but Q4 and HL2 are already choppy when I run them on the 213T with all rendering features cranked up. A 30" display would be like watching King Kong at 12 FPS from the front row.
A quick google shows that both Q4 and HL2 support widescreen 16:10 resolutions. What would be so bad about playing them at 960x600 (exactly half the resolution, no ugly scaling) on the 30" 1920x1200 LCD? Also, on your 1600x1200 213T, wouldn't it be better to run those games at 800x600 (again, a "clean" scale) with AA and/or AF?
55'' minimum - This is a plasma tv replacement, not a replacement for the LCD sitting on your desk.
That reminds me an interesting part of Extremetech's review of Dell's new 30" LCD:
Having the ability to open lots of windows and being able to see most of them was a real productivity enhancer. On the other hand, we did occasionally suffer from the "tennis game spectator" effect--you have to move your head sometimes to take in the entirety of the display.
I haven't used a 30" LCD, but apparently 30" is starting to get "too big" for some desktop use. Heck, I view my 27" 4:3 television from pretty far away. LCDs at 30" and above seem more appropriate for television and presentations.
My experiences with Internet on mobiles so far has been that it's slow, expensive and awkward to use... Anyone, why would I want this?
One application that seems useful (to me) is Google Local for mobile. If you've never used Google Local, it's an integration of Google Maps (with directions) and business directory. Another non-Google application is stats/rosters while watching a sporting event, since many venues now have free wi-fi.
Besides those two, I can't think of more uses (and I'd rather do them on an unfashionable PDA). I don't see many people "spending all their time on it."
Has anyone done any research on the plot overlaps between the two shows?
Here's two for your list that I think Family Guy did before The Simpsons:
Peter/Homer performs the Grim Reaper's duties
Lois/Marge become good fighter/get pumped up and become sexually aggressive with Peter/Homer
Peter: (quivering voice) She was the man, Brian. She was the man.
Homer: Ow, ow, ow...
Some quick Wikipedia research shows that The Simpsons has aired at least 366 episodes. They have done nearly every plot you can imagine for an animated show about a middle-class family with two and a half kids, so there will be overlaps.
How well has Intel improved the performance of its integrated graphics chipset? I'd like to see what I can look forward to if Apple decides to go with Intel and not ATI or nVidia.
Intel's newer integrated graphics (GMA 950) performs a little faster, but is not much different architecturally. Since the chipset shares system and graphics memory, the use of dual-channel DDR2 667 should improve performance a bit due to the increase in graphics memory bandwidth.
While I understand these aren't meant to be gaming "powerhouses", I'd still like to do some light gaming on it. (FWIW, I've play World of Warcraft, at around 20fps, on my old iBook G4 800 and my desktop P3 750 (ti4200), which was acceptable. I'd like to see at least this level of performance).
Anandtech has a small gaming performance review of the desktop version of GMA 950. The benchmarks were run with high quality settings at 800x600. The games (and fps) were Doom 3 (14 fps), Far Cry (10.2), Half-life 2 (20.2), Unreal Tournament 2004 (26.5), and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (30.5).
Intel also has a "Game Compatability List" for GMA 950 which "green lights" World of Warcraft as "No known issues with default settings, or all issues resolved." However, this was the same rating given to Far Cry, which only ran at 10.2 fps (high quality 800x600) in Anandtech's review. Also, Half-life 2 is "yellow lighted" as "Game operates with minor issues or workarounds" because of low frame rates, but Anandtech's review had it running at 20.2 fps.
MS lets you have your music on 2 computers ever, including the same computer uprgraded...
MS's system on the other hand is guaranteed to affect every user who upgrades, and to effect them in such a way that they lose all their music completely.
Up to 5 computers can share one MSN Music account. Authorizing a computer allows it to play music that you have purchased from MSN Music...
De-authorization is your way to manage whether your music will be playable on a computer. You are able to authorize up to five computers at once to play your music collection. De-authorization takes that privilege away from the computer. You should de-authorize a computer when you are replacing it or when you no longer want to purchase or play your music on it...
You can re-authorize and de-authorize the computer as many times as you choose.
So who's talking bollocks? Apparently, there is a difference between "restoring licenses" and "sharing an MSN Music account." Or maybe that "knowledge center article" for Windows Media Player (not a music store) is old and outdated.
Practically anything worth doing on a Powerbook requires capabilities that are not provided by Rosetta, which only handles the G3 instruction set.
