The Celeron D is actually a pretty decent chip, in that it even comes close to AMD's offerings. Previously, the Athlon XPs (which are fundamentally the same as Semprons with a different name) were actually faster for the same rated speed (eg, the 2500+ was 1.83GHz, now it's 1.67 iirc) and cost less, and Intel's previous generation of Celerons were so mind numbingly bad that the 2.8GHz model was routinely - and by this I mean in every single benchmark, by a margin - outperformed by the Athlon XP 1700+ and the 1.6GHz Duron. While being in parity in price with an XP 2800+. I shit you not. Read the review linked in the reply a few comments above mine.
Just to clarify why the hell I brought Windows XP into this: There's one group of people who demand that KDE/GNOME be up to par and compete with WXP/OSX. This is the group that KDE/GNOME currently seem to be catering to. Then there's another group of people who get disappointed when it no longer runs very fast on older hardware. There can't be any one desktop that fits everyone's needs, which is why there isn't.
What sort of a computer are you trying to use it on? I tried Knoppix with KDE 3.1, and it ran satisfactorally on a 300-something MHz Celeron with 192MB RAM. This was while it was running of the CD and using a good portion of the memory (64 or 128MB, dunno) as a RAM drive.
If you're trying to run it on something significantly older than that, like a pentium 1 or god forbid a 486, then I'd say stop trying, because it's not *meant* to run on it. Windows XP doesn't run very admirably on machines with less than 128MB memory either, and even that is stretching it a bit (I'd say 256MB is the minimum for it to be usable myself).
One of the advantages of there being multiple desktops in *nix land is that KDE/GNOME aren't constrained by having to run on dog slow hardware. Those people can continue using something like fvwm, as you yourself have done, while KDE/GNOME can spend their time innovating (or copying, whatever the case may be) rather than optimizing. (Not saying people should *stop* optimizing, but it shouldn't always have to be the #1 goal, or otherwise you end up with a lot of bad software that runs really fast.)
This licensing stuff confuses the hell out of me as well, but as far as I know, it only pertains to redistribution. You're free to do whatever you like as long as it's for your own personal use.
They are theoretically compatible, but it depends on whether the motherboard in question supports them. The Asus K8N-E Deluxe looks like it does a good job of that, though information is scarce as it's pretty new. As for heatsinks, they aren't inherently compatible, but the Thermalright SLK-948U is one that is.
And a true mobile will work just as well as a DTR, and have even better thermals (in the case of the 35W mobile 2700+/2800+, magnitudes better).
We already *have* 64-bit laptops, plenty of them. There's already ones with Mobile 2800+ up through 3200+, and DTR (DeskTop Replacement) 2800+ through 3400+. And the only difference between the Mobile and DTR is that the former is 62W, while the latter is 80-something... not an insigificant difference, to be sure, but the only difference it'll actually make is that your desktop replacement notebook will have slightly less horrible battery life and be a bit less scalding. Not anything you could actually call mobile ("portable" is the correct term). (For reference, Intel's fastest Pentium M (Centrino) processor is 21W, and there's ultra-low voltage versions under 10W which are used in ultra-mobile thingies. AMD also has a "line" of 35W Mobile A64s (2700-2800+) which could also be used in something other than a desktop masquerading as a notebook.)
This is news? This isn't some sort of new processor design, or a new socket, it's not even a new speed grade, it's just two minor additions into a (relatively) less significant product line. Name a processor launch in the past few months, *any* processor launch, and chances are it's more significant than this one. Not that any of those would (should) be news, either...
...just want to point out that it's just a Google text ad in the toolbar. Completely unintrusive, and after two days unnoticeable unless you happen to be bored and want to look at what it's saying (which ranks up there with reloading/. on ways to waste time effortlessly).
