...I superglued a piece of 3" PVC pipe to my case fan. Now air blows right onto the processor area, and the CPU temps are great. I highly recommend the ducting.
This sounds similar to Intel's Thermally Advantaged Chassis (TAC) guideline, which is recommended for Prescott processors. The current version of the guideline (version 1.1) includes a 92mm rear exhaust fan and an 80mm (3.1") "side-panel air duct."
From Intel's site:
A thermally advantaged chassis can be recognized by a hollow tube attached to the side panel called a chassis air guide which has flared ends. This tube will funnel cool air towards the processor passively, without fans.
Them Prescotts seem dang hot. I'm glad most case manufacturers are building a duct into the side panel of some cases, though. If interested, look for "TAC" or "Thermally Advantaged Chassis" in you next case.
Yes. The link to the article started at the 3rd page, skipping the part about Intel's move to 64-bit on the desktop (even Celerons) in Q2 2005. From the 2nd page of TFA:
Single Core Desktop
Now for desktop processing; we have good news and better news. The good news is almost all desktop Prescotts (including the Celerons) will get a 64-bit makeover real soon. Unfortunately, you'll still need to buy a new processor but the roadmaps indicate there will be virtually no price premium on the 64-bit versions. With Windows XP 64-bit release less than a few months away, it makes sense that Intel's 64-bit push comes strong and hard in the 9th inning. We are particularly interested in how fully committed the roadmap details EM64T; even the puny Celerons get the instructions.
As I see it, the smart step to take would be to start with consumer-level 64-bit chips, make them as fast as they can be, and then move on to dual-core.
I also think that would be smart, but this might be a "race" to dual-core just like the race to 1 GHz in March 2000. AMD won that race by 2 days, but 1 GHz chips were not widely available from either Intel or AMD for months.
Also, here's a one-page version of the whole Intel roadmap article that covers chipsets, single-core desktops, dual-core, mobile CPUs, and "unannounced secret stuff":
Reminds me of the race to 1 GHz in March 2000. After Intel "moved up" (rushed) the release of their 1 GHz Pentium III, AMD trumped Intel by moving up the release of their 1 GHz Athlon to beat Intel by 2 days. Of course, it took both companies more than 3 months to ship their 1 GHz chips in volume.
Will AMD respond by moving up the "release" (in very limited quantities) of their dual-core CPUs? Will the race to dual-core cause Intel to release a chip that's not ready, like the 1.13 GHz Pentium III?
...people are expirmenting with ways to play back HD video on 1.25GHz powerbooks (roughly the same as the Mini), and have got it working for at least 720p. The Elgato software simply does not use the video card for acceleration at the moment which is why the requirements are off the chart.
The type of HD video you're probably referring to (MPEG-2) is not the same kind of HD video that online movie stores would offer (H.264 MPEG-4). The Elgato software plays back HDTV MPEG-2 video at up to 18 Mb/s (8.1 GB per hour). I'm assuming those PowerBook owners that were experimenting with HD were also using MPEG-2, unless the forum was about Quicktime 7 and the Tiger beta.
The video cards in the PowerBooks and the Mac mini (32MB Radeon 9200) can help with hardware-accelerated MPEG-2 decoding (DVD), but I'm pretty sure they will not help with H.264 MPEG-4 playback. Only the newest cards from ATI and NVIDIA (RADEON x700+ and GeForce 6200+) are touting hardware-accelerated HD video playback. This, combined with the fact that H.264 is newer and more highly compressed, is why I think the CPU requirements will be much higher than a G4 to playback HD video on demand in H.264.
As for Elgato's software not using the video card to play back MPEG-2 video, they addressed this in their FAQ:
Q: The Apple DVD Player also decodes and displays MPEG-2 video, but its system requirements are lower than EyeTV's, and it even works on some G3 Macs. Why can't you do that?
A: The graphics cards and drivers that are built into Macintosh computers contain special features to support the Apple DVD Player. These features are used exclusively by the Apple DVD Player, they are currently not available to third parties and they have various DVD-specific limitations that make them unsuitable for EyeTV. Note that QuickTime does not use these features either. EyeTV's MPEG-2 decoder is about 10-20% faster than the QuickTime MPEG-2 component.
Unfortunaley, Apple's H.264 FAQ doesn't tell us the CPU requirements to play back 720p, but it seems to hint at more than a single G4:
* Does H.264 require special hardware?