Not anymore, regarding Rosetta. According to an OSx86 Project article and an Apple Insider article, Rosetta now has full G4 support (including Altivec). From the first article:
First, the Rosetta emulation platform in 10.4.3 build 8F1111A has been upgraded to feature full G4 support, including Altivec. This not only adds a new layer of compatibility to Rosetta, but also improved speed for Altivec-equipped applications.
I don't know if Rosetta and a dual-core Yonah will run G4-optimized software fast enough, but it will run.
Am I the only one who thinks that apple will just release a non-yonah based ibook.?
No, me too. I think we are the only two.
I mean they want to have differentiation between the consumer and pro models. Why not release the ibook with "similar" specs to the current powerbooks with celeron or lowend pentium m processors? This will prevent major cannabalization of the current powerbook lines and allow them to release the yonah based powerbooks as the pro model they really are.
There will be a single single-core version of Yonah at launch and this might be a good candidate for the iBook (with PowerBooks being dual-core). However, at $209, the single-core Yonah seems a bit expensive for a "low end" notebook. In a few months, Intel will likely release Celeron M CPUs based on the Yonah core (single core), but with a lower FSB (533MHz vs 667Mhz) and less L2 cache (1MB vs 2MB). These would be way too late for a MacWorld announcement.
I think there's a very good chance that the current Dothan-based Celeron M will be used in the new iBooks (and maybe Mac minis) that are expected at MacWorld. Based on the current Pentium M core (but with lower FSB and L2 cache), the Celeron M is cheap, fast, and runs cool.
The current Celeron M does lack SSE3 support and many people think SSE3 will be required for the new Intel Macs. However, I think this assumption might be false and is based on the fact that the Dev Kit version of OS X for Intel requires SSE3 (the Dev Kit CPU has SSE3). Since the Dev Kit version was only intended to be used on one CPU, and SSE3 is off by default in XCode, I suspect that SSE2 will be enough for the official release of OS X on Intel.
If you scale a creature up, mass goes up as the cube of the linear size, but the cross section of the leg bones goes up only as the square of the linear size. There's no way an ape could grow to that size and still be shaped like an ape.
Galileo wrote about this more than three and a half centuries ago in Discorsi and sketched a nice illustration comparing femurs from different animals of different sizes. In his illustration, the longer femur was about 2.5 times longer but about 10 times wider. As S.J. Gould wrote in his "Size and Shape" essay in Ever Since Darwin:
He (Galileo) argued that the bone of a large animal must thicken disproportionately to provide the same relative strength as the slender bone of a small creature.
In that same essay, Gould also explained in his clear way the relationship between growing larger (length), surface area (length x length), and volume (length x length x length). In addition to bone strength, many other functions of animals that depend upon surfaces must serve the entire volume of the body. In a gorilla, digested food passes to the body through the surfaces of the small intestine. Oxygen is absorbed through the surfaces of the lungs.
So King Kong's leg bones would need to be much, much thicker. His chest cavity and intestine area would also need to much, much bigger to support his oxygen and digestion needs. That would be a very oddly-shaped ape. Don't let that ruin the movie, though.
When will Intel stop labelling its processors Pentium and come up with a new brand name?
Next month, starting with Yonah and likely following with Merom (64-bit notebooks) and Conroe (post-P4 desktops).
According to the article I linked to (and other articles), Intel will emphasize Yonah's platform (Centrino-like bundle of CPU/chipset/wireless) and refer to the CPU component as "Core Duo" and "Core Solo."
I also don't want to condone or defend P. Allen's actions regarding the $300 million referendum, but the deal seems reasonable to me (with my limited knowledge of the situation) when you include some details that the GP conveniently left out of his comment:
Although Quest Field and Exhibition Center was built primarily for P. Allen's Seahawks, the stadium is owned by the city of Seattle, not P. Allen.
The stadium/exhibition center's initial budget (minus overruns) was $430 million. P. Allen agreed to pay the remaining $130 million plus cost overruns if the $300 million referendum passed. That must be the most any pro sports owner has ever paid for a stadium that wasn't his.
p.s. I think Bruce Eckel is awesome -- "Thinking in Java" is rockin'
I think you forgot to mention that "Thinking in Java" is also a free download, no strings attached. The C++ version of this book, "Thinking in C++" (also a free download), helped me "get" OOP.
I really have to wonder when Intel will start using this technology in desktops.
Not in a big way until Conroe in the second half of 2006. I'm pretty sure "desktop" use of Yonah will be limited to a few small form factor desktops like Dothan is used today.