Seeing as the only difference between Windows and Linux that MS cannot erase (assuming they want to make money) is the fact that Linux is free and Windows is not, every other difference they erase brings it one step closer to that being the *only* difference, at which point predictable things happen (this is also why I think Mono isn't a bad idea). In this case, it'll likely cause more people to develop for *nix, knowing that it will still be compatible with Windows (as long as they release the source or provide a binary), which means more applications available for Linux, which means more Linux users, which means less people caring about Windows compatibility, and so on. Vicious cycle, it is.
Frown. I missed the "lower is better" part on the first rendering benchmark (despite double checking everything multiple times); this is the fourth (or maybe fifth?) comment pointing it out. D'oh. Guess I deserve it:/
Concur, on all points. This is, however, the only half-useful 32 vs. 64-bit review I've seen to date, which is why I submitted it. All the rest just use 64-bit Windows and 32-bit applications and do a weak attempt at acting surprised when there isn't any benefit.
The point of it is to see how much performance improvement is to be seen moving from 32-bit to 64-bit with x86-64 optimizations (more registers, and the like). I can count the number of reviews on the subject on one hand, and don't need any hands for the number of them with any relevance whatsoever - they all used 32 bit binaries on 64 bit Windows. Which is why people have been asking for Linux benchmarks since, err, a long time ago.
The fact that you get to compare Linux and Windows while doing it is more of an afterthought (I only worded the submission the way I did because a more descriptive one wouldn't fit the character limit).
And judging from the amount of replies to the parent, there's a lot of you, here's an interesting bit from the end of the article:
Eventually, we anticipate adding more operating systems to our mini-breakdown, perhaps including BSD distributions and Mandrake, Gentoo and maybe even an AT-optimized mini-distro.
Not considering possible discrepancies with SMP performance, the relative performance with Athlon 64s and Opterons should be exactly the same, as the architectural differences are minor - the Opteron has more cache and uses registered ECC memory. There's also a variant of Athlon 64s which only have single channel memory (socket 754), but again, all of these are for the most part minor 1-2% performance differences and shouldn't affect the big picture.
As for SuSE vs. Fedora, do note that they didn't actually recompile anything, which could change the picture significantly.
I would suggest that you have not read the article yourself, and have merely skipped to the conclusion (which is rather an odd one, seeing as it does not quite reflect the benchmarks - they actually split both the gaming and rendering).
Take a look at, for example, this benchmark, where Windows outright beats Fedora at both 32- and 64-bit, and only loses to 64-bit SuSE slightly because it doesn't have a 64-bit binary itself, and this one, where Windows just plain wins.
I did mess up on the "Windows wins at rendering" part, though, sorry for that - they split it actually. I didn't notice the "lower is better" part on the Mental Ray bench and just went with the one that had longer bars. Oops.
They weren't intended to be "game engines" for home
This happens to be what I meant by "mainstream desktop", dunno how to phrase it correctly though. There's also a rather significant overlap between 'workstation' and 'office desktop' (they might even be synonymous, but I'm not sure), the former of which I mentioned in my previous post.
Is that previous versions of NT were not meant to be mainstream desktop products. They were intended for workstation and server markets. If you'll recall, for example, WIndows ME was released at the same time as 2000, and targetted the mainstream desktop, unlike the latter.
They are two seperate product lines. If you'll compare XP to the previous iterations of the desktop line - 95, 98, ME - then you'll see that it is indeed a "a pretty giant leap forward in desktop computing".
just a "new look" shell that makes it harder to navigate around your own file system (let's hide C:\ from the user, that's scary stuff, we don't want to confuse him)
You'd be surprised how stupid most people are. Have you been following any of the recent virus and spyware debacles at all? The current arrangement is actually fairly close to ideal. The people intelligent/capable/informed/(insert appropriate term) enough to know what a file system is will also be aware of the existance of windows 2000 as well as various ways to make XP less idiot-friendly. This arrangement does not work the other way around.
I don't think I'm quite qualified to answer this question (for one thing I have no idea what South Africa did), but iirc the UN investigators were in there and investigating when the US decided to start spreading FUD about Saddam blocking the investigations, and with enough lobbying managed to get some UN resolutions passed. Unsure, but I think the investigators were still in there when the US invaded.
