy graphics.
Wrong. Gamers older than 5 years old want more polygons and better dynamic lighting effects, even if the game sucks.
2. Nintendo figured game consoles were game consoles, and DVD players were DVD players.
Wrong, nobody could have really called this, but as it turned out, people want a console that is very multifunction. The only other thing the gamecube can be used for besides gaming is as a bookend.
3. Nintendo has a policy encouraging family oriented games, with more innovative features and a slower developement time.
This was a good idea in the 1980s, when people wanted something new, but by the time the gamecube came out, pretty much every game genre people could want was invented. While PS2 and XBox churned out dozens of FPS and racing games, Gamecube had only a trickle of new games available. Nintendo also forgot that "innovative" often means "stupid" and "flop", many of the "innovative" games weren't fun or worth their developement cost. Family oriented games are well and good, but you don't see "Reading with Sesame Street" outselling Doom 3 or Halo2, do you? Nintendo alienated the biggest spending audience by focusing on Elmo and not Samus.
Worse, Nintendo stuck to their policies long after it became terribly clear that they were wrong. When PS2 and XBox came out, there was a shortage of good games for them too. It was clear that people were lusting after good FPS, racing and RPG games, but Nintendo didn't develop any. The GameCube has multiple expansion ports to add features, but Nintendo never really took advantage of it to add features players wanted, like networked gaming or a hard drive. All we got were bongos and a gameboy emulator.
Not only were the rats sleepy, but their code was buggy as hell.
I said USUALLY. The exception is when the new generation of cards come out, and you compair a high end new card to a mid end old card. In a month or two, there will be a 7600 or something that is a lot closer to 15%, and another 2 months down the line, a 7700GT or whatever it is to be named will offer awsome performance for $250. Anyway, my point was that while processors go like this:
Cost Performance
$100 100
$200 110
$300 120
$500 130
$1000 135
Graphics Cards tend to be like this:
Cost Performance
$50 4
$100 20
$150 100
$250 200
$350 250
$500 300
With a definite sweet spot in the middle, not the bottom, like CPUs.
Well then I guess processors can't be named at all. We might as well just label them all "Processor", and charge random prices for them, like for airline tickets.
Thats the problem with naming processors based on their "performance". Intel and AMD don't acutally do this, because if an $200 A64 3000+ became say, a 500, then a $600 A57 would become a 515 or something. Same is true of intel, the 600s and 500s perform the same, and the 300 celerons aren't actually that far behind. The 700 Pentium Ms perform SLOWER than the 500s & 600s. I think we should go back to having processors named "Pentium 4, 3.6 GHz, 2MB L2 cache, x64", or at least a condensed version: "Pentium 4362064". A celeron 3.0 512k 32bit would be "C300532". It makes some sense at least.
You might be suprised there. I have seem similar tests on graphics cards, and the result is not the same. Basically, the lowest end cards (sub $100) are renamed 3 generation old crap (GeForce MX4000 is a geForce2). There is a sweet spot somewhere around $150 or so. Above that, the cards performance increase decreases quite fast, and you are usually within 15% of the performance of a $500 at around $250, which you could say is the sweet spot for gamers.
Centipedes per milliAunt
2008? By then, we will have 1.8 GHz powerbooks! The world we live in today!
Why not? Who would say no to getting a couple baby Mini-ITX PCs a couple months down the line?
My Pentium D has 2MB L2 cache, 1MB per processor, how much does the Xeon have. It better have like 512 MB for the amount of power it sucks, and if it has that much, how come its performance sucks so much?
I didn't read the article. Is this ONE Xeon using 400W? That would be rediculous. How can they do that? I have a dual core Pentium 4 820, which UNDER LOAD uses about 130W. The Xeon has a few extra features, but is really not that different. How is it so much less efficient?
Isn't the 400W while idling for TWO Xeons (4 cores) and the rest of the system? That works out to 100W per core, which isn't bad for a modern CPU under load.