Yonah will still be 32-bit while Intel's entire "desktop" line of CPUs (including Celeron) have adopted EM64T. I don't think this is that important, but Conroe will add EM64T and other enhancements to the "Pentium M core."
65nm Pentium 4/D processors (Cedar Mill/Presler) are launching around the same time as Yonah (January) and are already shipping in volume to manufacturers. Another Anandtech article showed significant power savings from 65nm, which will make Pentium 4/D power consumption reasonable (but not quite as low as AMD 90nm). In addition, Pentium 4/D will also add virtualization technology (Vanderpool) which Yonah will lack.
Intell is should switch its R&D and support the Pentium M as a desktop chip
I don't think the Pentium M architecture is lacking in R&D (see Conroe). Yonah is making some steps toward being a desktop chip by adding SSE3 and floating point enhancements, but Conroe will complete the transition by adding EM64T, virtualization technology, desktop chipsets, and more lenient power requirements.
Add roughly $100- for the Windows XP operating systems and $350- for Microsoft office, and you have a significant initial financial outlay.
I stopped reading right there. What a load of crap. It's roughly 50$ for Windows XP Home and 100$ for MS Office.
I know there's a difference between retail "CompUSA" prices and OEM prices, but I think his "estimates" ($100 for Windows XP, $350 for Office) might be fair, although he should have been more specific.
$100 is probably his estimate of the "average" cost (to the end user after markup) of Windows XP Home and Professional OEM preinstalled. His $350 estimate for Office is probably his "average" price of preinstalled Office Basic, Office Small Business, Office Standard, Office Professional, and Office Enterprise. He also might be factoring in volume site licenses bought by businesses.
First, he didn't specify which versions of Windows XP (Home or Professional). Since he seems to be targeting a business-oriented audience, I think we can assume many of them will be using Windows Professional, which we can buy for about $162 OEM. A computer manufacturer buys it for significantly less, but there's a markup by the time it reaches the buyer. A quick check of Dell's Small Business site will show you that Dell currently charges $119 more to upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro.
So if XP Home adds about $50 to the final price of a computer and XP Pro adds about $150, then his $100 estimate might be fair. For similar reasons, I think his $350 estimate for MS Office might be fair. OEM versions of Office Basic can be bought for about $160, Office Small Business for about $230, Office Professional for about $320, and Office Enterprise for about $450.
Don't forget, Darwin also had racist and communist agendas.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, I've read/heard such claims, probably from creationists with anti-evolution agendas. After all, Karl Marx was such an admirer that he offered to dedicate volume 2 of Das Kapital to Darwin. Carleton Coon's popular 1962 book The Origin of Races (I'm not making that title up) claimed five major human races evolved independently, with "black people" evolving last.
Ms. Barrymore's co-star Cameron Diaz seems to make every top ten list of stars that look "worse" in high definition, due to her teenage acne scars. For all you shallow arseholes;-), here's an example of one such list:
Cameron Diaz
The actress has had a terrible acne problem since high school; her cheeks and forehead are littered with unfortunate pockmarks. Ms. Diaz seems like a different person in HDTV; she looks more like a Charlie than an Angel.
Michael Douglas
The actor was once considered a Hollywood sex
symbol. But now, in HDTV, he looks more like Kirk
Douglas than Michael Douglas. Being married to
Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't help, either. He appears
even older when he's standing next to her. The Wall
Street star looks like eight miles of bad road.
Britney Spears
The pop tart is still in her early 20s, but she looks about
10 years older in high-def. Her face is puffy and she's
starting to show wrinkle marks around her lips,
reportedly from a two pack-a-day cigarette habit.
Brad Pitt
Like Ms. Diaz, Pitt had a terrible skin problem in his
younger years. The impact is clear in high-def. He's
still a good-looking guy, but he doesn't look like one
of People Magazine's "Most Beautiful."
Jewel
The singer looks great in still photos and music videos,
but she looks terrible in high-def. And someone should
help her with make-up; it looks like it was done
by Ringling Bros.
Renee Zellweger
Ms. Zellweger is a cutie, but her cheeks look like
she's had a Rosacea problem; very visible in high-def.
William Devane
The veteran actor plays Secretary of State James Heller
in Fox's 24, but he looks like hell in high-def. Devane,
who once played John F. Kennedy in a docudrama
about the Cuban Missile Crisis, should duck and
cover the next time they ask him to star in a
HDTV program.
