The point was simply that they may not be able to add more cache if they keep adding cores. As well, they are limited by the overall size of the die in how much cache they can implement. There was no talk about "GHz."
There sure as hell is a limiting factor to cache. Cache is not "free" in thermal load, power load nor die space. The cache uses significantly LESS power and produces less heat than an active core, but it takes up a LOT more space on the die. CPUs have a limit, based on their package, to how big the die can be.
Why don't you? They make matte/flat screens. Buy the one you like. If your vendor doesn't give you that choice....ditch the vendor and don't blame the product.
I would have a problem if all my choices were matte. I find them dull and fuzzy to look at, and I say this from my work monitor, that others ooh and ahh over (because it is 25") while I would rather have a 22" glossy screen.
IBM can't find their ass with both hands, a map and a Sherpa. Their X series is a frackin' nightmare and when you try to do things with Linux, it goes to hell fast. My group runs RHEL on their servers, and besides the firmware being junk (uEFI, blargh and slow as frozen shit), their support is abysmal. Try getting internal cables for hardware or recognizing that the machines that are capable of running 12 drives can't actually run 12 drives at full speed, or redundant PSUs that cause a machine to run at 1/2 speed when one fails, RAM that runs at the wrong speed, and all sorts of other nightmares such as having weird firmware settings that need to be applied in order to get it to even boot
Intel wanted to change the field with the Itanium. They instead only gave it a mowing. The plan was to have smaller scale versions of the Itanium flow down into the small server/PC space, but the chip was late and software was not up to snuff. Their compatibility mode, which would have been slow when it was planned was abysmal when it launched. The reason they were able to move quickly to a different architecture was because AMD was not on board with Itanium. They copied the AMD64 technology almost completely. Intel, if not for the depth of their engineering efforts (recapturing the x86 performance lead due to their "skunkworks" in Israel reusing/modifying the P6 core to create the Pentium M/Centrino package, which is still being used as a major part of their Core/Core2 offerings. I am not sure about their Nehelem/Lynnfield etc.
Yup. I'm investing in a company that is using virus delivery methods (Non replicating) to deliver a tumor necrosis protein in cases of pancreatic cancer. It's somewhat self serving, in that I'd make money if they do, but I'm also on a medication now that has a chance of giving me an inflamed pancreas and elevated risk of cancer.
If you have a microcenter near you, that may not even cost you as much. I paid $199 for an i7 860 there on one of their weekly special deals. Now, it is $229.
No, but it is a fully acceptable and more reasonable word than inexpensive. It is, in fact, my preferred variant of what RAID stands for, as the expense of disks is relative and the industry thinks that RAID on SAN disks is fine. Since many of those are thousands of dollars per drive, I would expect that using inexpensive would be a deprecated variant of RAID.
By all means, deploy your GUI tools on 3000 servers and have them all automate. Many people can type faster than they can click this, and this and this, as well as check for logical conditions that the GUI may not have considered.
You MUST be dense. Novell has SUSE Linux, which is the preferred Linux to run on Z series. The consulting services alone for such a venture would be pretty expensive, but worth every penny. SLERT is used by some of the best brokerage houses on wall street and other places as well. They own Ximian, they also have their extensive IDM suite as well as lots of other group and middleware products. The problem with Novell is that they don't market well enough. Given the chance to replace Red Hat with SUSE I would jump at the chance.
My point was that given that say Ubuntu owns 20% of the market share, and FlavorX (made up) Linux owns 11%, and is highly recommended due to having good features, support and consistency, there is no reason to try FlavorX in your world. Everybody should use Ubuntu, in that scenario, and FlavorX goes into obscurity and then choice is eliminated.
However, in mine, nobody says you have to try Ubuntu or FlavorX. If FlavorY (also made up) has say 6% market share, as well as good features, what you want, consistency, etc, then try that if you like, or use FlavorX, or Ubuntu, or AmigaOS, or whatever suits your needs from descriptions, features, forum or screen shots.
I also debate your assumption that somebody who tries several distros is not a "new user." If they cannot do what it is they want, and are still asking loads of questions, they are not a seasoned veteran, by any stretch. And, by that measure, you can determine if you like or do not like a distro. When you have "Why won't it do XYZ with my monitor?" or "How come I can't use my 7th mouse button?" You start to negatively view that as either "This distro sucks" or "Linux sucks, I can't do $FOO but I can on $FOOBAR."
Essentially, the TLDR version is, why force them on the "most popular" when a slightly less popular, at the moment, may be better suited for them. They did not go to distrowatch and start down the list, they came here.
Ad hominem attacks that are false and misguided might, but Roy and I have some history in this regard and I am entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours........Roy.
Are you the average user? I have the bandwidth and like to have the DVD around. My point was simply, most users think of two options: DVD or LiveCD. I have not had good experiences with anybody's liveCD installer, and prefer to have more package choices.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was simply that they may not be able to add more cache if they keep adding cores. As well, they are limited by the overall size of the die in how much cache they can implement. There was no talk about "GHz."
I can send you my reg file that changes the colors/fonts to make it look damn nice :).
How...mature and well thought out. I'm sure you're just the smartest little bee you can be. Hop on along, though. Adults are talking.
I like my glossy screen for the following:
Watching movies
Websites
putty/ssh administration (my matte screen at work makes putty look abysmal)
writing perl code
gaming
etc.