While H.264 is a computationally advanced codec, it runs on today's shipping computers with no additional hardware required. For example, a full HD movie (1920x1080, 8 Mbps, 24 fps) encoded with H.264 plays back beautifully on a dual Power Mac G5. Internet-sized content (40kbps - 300kbps) will run on the most basic of processors, like those in mobile phones and consumer-level computers.
Knowing that the image would be cropped for widescreen, perhaps Kubrick staged the scenes to favor that format. Or perhaps he thought that his films would have their greatest longevity on TV and favored the 4:3 format (of course, now an increasing number of TVs are 16:9).
Kubrick started as a photographer and had a "photographer's eye" according to this longtime personal assistant Leon Vitali. This might explain a preference for 4:3 aspect ratios.
Kubrick never publicly voiced his aspect ratio preferences for the "home video" releases of his films. Therefore, the decision to release them in "full frame" is very controversial.
Kubrick shot 2001 in Cinemascope at the insistence of the studio, which believed the film would look best in 2.35:1; everything else he did in anamorphic widescreen, with shots composed with 4:3 screens in mind.
Everything else except Spartacus, which was shot in Super Technirama (also 2.35:1). However, like 2001, this probably wasn't his choice. From the "trivia" section of Spartacus's IMDb entry:
Stanley Kubrick was brought in as director after Kirk Douglas had a major falling out with the original director, Anthony Mann.
Stanley Kubrick was not given control of the script, which he felt was full of stupid moralizing. Since then, Kubrick has kept full control over all aspects of his films.
Cinematographer Russell Metty walked off the set of Spartacus complaining that Stanley Kubrick was not letting him do his job. When he returned to the set, Kubrick told him to shut up and butt out and subsequently, Kubrick did the majority of the cinematography work on Spartacus. Metty complained about this up until the release of the film and even, at one point, asked to have his name removed from the credits of the film. Metty was awarded the Academy Award for cinematography for Spartacus.
However, you forget that Nvidia hasn't actually integrated a GPU in their core logic since the nforce2 chipset... Perhaps Nvidia found that IGP sales hurt their discrete solutions?
Perhaps. But I think another possibility is that the nForce3 chipset was not meant for "budget/mainstream" users, but for "enthusiasts." As we all know, enthusiasts don't want integrated graphics that share memory with the system.
The nForce4 chipset, on the other hand, does look like it's aimed at budget/mainstream users as well as enthusiasts. But with PCI Express and TurboCache, NVIDIA might have a cheap solution that's better than integrated graphics.
PCI Express x16 has more bandwidth than AGP (4 GB/s upstream and downstream) and allows writes directly from the GPU to system RAM. This allows a non-integrated graphics card to share memory with the system without the huge performance hit that AGP would have caused.
Instead of integrated graphics, maybe NVIDIA is planning to "bundle" their cheap TurboCache cards with nForce4 motherboards. That seems cool to me.
Just a few years ago, Nvidia was practically unheard of in the motherboard market... How do you feel about Nvidia presence in the motherboard market?
Before NVIDIA entered the chipset market with nForce, I didn't seriously consider buying AMD Athlon CPUs because I thought the previous "consumer" chipsets (VIA, SiS, ALi) sucked ass. Maybe I'm being a little harsh about the pre-nForce Athlon "cheapsets." However, I felt a lot more comfortable using the relatively reliable and robust Intel chipsets, even though I thought the Athlon was the better CPU.
To me, the chipset is just as important as the CPU when choosing a computer platform. NVIDIA gives the AMD platform a lot more credibility.
- DDR2 memory
- Next generation integrated graphics that doesn't suck
I think it's also important to note that the DDR2 533/400-MHz memory controller is dual-channel and the integrated graphics shares memory with the CPU.
Since the CPU has the same bandwidth as a single channel of DDR2 533, the benefits of dual-channel memory are really seen when combined with integrated graphics. Also, sharing memory using PCI Express is probably a huge improvement over AGP 8x.
QuickTime Player can play MPEG-4 content with no licensing burden (because Apple has already paid the cap to MPEG LA).
I think everybody knows that. I'm talking about Linux and other platforms besides Windows and Mac OS. Isn't that the point of this discussion? The questions asked to Slashdot were:
"Are users of other platforms just out of luck? What non-Windows/Mac video formats can people recommend so that I can deliver this content to people who can't play.WMV for one reason or another?"
MPEG-4/AAC may be a good choice, but VLC may not a good recommendation for Linux/Unix users if it requires additional license fees to play legally. That's why I suggested looking at Real Player 10 for Linux/Unix.