Bill Maher
The comedian/political commentator is scary in high-def. And I mean, scary. His skin is pasty and white, making him look like an Albino. Make that an Albino who doesn't get much sleep. It's a good thing that HBO
doesn't air his weekly talkfest in HDTV.
Jamie Lee-Curtis
Oh, my God. With her short-cropped graying hair
and crow's feet, she looks like a guy in high-def.
What happened to her? Christopher Guest, be my
guest. Buy your wife some Botox! And, a wig!
Joan Rivers
Someone should pull the rug over this red carpet
host! In HDTV, you can almost count the stitch marks from her various facial surgeries. Do you remember
that song, "Old Man River"? Well, how about,
"Old Woman Rivers"?
AFAIK the current Celeron does not support SSE2 and SSE3, which is a requirement
Thanks, I forgot about that. However, the current Dothan-based Celeron M does support SSE2 ("Streaming SIMD Extensions 2"). Also, according to the OSx86 Project site, SSE2 processors will work with a patch for Rosetta. Rosetta works best with SSE3, though.
I highly doubt that. The Yonah-cores are due january, and I doubt if Intel will ship it as Celeron first. It's more likely that they ship it as Pentium M with the Celeron M following a few months later: too late for the introduction of a Celeron-based iBook in january.
I think he means the currentCeleron M. I don't know why everybody is assuming Apple will use the upcoming 65nm Yonah core so soon.
A current Dothan-based Celeron M (Pentium M's core, 400MHz bus, 1MB L2 cache) should be a significant upgrade over the G4 processor in the iBook and Mac mini. It's also cool enough for the small form factors and cheap enough for this price range.
I'm not defending Intel's or AMD's crummy numbering system, but you got some important facts wrong.
This makes it impossible to compare processors across different brands. A Celeron-D 560 is not going to necessarily be as fast as a Pentium-D 320, but you'd never know by the numbers.
The different Intel brands are clearly grouped according to their suggested market. The entry-level Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the mainstream Pentium 4 brand (500's and 600's). The dual-core Pentium D brand has even higher model numbers (800's).
However, within the brands, the numbering system is confusing to non-techies. A Celeron D 326 is a 64-bit CPU while a Celeron D 350 is a 32-bit CPU.
AMD, on the other hand, uses a P-number which is directly comparable across processor lines and uses an established standard of a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird = P1000. Everything else is relative to that. So you know right off the bat that an Athlon64 3000+ is only marginally faster than a Sempron 2800+, you don't have to play games like with Intel.
The 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird standard was only used for that first generation of Athlon XP processors. Note:
The Athlon XP above is clearly faster than the Socket A Sempron with the same model number. To determine its model number, the Sempron uses a different suite of benchmarks that excludes games and high performance software because this isn't the Sempron's target market. More details at Anandtech's review of the initial Semprons.
Therefore, it's easier to compare Intel CPUs across brands because the budget Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the high end Pentium D brand (800's).
However, across AMD brands, a budget Thoroughbred-based AMD Sempron 2800+ is way slower and has far less features than a high end AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (Anandtech benchamarks here).
What you can't do is then turn around and say "because we don't have a good explanation, God did it."
There is nothing wrong with scientifically saying "your explanation is flawed," "that theory doesn't explain all phenomenon," or even "we don't know." But there is a problem, to quote Asimov, with saying that "Dragons must be pushing the moons."
Wish I could mod you up. 2500 years ago, Hippocrates (think Hippocratic Oath) promoted a quasi-scientific approach to medicine at a time when superstition and prayer were the dominant treatments. From the first chapter of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World:
In a typical passage Hippocrates wrote: "Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." Instead of acknowledging that in many areas we are ignorant, we have tended to say things like the Universe is permeated with the ineffable. A God of the Gaps is assigned responsibility for what we do not yet understand.
"God of the Gaps." I always liked that description.
Looks like the 6800GS kicks the X1600 where it hurts.
If 3D performance at 1280x1024 is what matters most, then the NVIDIA 6800GS looks like the obvious choice over the ATI X1600. Also, both models support Shader Model 3.0 (X800 doesn't).
However, some users might find more value in this new Avivo technology that ATI is hyping. The X1600's Avivo implementation seems to have (or will have when the drivers mature) two significant advantages over the 6800GS's PureVideo implementation: (1) hardware-assisted H.264 HD playback and (2) Avivo transcode, which was covered on Slashdot.