If you think text looks better on a matte screen you have not gotten yourself a good glossy screen and your contrast colors are off.
There sure as hell is a limiting factor to cache. Cache is not "free" in thermal load, power load nor die space. The cache uses significantly LESS power and produces less heat than an active core, but it takes up a LOT more space on the die. CPUs have a limit, based on their package, to how big the die can be.
Why don't you? They make matte/flat screens. Buy the one you like. If your vendor doesn't give you that choice....ditch the vendor and don't blame the product. I would have a problem if all my choices were matte. I find them dull and fuzzy to look at, and I say this from my work monitor, that others ooh and ahh over (because it is 25") while I would rather have a 22" glossy screen.
-clarifying Flat = matte as in "not shiny".
I like them a LOT more than flat screens. I think they are easier to read and more vibrant.
Interesting. I stand corrected.
The Geneva Convention discusses the treatment of prisoners in armed combat between uniformed foes. You must be thinking of the Hague Accords.
uEFI is universally slow as fuck....
Even the Greek army? I think not.
IBM can't find their ass with both hands, a map and a Sherpa. Their X series is a frackin' nightmare and when you try to do things with Linux, it goes to hell fast. My group runs RHEL on their servers, and besides the firmware being junk (uEFI, blargh and slow as frozen shit), their support is abysmal. Try getting internal cables for hardware or recognizing that the machines that are capable of running 12 drives can't actually run 12 drives at full speed, or redundant PSUs that cause a machine to run at 1/2 speed when one fails, RAM that runs at the wrong speed, and all sorts of other nightmares such as having weird firmware settings that need to be applied in order to get it to even boot
Intel wanted to change the field with the Itanium. They instead only gave it a mowing. The plan was to have smaller scale versions of the Itanium flow down into the small server/PC space, but the chip was late and software was not up to snuff. Their compatibility mode, which would have been slow when it was planned was abysmal when it launched. The reason they were able to move quickly to a different architecture was because AMD was not on board with Itanium. They copied the AMD64 technology almost completely. Intel, if not for the depth of their engineering efforts (recapturing the x86 performance lead due to their "skunkworks" in Israel reusing/modifying the P6 core to create the Pentium M/Centrino package, which is still being used as a major part of their Core/Core2 offerings. I am not sure about their Nehelem/Lynnfield etc.
What do you have against blag people? Blag people, blag people, taste blag, walk like people.
Yup. I'm investing in a company that is using virus delivery methods (Non replicating) to deliver a tumor necrosis protein in cases of pancreatic cancer. It's somewhat self serving, in that I'd make money if they do, but I'm also on a medication now that has a chance of giving me an inflamed pancreas and elevated risk of cancer.
If you have a microcenter near you, that may not even cost you as much. I paid $199 for an i7 860 there on one of their weekly special deals. Now, it is $229.
No, but it is a fully acceptable and more reasonable word than inexpensive. It is, in fact, my preferred variant of what RAID stands for, as the expense of disks is relative and the industry thinks that RAID on SAN disks is fine. Since many of those are thousands of dollars per drive, I would expect that using inexpensive would be a deprecated variant of RAID.
or Independent, according to another fully acceptable version of the acronym.
By all means, deploy your GUI tools on 3000 servers and have them all automate. Many people can type faster than they can click this, and this and this, as well as check for logical conditions that the GUI may not have considered.
WTF is with people's reading comprehension? When did Nortel become Novell?
You MUST be dense. Novell has SUSE Linux, which is the preferred Linux to run on Z series. The consulting services alone for such a venture would be pretty expensive, but worth every penny. SLERT is used by some of the best brokerage houses on wall street and other places as well. They own Ximian, they also have their extensive IDM suite as well as lots of other group and middleware products. The problem with Novell is that they don't market well enough. Given the chance to replace Red Hat with SUSE I would jump at the chance.
My point was that given that say Ubuntu owns 20% of the market share, and FlavorX (made up) Linux owns 11%, and is highly recommended due to having good features, support and consistency, there is no reason to try FlavorX in your world. Everybody should use Ubuntu, in that scenario, and FlavorX goes into obscurity and then choice is eliminated.
However, in mine, nobody says you have to try Ubuntu or FlavorX. If FlavorY (also made up) has say 6% market share, as well as good features, what you want, consistency, etc, then try that if you like, or use FlavorX, or Ubuntu, or AmigaOS, or whatever suits your needs from descriptions, features, forum or screen shots.
I also debate your assumption that somebody who tries several distros is not a "new user." If they cannot do what it is they want, and are still asking loads of questions, they are not a seasoned veteran, by any stretch. And, by that measure, you can determine if you like or do not like a distro. When you have "Why won't it do XYZ with my monitor?" or "How come I can't use my 7th mouse button?" You start to negatively view that as either "This distro sucks" or "Linux sucks, I can't do $FOO but I can on $FOOBAR."
Essentially, the TLDR version is, why force them on the "most popular" when a slightly less popular, at the moment, may be better suited for them. They did not go to distrowatch and start down the list, they came here.
Ad hominem attacks that are false and misguided might, but Roy and I have some history in this regard and I am entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours........Roy.
Are you the average user? I have the bandwidth and like to have the DVD around. My point was simply, most users think of two options: DVD or LiveCD. I have not had good experiences with anybody's liveCD installer, and prefer to have more package choices.