We found everything we were looking for in MPEG-4 (Part 2) video with AAC audio.
We recommend two solutions for players:
- QuickTime Player, for Mac OS and Windows
- VideoLan Client (VLC), for Mac OS and Windows, but also many other operating systems
I love and use VideoLan Client (VLC), but are you sure it's legal to use VLC to play MPEG-4 with AAC audio without paying additional licensing fees? I haven't tried it, but I'm pretty sure Real Player 10 for Linux/Unix will play MPEG-4 with AAC legally.
The use and distribution of the libdvdcss library is controversial in a few countries such as the United States because of a law called the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). If you are unsure about the legality of using and distributing this library in your country, please consult your lawyer.
Note
Beware: VLC media player binaries are distributed with the libdvdcss library included.
3.4. What about personal/commercial usage?
Some of the codecs distributed with VLC are patented and require you to pay royalties to their licensors. These are mostly the MPEG style codecs.
With many products the producer pays the license body (in this case MPEG LA) so the user (commercial or personal) does not have to take care of this. VLC (and ffmpeg and libmpeg2 which it uses in most of these cases) cannot do this because they are Free and Open Source implementations of these codecs. The software is not sold and therefore the end-user becomes responsible for complying to the licensing and royalty requirements. You will need to contact the licensor on how to comply to these licenses.
This goes for playing a DVD with VLC for your personal joy ($2.50 one time payment to MPEG LA) as well as for using VLC for streaming a live event in MPEG-4 over the Internet.
I detest these apples-to-oranges comparisons, but I'll be a fool and respond to a responder.
...as well as including a robust suite of polished, easy-to-use applications that will cover most of the needs of the freshman computer enthusiast (photography, music, basic word processing, even movies).
"How do I get photos from the Sony Mavica to iPhoto?" my wife asked me. Answer: Plug in the USB cable, and when iPhoto automatcially opens, click the blue pill clearly labelled "Import." Tell me that Dell will be able to do that OUT OF THE BOX!
Okay. Dell will be able to do that OUT OF THE BOX!. Except you need to choose the default app (or the OS) to import pictures the first time you do it. Jeez, it's not that hard.
XP Home isn't anywhere near as powerful as Mac OS X. Put XP Pro on that box.
Depends on if the user needs it, but that's a $67 option. The G4 processor in the Mac mini isn't anywhere near as powerful as the Prescott-based Pentium 4 processor. But that's not an upgradable option on the Mac mini. Other non-changable features are the modern architecture (800MHz bus, PCI Express) of the Dell, expandability of the Dell, beautiful style of the Mac mini, and the small footprint of the Mac mini.
Apples-to-oranges indeed. The Dell 4700 is much more like a single processor G5 PowerMac than a Mac mini, but it would still be useless to compare them.
The case for the mini looks good enough for a home entertainment PC. I'm not going to put an ugly black or beige box next to the TV
That depends on your definition of a "home entertainment PC." I agree that the case looks good enough for a HTPC, but the Mac mini is not powerful enough for high def and needs more external accessories to be a "decent" HTPC, IMO.
An external hard drive might be needed, since SDTV eats about 2 GB per hour. On the other hand, video can also be burned onto DVD.
All together, that doesn't seem that bad to me. The Mac mini is so darned tiny and the Sonica Theater can probably be stacked on top of the EyeTV. But the Mac mini will (probably) never be able to do HDTV and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
I priced an equivalent Shuttle for that purpose and arrived at about the same price as a Mini. That's not including the effort required to put the Shuttle parts together and install the OS. The Mini comes with everything ready to go...
Shuttle also sells complete systems with all the parts already together and OS already installed. They even sell Media Player XPCs with surround sound, digital output, TV tuner/PVR, and memory card reader inside the box. These Media Player XPCs run MS Windows Media Center Edition 2005 and include a remote. The cheapest one starts at $950 and includes a 3Ghz Pentium 4, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, DVD/CD-RW combo drive (Dual layer DVD burner for $32 more), keyboard/mouse, and all that other "media center" shit I mentioned before (surround, digital, DVR, remote, etc).
Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.
Customers may request non-critical security fixes for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Me, and the most current version of their components until June 30, 2006 through typical assisted-support channels.
almondjoy writes "I was project leader for publication of this recent IBM Redbook, available for free download here: Linux Client Migration Cookbook: A Practical Planning and Implementation Guide for Migrating to Desktop Linux. At this point, I'm gathering input for what we could improve on, and what additional topics should be covered in a second version of the book. I realize this is a broad topic to cover in a rapidly changing environment. And because these books are developed by IBM there are some content limitations. Nonetheless, in the next version we want to continue making the book as useful as possible for anyone considering a migration to Linux on the desktop."