For users building a home theater PC with Blu-ray/HD-DVD drives, and willing to play 3D games at slightly lower resolution, the ATI X1600 just might be the better buy. Personally, I don't trust ATI's driver development (Windows and Linux), so I'd wait for NVIDIA's mid-range version of the 7000 series (7600?).
Things are different with multiprocessor setups:
Here each Opteron has its own memory interface, while the Xeons have to share one FSB.
Despite what the freakin' article says, Lindenhurst (Intel E7250 chipset) is not the latest Xeon DP chipset (the often-cited GamePC benchmarks also use this chipset). Intel's latest Xeon chipset, the E8500 (Twin Castle), features dual independent FSBs running at 667MHz each. It's available now (e.g. Dell PowerEdge 6850 and PowerEdge 6800). The dual buses will be increased to 800MHz each in January (E8501 chipset). These new Paxville Xeons were released ahead of schedule (rushed in response to dual-core Opteron), so I think that's why the dual 800MHz bus chipset is trailing Paxville (which is capable of 800MHz FSB) by two months.
So I think the freakin' article is wrong when it says:
HEXUS have an article coming that evaluates the latest Intel Xeon DP platform, codenamed Lindenhurst... Lindenhurst (at its most basic definition) is the combination of the new Paxville Xeon processor in DP (dual processor) form (there's a multi processor version hosted by Truland), along with Intel E7520 core logic.
Also note that the GamePC benchmarks use two 800MHz Paxville Xeons on the E7250 chipset (single 800MHz bus). The current E8500 chipset has dual independent buses, but they only run at 667MHz each. I'm sure the dual-bus system will outperform the single-bus system by a lot, even though the dual buses each run 16.7% slower than the single bus. I'm also pretty sure the dual Opterons will still whup the dual Xeons, but not by so much.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick google shows that both Q4 and HL2 support widescreen 16:10 resolutions. What would be so bad about playing them at 960x600 (exactly half the resolution, no ugly scaling) on the 30" 1920x1200 LCD? Also, on your 1600x1200 213T, wouldn't it be better to run those games at 800x600 (again, a "clean" scale) with AA and/or AF?
That reminds me an interesting part of Extremetech's review of Dell's new 30" LCD:
I haven't used a 30" LCD, but apparently 30" is starting to get "too big" for some desktop use. Heck, I view my 27" 4:3 television from pretty far away. LCDs at 30" and above seem more appropriate for television and presentations.- The Matrix
- Batman Begins
- The Bourne Supremacy
- Aeon Flux
- Jarhead
- U2: Rattle & Hum
There are many articles about HD DVD/Blu-ray titles on Google News.One application that seems useful (to me) is Google Local for mobile. If you've never used Google Local, it's an integration of Google Maps (with directions) and business directory. Another non-Google application is stats/rosters while watching a sporting event, since many venues now have free wi-fi.
Besides those two, I can't think of more uses (and I'd rather do them on an unfashionable PDA). I don't see many people "spending all their time on it."
Here's two for your list that I think Family Guy did before The Simpsons:
- Peter/Homer performs the Grim Reaper's duties
- Lois/Marge become good fighter/get pumped up and become sexually aggressive with Peter/Homer
Some quick Wikipedia research shows that The Simpsons has aired at least 366 episodes. They have done nearly every plot you can imagine for an animated show about a middle-class family with two and a half kids, so there will be overlaps.South Park covered this in an episode titled "Simpsons Already Did It."
In case you didn't know, Apple's Developer Transition Kit PC (which supposedly runs OS X quite well) uses Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (GMA 900).
Intel's newer integrated graphics (GMA 950) performs a little faster, but is not much different architecturally. Since the chipset shares system and graphics memory, the use of dual-channel DDR2 667 should improve performance a bit due to the increase in graphics memory bandwidth.
While I understand these aren't meant to be gaming "powerhouses", I'd still like to do some light gaming on it. (FWIW, I've play World of Warcraft, at around 20fps, on my old iBook G4 800 and my desktop P3 750 (ti4200), which was acceptable. I'd like to see at least this level of performance).
Anandtech has a small gaming performance review of the desktop version of GMA 950. The benchmarks were run with high quality settings at 800x600. The games (and fps) were Doom 3 (14 fps), Far Cry (10.2), Half-life 2 (20.2), Unreal Tournament 2004 (26.5), and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (30.5).