True. The point I was trying to make is that there are now a handful of devices that completely replace the PDA for functionality. A cell phone or PDA can keep track of contacts and your schedule, while 3lb laptops, which were pretty much non-existant in 1998 (except for one or two, the Libretto and Sony Picture Book, both of which were wimpy and insanely priced) now serve great for taking notes and many of the other more intense tasks that PDAs once handled.
The Treo is a bit of an exception, although I think you will find that your battery doesn't last that long if you play an MP3 with the backlight on. The problem with most PDAs is that they run on 300-600 MHz processors with 128-256 MB of RAM (not flash) with QVGA or VGA screens. This is WAY overkill for what a PDA was meant for. It not only drives the price up, but kills the battery. I have a Palm Vx that is my sole PDA. It has a 20 Mhz Processor, 8MB of RAM, of which I am using 500k to keep track of todo lists, contacts, my schedule, and a little tetris. ;) It will run for about 2-3 weeks between charges, which I figure works out to about 8 hours of continuous use. It is made out of absolutely indescructable aircraft grade aluminum (probably 6061-T6). If companies were putting out PDAs with equivilant specs to the Palm V, but at today's prices (what could it cost to mass produce the Palm V today?) I think the PDA might come back.
Clue #1 Cellphones have become PDAs (3 day battery life) Clue #2 iPods have become PDAs (18 hour battery life) Clue #3 Laptops have become PDAs (my 3lb Centrino) (4 hour battery life) Clue #4 PDAs have become desktop computers (2-3 hour battery life)
Imagine a beowolf cluster.
If you install Linux on a 3G or 4G iPod, you can record in 44.1 or ever 48 kHz WAV direct from a microphone plugged into the headphone jack. That might indicate that the pins are hooked up. ;) They haven't gotten the MP3 incoding working yet.
I would imagine the higher resolution the video, the more work the video processor does, and the shorter the battery life. Given that it is already 2 hours (30GB) or 3 hours (60 GB), I dont think many people would want to go shorter. Plus, just because the hardware supports it doesn't mean apple enables it. For instance, every iPod ever made (except shuffle) has a chip in it capible of recording 44.1kHz stereo mp3 audio. However, until now, Apple has only unlocked very low quality monoral 22.1 kHz WAV recording, and not even that on the iPod mini, plus it only works if you have extra hardware. With ipod linux you can get the full shabang by just plugging a microphone into the headphone slot, but with a crappy interface and battery life.
But the human body, or any other living thing, is orders of magnitude better at processing chemical energy than a car.
I think so. I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure that a human on a bike is still more efficient. For instance, you can go on a 25 mile bikeride and use much less chemical energy than is in a gallon of gas (a lot more than is in the equivalent sized serving of pasta). You have to figure that the majority of people in cars are carrying less than 4 people. A bus makes much more polution than a car, but is cleaner because it caries 30 people. If everyone drove around with no less than 4 people at all times, we wouldn't be in the environmental tight spot we are today. Also, you can figure that a bicycle is about 90% efficient in delivering power from the pedals to the road (losses due to friction in axle, chain, tires, ect... A car can never be, by the nature of internal combustion engines, more than about 35% efficient. This is why electric cars could be a better mode of transportation. Powerplants generate electricity at much better than 35% efficiency, so if high efficiency electric motors and batteries developed, cars could potentially be a lot cleaner than now.
No it isn't. Dual core means two processors on chip. Hyperthreading is an interesting but not incredibly useful technology intel uses that makes one processor look like two slower processors, for instance, 1 3.0GHz processor turns into 2 1.5 GHz processors. I won't go over how it works. In fact, the new Xeons support both, so when you boot, it looks like you have four processors, two actual ones each pertending to be two more.
Since about August 30th. (Pedals away on solar powered scooter)
The initiative will be ignored by every manufacturer and even consumer, as each will want their own pocket distrobution, and pocket linux will be back where it was, nowhere.
Sometimes fame outweighs charisma. If Linus hadn't invented linux, do you honestly think he would be a spokesperson for Transmetia?