While MS has competition within a market (Word Processing comes to mind) their prices are very low. I recall Word selling for $99 back when it was competing with WordPerfect. Today, with essentially zero competition, it's $299.
I recall full versions of Word selling for about the same price as WordPerfect when WordPerfect was still a serious competitor. It was only the "competitive upgrade" version of Word that was selling for about $99.
I also recall Microsoft being one of the first (if not the first) to have "upgrade pricing." They still do it today. The "New User Price" of Word 2003 is $229 and the "Upgrade Price" is $109.
I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of your post, just this one example (word processors).
BTW, as other comments have pointed out, a cheap non-academic way to get Word (full verion, not upgrade version) is to buy Works Suite, which includes the full version of Word. Its MSRP is only $99. It's also included free with many new PCs or as a $30 add-on.
However, once a particular vendor has asserted dominance over a particular product area, they are free to raise their prices again. Thus, competitors in the Office Suite area (Staroffice, Wordperfect Office) are much less expensive...
I would argue that competitors in the Office Suite area are less expensive because they lowered prices in response to Microsoft's dominance. When Microsoft wasn't dominant, they charged just as much as Microsoft. Don't forget that Microsoft was the first company to bundle a word processor and spreadsheet into an "office suite" that was cheaper than buying each app separately.
If I remember correctly, WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were still big players when Microsoft Office made its debut in 1993. Remember, most users still used DOS apps in Windows or used DOS as their main OS at the time. The price for individual apps like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Word, and Excel was around $500. Microsoft, in a brilliant marketing strategy, bundled Word, Excel, and PowerPoint for only $800. MS Office was an instant hit. When WordPerect and Lotus responded with their own office suites (after buying or partnering with other software companies), they weren't much cheaper than MS Office. It was only after MS Office had the dominant market share that competing office suites and individual apps (like WordPerfect) lowered their prices significantly. Too little, too late.
yes, every version can open prior version documents, but not every version can open later version documents. so once you get a few users using and creating documents with a newer version, it becomes a hassle for all the users of older versions.
I haven't tried it, but can't every version of Office that is still supported open documents from later versions if it is updated with the free Office Converter Pack?
Maybe you meant that Office Converter Pack does a lousy job of letting Office 2000 users open Office 2003 documents, but you weren't very specific. However, Microsoft seems to provide updates for older versions of Office that allow them to work with newer versions.
...PLUS they do the stupid thing here and put in DDR-2 which does little for performance but increases system costs.
In addition to the other replies defending Intel's choice of DDR2, note that the JEDEC DDR1 spec's top speed is DDR400 while DDR2 is now up to DDR2 533 (and will go higher). Single/dual channel DDR2 533 matches/sychs up perfectly with the 533MHz bus of the new Pentium-M CPUs.
Also, the chipsets that use Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics "shares" (steals) memory with the CPU. Therefore, the CPU and the GPU can use all the extra memory bandwidth they can get. Dual-channel DDR2 533 gives 266MHz more memory speed than dual-channel DDR400.
3) Check out the specs for Pixlet which lets you play back "movie quality frames" on a 1GHz G4.
Pixlet is a very high-bitrate codec that content creators are supposed to use to preview their video. According to Apple's H.264 FAQ, a 1GHz G4 is needed to play "high-end digital film frames at 960x540 (at about 20 Mbps)." For those not used to doing the math, that's about 18GB for a 2-hour movie. An HD 1080p movie is twice as large and requires a dual 2.0GHz G5, but this doesn't matter because Pixlet is for content creation, not distributing HD video. H.264 is the codec for distributing HD video and will be included in Quicktime 7.
But really the video card in the mini is powerful enough to do the job for HDTV, you just need players than make use of it.
The Radeon 9200 is not even close to being powerful enough for HD. It does not have a VPU. Even the 9800 isn't powerful enough. Only the Radeons based on the X800 core have the technology (VIDEOSHADER HD) for playing back HD.
I'd sure like to know the real system requirements (CPU and/or GPU) to play back H.264 video at 1280x720 and 1920x1080. I can't find them at Apple's site or with Google.
Here's the Pixlet info from the FAQ:
How does H.264 compare with Pixlet?
H.264 and Pixlet are designed for different uses.