Intel also has a "Game Compatability List" for GMA 950 which "green lights" World of Warcraft as "No known issues with default settings, or all issues resolved." However, this was the same rating given to Far Cry, which only ran at 10.2 fps (high quality 800x600) in Anandtech's review. Also, Half-life 2 is "yellow lighted" as "Game operates with minor issues or workarounds" because of low frame rates, but Anandtech's review had it running at 20.2 fps.
MS's system on the other hand is guaranteed to affect every user who upgrades, and to effect them in such a way that they lose all their music completely.
Not according to this help page for MSN Music:
So who's talking bollocks? Apparently, there is a difference between "restoring licenses" and "sharing an MSN Music account." Or maybe that "knowledge center article" for Windows Media Player (not a music store) is old and outdated.Not anymore, regarding Rosetta. According to an OSx86 Project article and an Apple Insider article, Rosetta now has full G4 support (including Altivec). From the first article:
I don't know if Rosetta and a dual-core Yonah will run G4-optimized software fast enough, but it will run.
No, me too. I think we are the only two.
I mean they want to have differentiation between the consumer and pro models. Why not release the ibook with "similar" specs to the current powerbooks with celeron or lowend pentium m processors? This will prevent major cannabalization of the current powerbook lines and allow them to release the yonah based powerbooks as the pro model they really are.
There will be a single single-core version of Yonah at launch and this might be a good candidate for the iBook (with PowerBooks being dual-core). However, at $209, the single-core Yonah seems a bit expensive for a "low end" notebook. In a few months, Intel will likely release Celeron M CPUs based on the Yonah core (single core), but with a lower FSB (533MHz vs 667Mhz) and less L2 cache (1MB vs 2MB). These would be way too late for a MacWorld announcement.
I think there's a very good chance that the current Dothan-based Celeron M will be used in the new iBooks (and maybe Mac minis) that are expected at MacWorld. Based on the current Pentium M core (but with lower FSB and L2 cache), the Celeron M is cheap, fast, and runs cool.
The current Celeron M does lack SSE3 support and many people think SSE3 will be required for the new Intel Macs. However, I think this assumption might be false and is based on the fact that the Dev Kit version of OS X for Intel requires SSE3 (the Dev Kit CPU has SSE3). Since the Dev Kit version was only intended to be used on one CPU, and SSE3 is off by default in XCode, I suspect that SSE2 will be enough for the official release of OS X on Intel.
Galileo wrote about this more than three and a half centuries ago in Discorsi and sketched a nice illustration comparing femurs from different animals of different sizes. In his illustration, the longer femur was about 2.5 times longer but about 10 times wider. As S.J. Gould wrote in his "Size and Shape" essay in Ever Since Darwin:
In that same essay, Gould also explained in his clear way the relationship between growing larger (length), surface area (length x length), and volume (length x length x length). In addition to bone strength, many other functions of animals that depend upon surfaces must serve the entire volume of the body. In a gorilla, digested food passes to the body through the surfaces of the small intestine. Oxygen is absorbed through the surfaces of the lungs.
So King Kong's leg bones would need to be much, much thicker. His chest cavity and intestine area would also need to much, much bigger to support his oxygen and digestion needs. That would be a very oddly-shaped ape. Don't let that ruin the movie, though.
Also, Intel is the Apple CORE.
Next month, starting with Yonah and likely following with Merom (64-bit notebooks) and Conroe (post-P4 desktops).
According to the article I linked to (and other articles), Intel will emphasize Yonah's platform (Centrino-like bundle of CPU/chipset/wireless) and refer to the CPU component as "Core Duo" and "Core Solo."
I think you forgot to mention that "Thinking in Java" is also a free download, no strings attached. The C++ version of this book, "Thinking in C++" (also a free download), helped me "get" OOP.
Not in a big way until Conroe in the second half of 2006. I'm pretty sure "desktop" use of Yonah will be limited to a few small form factor desktops like Dothan is used today.
Yonah will still be 32-bit while Intel's entire "desktop" line of CPUs (including Celeron) have adopted EM64T. I don't think this is that important, but Conroe will add EM64T and other enhancements to the "Pentium M core."
65nm Pentium 4/D processors (Cedar Mill/Presler) are launching around the same time as Yonah (January) and are already shipping in volume to manufacturers. Another Anandtech article showed significant power savings from 65nm, which will make Pentium 4/D power consumption reasonable (but not quite as low as AMD 90nm). In addition, Pentium 4/D will also add virtualization technology (Vanderpool) which Yonah will lack.