You assume that terrorists are capable of thinking rationally. This is a group of people who decided to fly an airplane into a building for no greater or more rational reason than 'we hate them'. I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
The Celeron D is actually a pretty decent chip, in that it even comes close to AMD's offerings. Previously, the Athlon XPs (which are fundamentally the same as Semprons with a different name) were actually faster for the same rated speed (eg, the 2500+ was 1.83GHz, now it's 1.67 iirc) and cost less, and Intel's previous generation of Celerons were so mind numbingly bad that the 2.8GHz model was routinely - and by this I mean in every single benchmark, by a margin - outperformed by the Athlon XP 1700+ and the 1.6GHz Duron. While being in parity in price with an XP 2800+. I shit you not. Read the review linked in the reply a few comments above mine.
Just to clarify why the hell I brought Windows XP into this: There's one group of people who demand that KDE/GNOME be up to par and compete with WXP/OSX. This is the group that KDE/GNOME currently seem to be catering to. Then there's another group of people who get disappointed when it no longer runs very fast on older hardware. There can't be any one desktop that fits everyone's needs, which is why there isn't.
What sort of a computer are you trying to use it on? I tried Knoppix with KDE 3.1, and it ran satisfactorally on a 300-something MHz Celeron with 192MB RAM. This was while it was running of the CD and using a good portion of the memory (64 or 128MB, dunno) as a RAM drive.
If you're trying to run it on something significantly older than that, like a pentium 1 or god forbid a 486, then I'd say stop trying, because it's not *meant* to run on it. Windows XP doesn't run very admirably on machines with less than 128MB memory either, and even that is stretching it a bit (I'd say 256MB is the minimum for it to be usable myself).
One of the advantages of there being multiple desktops in *nix land is that KDE/GNOME aren't constrained by having to run on dog slow hardware. Those people can continue using something like fvwm, as you yourself have done, while KDE/GNOME can spend their time innovating (or copying, whatever the case may be) rather than optimizing. (Not saying people should *stop* optimizing, but it shouldn't always have to be the #1 goal, or otherwise you end up with a lot of bad software that runs really fast.)
This licensing stuff confuses the hell out of me as well, but as far as I know, it only pertains to redistribution. You're free to do whatever you like as long as it's for your own personal use.
They are theoretically compatible, but it depends on whether the motherboard in question supports them. The Asus K8N-E Deluxe looks like it does a good job of that, though information is scarce as it's pretty new. As for heatsinks, they aren't inherently compatible, but the Thermalright SLK-948U is one that is.
And a true mobile will work just as well as a DTR, and have even better thermals (in the case of the 35W mobile 2700+/2800+, magnitudes better).
We already *have* 64-bit laptops, plenty of them. There's already ones with Mobile 2800+ up through 3200+, and DTR (DeskTop Replacement) 2800+ through 3400+. And the only difference between the Mobile and DTR is that the former is 62W, while the latter is 80-something... not an insigificant difference, to be sure, but the only difference it'll actually make is that your desktop replacement notebook will have slightly less horrible battery life and be a bit less scalding. Not anything you could actually call mobile ("portable" is the correct term). (For reference, Intel's fastest Pentium M (Centrino) processor is 21W, and there's ultra-low voltage versions under 10W which are used in ultra-mobile thingies. AMD also has a "line" of 35W Mobile A64s (2700-2800+) which could also be used in something other than a desktop masquerading as a notebook.)
This is news? This isn't some sort of new processor design, or a new socket, it's not even a new speed grade, it's just two minor additions into a (relatively) less significant product line. Name a processor launch in the past few months, *any* processor launch, and chances are it's more significant than this one. Not that any of those would (should) be news, either...
I agree entirely, I'm European myself. You wrote 100 euros in the your last post, is the thing.
They cost $300 in the US.