Pixlet is focused on workflow, designed for digital filmmakers, animators and effects artists to easily review high-resolution image sequences on a standard PowerMac or PowerBook. Pixlet plays every frame of a sequence without frame-to-frame dependencies so that a media professional can scrutinize every detail of a sequence. Pixlet enables high-end digital film frames at 960x540 (at about 20 Mbps) to play in real time with a 1GHz G4 or faster Macintosh, while 1920x1080 frames (at about 40 Mbps) will play in real time on a dual 2GHz G5 or faster. This capability eliminates the need to invest in costly, proprietary hardware for the professional review process.
H.264 is a delivery codec, optimized for high quality and efficiency. It leverages data that does not change between frames for more efficient compression. While Pixlet may require about 40 Mbps for 1920x1080 content, H.264 delivers 1920x1080 content at about 8 Mbps. This efficiency in H.264 enables delivery to and playback on a wide range of devices, from mobile phones to computers to HDTV and beyond.
H.264 can create great-looking 3G mobile content at 50-160 Kbps, excellent Standard Definition (SD) video at 800-1500 Kbps, beautiful
HD video (1280x720, 24p) at 5-7 Mbps and full HD video (1920x1080, 24p) at 7-9 Mbps.
So at the lowest HD bitrate for 720p (5 Mbps), 2 hours of video would be about 4.5 GB. I think 6 CD's worth of data is more than people want to download for a movie. One-ninth of a 40GB hard drive is a lot of space for one movie.
Also, I cannot find clear system requirements for playing back HD H.264 video (especially for 720p), but I believe it's a heck of a lot more than the Mac mini's G4 processor. 1080p seems to require a dual G5.
Apple's H.265 page also says:
Full HD H.264/AVC video plays back on today's desktop computers. With a Cinema HD Display and a dual-processor Power Mac G5, the home office becomes home theatre.
While H.264 is a computationally advanced codec, it runs on today's shipping computers with no additional hardware required. For example, a full HD movie (1920x1080, 8 Mbps, 24 fps) encoded with H.264 plays back beautifully on a dual Power Mac G5.
The Samsung may be an exception, but I couldn't use it's 75hz refresh rate. I need at least 85hz.
So do I, but I thought such high resolutions (even at 60-75Hz) might be useful for a few tasks such as viewing/editing 1080p HD video or 3 megapixel photos without scaling them down. After completing these tasks, I would switch back to a more reasonable resolution/refresh rate.
For these reasons, I had been leaning toward CRT technology for my next display. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'll settle for an LCD that can display 720p video. At least, I'll check the number of "physical locations" along with the max resolution of CRT monitors.
I named five CRTs that could do 2048x1536, but I think the grandparent may have meant "like-colored phosphor dots" and not pixels. Therefore, the number of "physical 'dots' from left to right" (his words) is probably calculated by dividing the viewable horizontal width by the horizontal dot pitch.
If that's what he meant, then the NEC/Mitsubishi CRTs I listed have about 1700 dots from left to right and the Samsung has very close to 2048 (2032 calculated, but width and dot pitch are rounded).
So I (may have) named one. But the point of the great grandparent was that decent CRTs can be set to 2048x1536. Will a photo or video at this resolution looked focked up because of insufficient "dot pitch"?
I've found that Cleartype helps a lot if you're using your LCD in its non-native resolution. My Jetway's is 1280x1024, but I don't like that mode because it actually messes up the aspect ratio of the screen. If I run at 1280x960, the ratio is correct but some text looks a little chunky.
Are you absolutely sure that your Jetway's aspect ratio is 4:3 (1280x960) and not 5:4 (1280x1024)? The vast majority of 17" LCDs (except wide screens) have a physical aspect ratio of 5:4, which is why their native resolution is set to 1280x1024. Almost every other size LCD has a 4:3 aspect ratio, but 17" LCDs are the funky exception.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds similar to Intel's Thermally Advantaged Chassis (TAC) guideline, which is recommended for Prescott processors. The current version of the guideline (version 1.1) includes a 92mm rear exhaust fan and an 80mm (3.1") "side-panel air duct."
From Intel's site:
Them Prescotts seem dang hot. I'm glad most case manufacturers are building a duct into the side panel of some cases, though. If interested, look for "TAC" or "Thermally Advantaged Chassis" in you next case.Yes. The link to the article started at the 3rd page, skipping the part about Intel's move to 64-bit on the desktop (even Celerons) in Q2 2005. From the 2nd page of TFA:
As I see it, the smart step to take would be to start with consumer-level 64-bit chips, make them as fast as they can be, and then move on to dual-core.I also think that would be smart, but this might be a "race" to dual-core just like the race to 1 GHz in March 2000. AMD won that race by 2 days, but 1 GHz chips were not widely available from either Intel or AMD for months.