Intell is should switch its R&D and support the Pentium M as a desktop chip
I don't think the Pentium M architecture is lacking in R&D (see Conroe). Yonah is making some steps toward being a desktop chip by adding SSE3 and floating point enhancements, but Conroe will complete the transition by adding EM64T, virtualization technology, desktop chipsets, and more lenient power requirements.
I know there's a difference between retail "CompUSA" prices and OEM prices, but I think his "estimates" ($100 for Windows XP, $350 for Office) might be fair, although he should have been more specific.
$100 is probably his estimate of the "average" cost (to the end user after markup) of Windows XP Home and Professional OEM preinstalled. His $350 estimate for Office is probably his "average" price of preinstalled Office Basic, Office Small Business, Office Standard, Office Professional, and Office Enterprise. He also might be factoring in volume site licenses bought by businesses.
First, he didn't specify which versions of Windows XP (Home or Professional). Since he seems to be targeting a business-oriented audience, I think we can assume many of them will be using Windows Professional, which we can buy for about $162 OEM. A computer manufacturer buys it for significantly less, but there's a markup by the time it reaches the buyer. A quick check of Dell's Small Business site will show you that Dell currently charges $119 more to upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro.
So if XP Home adds about $50 to the final price of a computer and XP Pro adds about $150, then his $100 estimate might be fair. For similar reasons, I think his $350 estimate for MS Office might be fair. OEM versions of Office Basic can be bought for about $160, Office Small Business for about $230, Office Professional for about $320, and Office Enterprise for about $450.
Seriously, I've read/heard such claims, probably from creationists with anti-evolution agendas. After all, Karl Marx was such an admirer that he offered to dedicate volume 2 of Das Kapital to Darwin. Carleton Coon's popular 1962 book The Origin of Races (I'm not making that title up) claimed five major human races evolved independently, with "black people" evolving last.
Interesting (IMO) related links:
Ms. Barrymore's co-star Cameron Diaz seems to make every top ten list of stars that look "worse" in high definition, due to her teenage acne scars. For all you shallow arseholes ;-), here's an example of one such list:
The actress has had a terrible acne problem since high school; her cheeks and forehead are littered with unfortunate pockmarks. Ms. Diaz seems like a different person in HDTV; she looks more like a Charlie than an Angel.
The actor was once considered a Hollywood sex symbol. But now, in HDTV, he looks more like Kirk Douglas than Michael Douglas. Being married to Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't help, either. He appears even older when he's standing next to her. The Wall Street star looks like eight miles of bad road.
The pop tart is still in her early 20s, but she looks about 10 years older in high-def. Her face is puffy and she's starting to show wrinkle marks around her lips, reportedly from a two pack-a-day cigarette habit.
Like Ms. Diaz, Pitt had a terrible skin problem in his younger years. The impact is clear in high-def. He's still a good-looking guy, but he doesn't look like one of People Magazine's "Most Beautiful."
The singer looks great in still photos and music videos, but she looks terrible in high-def. And someone should help her with make-up; it looks like it was done by Ringling Bros.
Ms. Zellweger is a cutie, but her cheeks look like she's had a Rosacea problem; very visible in high-def.
The veteran actor plays Secretary of State James Heller in Fox's 24, but he looks like hell in high-def. Devane, who once played John F. Kennedy in a docudrama about the Cuban Missile Crisis, should duck and cover the next time they ask him to star in a HDTV program.
The comedian/political commentator is scary in high-def. And I mean, scary. His skin is pasty and white, making him look like an Albino. Make that an Albino who doesn't get much sleep. It's a good thing that HBO doesn't air his weekly talkfest in HDTV.
Oh, my God. With her short-cropped graying hair and crow's feet, she looks like a guy in high-def. What happened to her? Christopher Guest, be my guest. Buy your wife some Botox! And, a wig!
Someone should pull the rug over this red carpet host! In HDTV, you can almost count the stitch marks from her various facial surgeries. Do you remember that song, "Old Man River"? Well, how about, "Old Woman Rivers"?
Thanks, I forgot about that. However, the current Dothan-based Celeron M does support SSE2 ("Streaming SIMD Extensions 2"). Also, according to the OSx86 Project site, SSE2 processors will work with a patch for Rosetta. Rosetta works best with SSE3, though.
I'm not so sure about the current Celeron M anymore. It will work, but I don't know if the lack of SSE3 will have a big performance hit.