...just want to point out that it's just a Google text ad in the toolbar. Completely unintrusive, and after two days unnoticeable unless you happen to be bored and want to look at what it's saying (which ranks up there with reloading /. on ways to waste time effortlessly).
Seeing as the only difference between Windows and Linux that MS cannot erase (assuming they want to make money) is the fact that Linux is free and Windows is not, every other difference they erase brings it one step closer to that being the *only* difference, at which point predictable things happen (this is also why I think Mono isn't a bad idea). In this case, it'll likely cause more people to develop for *nix, knowing that it will still be compatible with Windows (as long as they release the source or provide a binary), which means more applications available for Linux, which means more Linux users, which means less people caring about Windows compatibility, and so on. Vicious cycle, it is.
Frown. I missed the "lower is better" part on the first rendering benchmark (despite double checking everything multiple times); this is the fourth (or maybe fifth?) comment pointing it out. D'oh. Guess I deserve it :/
Concur, on all points. This is, however, the only half-useful 32 vs. 64-bit review I've seen to date, which is why I submitted it. All the rest just use 64-bit Windows and 32-bit applications and do a weak attempt at acting surprised when there isn't any benefit.
The point of it is to see how much performance improvement is to be seen moving from 32-bit to 64-bit with x86-64 optimizations (more registers, and the like). I can count the number of reviews on the subject on one hand, and don't need any hands for the number of them with any relevance whatsoever - they all used 32 bit binaries on 64 bit Windows. Which is why people have been asking for Linux benchmarks since, err, a long time ago.
The fact that you get to compare Linux and Windows while doing it is more of an afterthought (I only worded the submission the way I did because a more descriptive one wouldn't fit the character limit).
Not considering possible discrepancies with SMP performance, the relative performance with Athlon 64s and Opterons should be exactly the same, as the architectural differences are minor - the Opteron has more cache and uses registered ECC memory. There's also a variant of Athlon 64s which only have single channel memory (socket 754), but again, all of these are for the most part minor 1-2% performance differences and shouldn't affect the big picture.
As for SuSE vs. Fedora, do note that they didn't actually recompile anything, which could change the picture significantly.
I would suggest that you have not read the article yourself, and have merely skipped to the conclusion (which is rather an odd one, seeing as it does not quite reflect the benchmarks - they actually split both the gaming and rendering).
Take a look at, for example, this benchmark, where Windows outright beats Fedora at both 32- and 64-bit, and only loses to 64-bit SuSE slightly because it doesn't have a 64-bit binary itself, and this one, where Windows just plain wins.
I did mess up on the "Windows wins at rendering" part, though, sorry for that - they split it actually. I didn't notice the "lower is better" part on the Mental Ray bench and just went with the one that had longer bars. Oops.
America was such a great nation, for so long. How does it deserve to have the likes of the Bush Administration and the RIAA inflicted upon it?
It was probably meant to be 5900, which does exist, and is semi-popular. The rest of the hardware he cited exists, as well.
They are two seperate product lines. If you'll compare XP to the previous iterations of the desktop line - 95, 98, ME - then you'll see that it is indeed a "a pretty giant leap forward in desktop computing".
You'd be surprised how stupid most people are. Have you been following any of the recent virus and spyware debacles at all? The current arrangement is actually fairly close to ideal. The people intelligent/capable/informed/(insert appropriate term) enough to know what a file system is will also be aware of the existance of windows 2000 as well as various ways to make XP less idiot-friendly. This arrangement does not work the other way around.
I don't think I'm quite qualified to answer this question (for one thing I have no idea what South Africa did), but iirc the UN investigators were in there and investigating when the US decided to start spreading FUD about Saddam blocking the investigations, and with enough lobbying managed to get some UN resolutions passed. Unsure, but I think the investigators were still in there when the US invaded.
You assume that terrorists are capable of thinking rationally. This is a group of people who decided to fly an airplane into a building for no greater or more rational reason than 'we hate them'. I think not.