Also, here's a one-page version of the whole Intel roadmap article that covers chipsets, single-core desktops, dual-core, mobile CPUs, and "unannounced secret stuff":
Will AMD respond by moving up the "release" (in very limited quantities) of their dual-core CPUs? Will the race to dual-core cause Intel to release a chip that's not ready, like the 1.13 GHz Pentium III?
The type of HD video you're probably referring to (MPEG-2) is not the same kind of HD video that online movie stores would offer (H.264 MPEG-4). The Elgato software plays back HDTV MPEG-2 video at up to 18 Mb/s (8.1 GB per hour). I'm assuming those PowerBook owners that were experimenting with HD were also using MPEG-2, unless the forum was about Quicktime 7 and the Tiger beta.
The video cards in the PowerBooks and the Mac mini (32MB Radeon 9200) can help with hardware-accelerated MPEG-2 decoding (DVD), but I'm pretty sure they will not help with H.264 MPEG-4 playback. Only the newest cards from ATI and NVIDIA (RADEON x700+ and GeForce 6200+) are touting hardware-accelerated HD video playback. This, combined with the fact that H.264 is newer and more highly compressed, is why I think the CPU requirements will be much higher than a G4 to playback HD video on demand in H.264.
As for Elgato's software not using the video card to play back MPEG-2 video, they addressed this in their FAQ:
Unfortunaley, Apple's H.264 FAQ doesn't tell us the CPU requirements to play back 720p, but it seems to hint at more than a single G4:I found a Kubrick FAQ from a site maintained by the alt.movies.kubrick newsgroup that attempts to explain the "full frame" question. You're pretty close to what the FAQ thinks.
Some facts from the FAQs:
Everything else except Spartacus, which was shot in Super Technirama (also 2.35:1). However, like 2001, this probably wasn't his choice. From the "trivia" section of Spartacus's IMDb entry:
Perhaps. But I think another possibility is that the nForce3 chipset was not meant for "budget/mainstream" users, but for "enthusiasts." As we all know, enthusiasts don't want integrated graphics that share memory with the system.
The nForce4 chipset, on the other hand, does look like it's aimed at budget/mainstream users as well as enthusiasts. But with PCI Express and TurboCache, NVIDIA might have a cheap solution that's better than integrated graphics.
PCI Express x16 has more bandwidth than AGP (4 GB/s upstream and downstream) and allows writes directly from the GPU to system RAM. This allows a non-integrated graphics card to share memory with the system without the huge performance hit that AGP would have caused.
Instead of integrated graphics, maybe NVIDIA is planning to "bundle" their cheap TurboCache cards with nForce4 motherboards. That seems cool to me.
Before NVIDIA entered the chipset market with nForce, I didn't seriously consider buying AMD Athlon CPUs because I thought the previous "consumer" chipsets (VIA, SiS, ALi) sucked ass. Maybe I'm being a little harsh about the pre-nForce Athlon "cheapsets." However, I felt a lot more comfortable using the relatively reliable and robust Intel chipsets, even though I thought the Athlon was the better CPU.
To me, the chipset is just as important as the CPU when choosing a computer platform. NVIDIA gives the AMD platform a lot more credibility.
The Sonoma platform will be followed by the Napa platform. Napa will be followed by the Santa Rosa platform (Santa Rosa is a city in Sonoma County, not a wine region). According to Tom's Hardware, the platform preceding Sonoma had the code name "Carmel."
I bet this is all very uninteresting and off-topic. Go ahead and mod me down if appropriate.
- Next generation integrated graphics that doesn't suck
I think it's also important to note that the DDR2 533/400-MHz memory controller is dual-channel and the integrated graphics shares memory with the CPU.
Since the CPU has the same bandwidth as a single channel of DDR2 533, the benefits of dual-channel memory are really seen when combined with integrated graphics. Also, sharing memory using PCI Express is probably a huge improvement over AGP 8x.
I think everybody knows that. I'm talking about Linux and other platforms besides Windows and Mac OS. Isn't that the point of this discussion? The questions asked to Slashdot were:
MPEG-4/AAC may be a good choice, but VLC may not a good recommendation for Linux/Unix users if it requires additional license fees to play legally. That's why I suggested looking at Real Player 10 for Linux/Unix.We recommend two solutions for players:
- QuickTime Player, for Mac OS and Windows
- VideoLan Client (VLC), for Mac OS and Windows, but also many other operating systems
I love and use VideoLan Client (VLC), but are you sure it's legal to use VLC to play MPEG-4 with AAC audio without paying additional licensing fees? I haven't tried it, but I'm pretty sure Real Player 10 for Linux/Unix will play MPEG-4 with AAC legally.