I think he means the current Celeron M. I don't know why everybody is assuming Apple will use the upcoming 65nm Yonah core so soon.
A current Dothan-based Celeron M (Pentium M's core, 400MHz bus, 1MB L2 cache) should be a significant upgrade over the G4 processor in the iBook and Mac mini. It's also cool enough for the small form factors and cheap enough for this price range.
This makes it impossible to compare processors across different brands. A Celeron-D 560 is not going to necessarily be as fast as a Pentium-D 320, but you'd never know by the numbers.
The different Intel brands are clearly grouped according to their suggested market. The entry-level Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the mainstream Pentium 4 brand (500's and 600's). The dual-core Pentium D brand has even higher model numbers (800's).
However, within the brands, the numbering system is confusing to non-techies. A Celeron D 326 is a 64-bit CPU while a Celeron D 350 is a 32-bit CPU.
AMD, on the other hand, uses a P-number which is directly comparable across processor lines and uses an established standard of a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird = P1000. Everything else is relative to that. So you know right off the bat that an Athlon64 3000+ is only marginally faster than a Sempron 2800+, you don't have to play games like with Intel.
The 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird standard was only used for that first generation of Athlon XP processors. Note:
- Athlon XP 2800+: Barton core, 2083MHz, 512K L2 cache, 333MHz FSB
- Sempron 2800+ (Socket A): Thoroughbred core, 2000MHz, 256K L2 cache, 333MHz FSB
The Athlon XP above is clearly faster than the Socket A Sempron with the same model number. To determine its model number, the Sempron uses a different suite of benchmarks that excludes games and high performance software because this isn't the Sempron's target market. More details at Anandtech's review of the initial Semprons.Therefore, it's easier to compare Intel CPUs across brands because the budget Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the high end Pentium D brand (800's).
However, across AMD brands, a budget Thoroughbred-based AMD Sempron 2800+ is way slower and has far less features than a high end AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (Anandtech benchamarks here).
Within brands, the AMD system is much clearer.
There is nothing wrong with scientifically saying "your explanation is flawed," "that theory doesn't explain all phenomenon," or even "we don't know." But there is a problem, to quote Asimov, with saying that "Dragons must be pushing the moons."
Wish I could mod you up. 2500 years ago, Hippocrates (think Hippocratic Oath) promoted a quasi-scientific approach to medicine at a time when superstition and prayer were the dominant treatments. From the first chapter of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World:
"God of the Gaps." I always liked that description.If 3D performance at 1280x1024 is what matters most, then the NVIDIA 6800GS looks like the obvious choice over the ATI X1600. Also, both models support Shader Model 3.0 (X800 doesn't).
However, some users might find more value in this new Avivo technology that ATI is hyping. The X1600's Avivo implementation seems to have (or will have when the drivers mature) two significant advantages over the 6800GS's PureVideo implementation: (1) hardware-assisted H.264 HD playback and (2) Avivo transcode, which was covered on Slashdot.
For users building a home theater PC with Blu-ray/HD-DVD drives, and willing to play 3D games at slightly lower resolution, the ATI X1600 just might be the better buy. Personally, I don't trust ATI's driver development (Windows and Linux), so I'd wait for NVIDIA's mid-range version of the 7000 series (7600?).
Leela: And what's your scientific basis for thinking that?
Cubert: I'm 12.
Here each Opteron has its own memory interface, while the Xeons have to share one FSB.
Despite what the freakin' article says, Lindenhurst (Intel E7250 chipset) is not the latest Xeon DP chipset (the often-cited GamePC benchmarks also use this chipset). Intel's latest Xeon chipset, the E8500 (Twin Castle), features dual independent FSBs running at 667MHz each. It's available now (e.g. Dell PowerEdge 6850 and PowerEdge 6800). The dual buses will be increased to 800MHz each in January (E8501 chipset). These new Paxville Xeons were released ahead of schedule (rushed in response to dual-core Opteron), so I think that's why the dual 800MHz bus chipset is trailing Paxville (which is capable of 800MHz FSB) by two months.
So I think the freakin' article is wrong when it says:
Also note that the GamePC benchmarks use two 800MHz Paxville Xeons on the E7250 chipset (single 800MHz bus). The current E8500 chipset has dual independent buses, but they only run at 667MHz each. I'm sure the dual-bus system will outperform the single-bus system by a lot, even though the dual buses each run 16.7% slower than the single bus. I'm also pretty sure the dual Opterons will still whup the dual Xeons, but not by so much.