From the "Legal concerns" section of the VideoLAN FAQ:
Microsoft Works Suite is a $25 option for the Dell. That gives you more than iPhoto (Picture It! Premium) and more than basic word processing (Microsoft Word). As for music and movies, that's included in the OS (Media Player and Movie Maker).
"How do I get photos from the Sony Mavica to iPhoto?" my wife asked me. Answer: Plug in the USB cable, and when iPhoto automatcially opens, click the blue pill clearly labelled "Import." Tell me that Dell will be able to do that OUT OF THE BOX!
Okay. Dell will be able to do that OUT OF THE BOX!. Except you need to choose the default app (or the OS) to import pictures the first time you do it. Jeez, it's not that hard.
XP Home isn't anywhere near as powerful as Mac OS X. Put XP Pro on that box.
Depends on if the user needs it, but that's a $67 option. The G4 processor in the Mac mini isn't anywhere near as powerful as the Prescott-based Pentium 4 processor. But that's not an upgradable option on the Mac mini. Other non-changable features are the modern architecture (800MHz bus, PCI Express) of the Dell, expandability of the Dell, beautiful style of the Mac mini, and the small footprint of the Mac mini.
Apples-to-oranges indeed. The Dell 4700 is much more like a single processor G5 PowerMac than a Mac mini, but it would still be useless to compare them.
That depends on your definition of a "home entertainment PC." I agree that the case looks good enough for a HTPC, but the Mac mini is not powerful enough for high def and needs more external accessories to be a "decent" HTPC, IMO.
To be a decent HTPC, I think the mini might need:
- M-Audio Sonica Theater for surround sound and digital out (4.8" x 3.1" x 1.2")
- Elgato EyeTV 200 for TV tuner/PVR (8.3" x 6.1" x 1.4")
- An external hard drive might be needed, since SDTV eats about 2 GB per hour. On the other hand, video can also be burned onto DVD.
All together, that doesn't seem that bad to me. The Mac mini is so darned tiny and the Sonica Theater can probably be stacked on top of the EyeTV. But the Mac mini will (probably) never be able to do HDTV and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.I priced an equivalent Shuttle for that purpose and arrived at about the same price as a Mini. That's not including the effort required to put the Shuttle parts together and install the OS. The Mini comes with everything ready to go...
Shuttle also sells complete systems with all the parts already together and OS already installed. They even sell Media Player XPCs with surround sound, digital output, TV tuner/PVR, and memory card reader inside the box. These Media Player XPCs run MS Windows Media Center Edition 2005 and include a remote. The cheapest one starts at $950 and includes a 3Ghz Pentium 4, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, DVD/CD-RW combo drive (Dual layer DVD burner for $32 more), keyboard/mouse, and all that other "media center" shit I mentioned before (surround, digital, DVR, remote, etc).
The article is about security fixes, not "mainstream support." From the Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Support Extended Announcement Web site:
Posted by michael on Friday December 17, @12:48PM
from the rated-u-for-useful dept.
almondjoy writes "I was project leader for publication of this recent IBM Redbook, available for free download here: Linux Client Migration Cookbook: A Practical Planning and Implementation Guide for Migrating to Desktop Linux. At this point, I'm gathering input for what we could improve on, and what additional topics should be covered in a second version of the book. I realize this is a broad topic to cover in a rapidly changing environment. And because these books are developed by IBM there are some content limitations. Nonetheless, in the next version we want to continue making the book as useful as possible for anyone considering a migration to Linux on the desktop."
I recall full versions of Word selling for about the same price as WordPerfect when WordPerfect was still a serious competitor. It was only the "competitive upgrade" version of Word that was selling for about $99.
I also recall Microsoft being one of the first (if not the first) to have "upgrade pricing." They still do it today. The "New User Price" of Word 2003 is $229 and the "Upgrade Price" is $109.
I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of your post, just this one example (word processors).
BTW, as other comments have pointed out, a cheap non-academic way to get Word (full verion, not upgrade version) is to buy Works Suite, which includes the full version of Word. Its MSRP is only $99. It's also included free with many new PCs or as a $30 add-on.
I would argue that competitors in the Office Suite area are less expensive because they lowered prices in response to Microsoft's dominance. When Microsoft wasn't dominant, they charged just as much as Microsoft. Don't forget that Microsoft was the first company to bundle a word processor and spreadsheet into an "office suite" that was cheaper than buying each app separately.
If I remember correctly, WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were still big players when Microsoft Office made its debut in 1993. Remember, most users still used DOS apps in Windows or used DOS as their main OS at the time. The price for individual apps like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Word, and Excel was around $500. Microsoft, in a brilliant marketing strategy, bundled Word, Excel, and PowerPoint for only $800. MS Office was an instant hit. When WordPerect and Lotus responded with their own office suites (after buying or partnering with other software companies), they weren't much cheaper than MS Office. It was only after MS Office had the dominant market share that competing office suites and individual apps (like WordPerfect) lowered their prices significantly. Too little, too late.
I haven't tried it, but can't every version of Office that is still supported open documents from later versions if it is updated with the free Office Converter Pack?
Maybe you meant that Office Converter Pack does a lousy job of letting Office 2000 users open Office 2003 documents, but you weren't very specific. However, Microsoft seems to provide updates for older versions of Office that allow them to work with newer versions.
In addition to the other replies defending Intel's choice of DDR2, note that the JEDEC DDR1 spec's top speed is DDR400 while DDR2 is now up to DDR2 533 (and will go higher). Single/dual channel DDR2 533 matches/sychs up perfectly with the 533MHz bus of the new Pentium-M CPUs.
Also, the chipsets that use Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics "shares" (steals) memory with the CPU. Therefore, the CPU and the GPU can use all the extra memory bandwidth they can get. Dual-channel DDR2 533 gives 266MHz more memory speed than dual-channel DDR400.
Pixlet is a very high-bitrate codec that content creators are supposed to use to preview their video. According to Apple's H.264 FAQ, a 1GHz G4 is needed to play "high-end digital film frames at 960x540 (at about 20 Mbps)." For those not used to doing the math, that's about 18GB for a 2-hour movie. An HD 1080p movie is twice as large and requires a dual 2.0GHz G5, but this doesn't matter because Pixlet is for content creation, not distributing HD video. H.264 is the codec for distributing HD video and will be included in Quicktime 7.
But really the video card in the mini is powerful enough to do the job for HDTV, you just need players than make use of it.
The Radeon 9200 is not even close to being powerful enough for HD. It does not have a VPU. Even the 9800 isn't powerful enough. Only the Radeons based on the X800 core have the technology (VIDEOSHADER HD) for playing back HD.
I'd sure like to know the real system requirements (CPU and/or GPU) to play back H.264 video at 1280x720 and 1920x1080. I can't find them at Apple's site or with Google.
Here's the Pixlet info from the FAQ:
I think it would be even worse (bigger) than that. According to Apple's H.264 web page:
So at the lowest HD bitrate for 720p (5 Mbps), 2 hours of video would be about 4.5 GB. I think 6 CD's worth of data is more than people want to download for a movie. One-ninth of a 40GB hard drive is a lot of space for one movie.Also, I cannot find clear system requirements for playing back HD H.264 video (especially for 720p), but I believe it's a heck of a lot more than the Mac mini's G4 processor. 1080p seems to require a dual G5.
Apple's H.265 page also says:
Apple's H.264 FAQ says:So do I, but I thought such high resolutions (even at 60-75Hz) might be useful for a few tasks such as viewing/editing 1080p HD video or 3 megapixel photos without scaling them down. After completing these tasks, I would switch back to a more reasonable resolution/refresh rate.
For these reasons, I had been leaning toward CRT technology for my next display. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'll settle for an LCD that can display 720p video. At least, I'll check the number of "physical locations" along with the max resolution of CRT monitors.
If that's what he meant, then the NEC/Mitsubishi CRTs I listed have about 1700 dots from left to right and the Samsung has very close to 2048 (2032 calculated, but width and dot pitch are rounded).
So I (may have) named one. But the point of the great grandparent was that decent CRTs can be set to 2048x1536. Will a photo or video at this resolution looked focked up because of insufficient "dot pitch"?
Are you absolutely sure that your Jetway's aspect ratio is 4:3 (1280x960) and not 5:4 (1280x1024)? The vast majority of 17" LCDs (except wide screens) have a physical aspect ratio of 5:4, which is why their native resolution is set to 1280x1024. Almost every other size LCD has a 4:3 aspect ratio, but 17" LCDs are the funky exception.