Name one. I have a recent NEC 21" Diamondtron. Sure, it'll sync up to whatever the video card can churn out, but I'm quite confident there's only about 1600 physical 'dots' from left to right.
2048x1536 CRTs from my two favorite CRT manufacturers:
Note that the NEC/Mitsubishi 2048x1536 CRTs are in the "Non-Current Products" section of their web site because they are not as profitable as LCDs (or they might just be old).
Heck, even a Newegg.com search got twelve results for 2048x1536 CRTs.
Price the whole thing at $99-$149 and release a couple more versions - people will be switching from Office in droves.
I'm not too sure that will do it. For Windows PCs, Microsoft Works 8 ($50) and Works Suite 2005 ($100) have not caused Office users to switch in droves. Works touts its compatibility with Word/Excel and Works Suite even comes with a full version of Word. These products even come bundled with new PCs for free or as a sub-$30 add-on, but Office still sells like hotcakes.
Also, didn't Mac OS have a great simple office suite in Claris Works (before they stopped updating it)? Claris Works didn't cause Office users to switch in droves.
iWork can be great, but I have doubts about mass switching from Office. I could be wrong, though.
In addition, the new G4 will also implement the new Rapid IO bus. I cannot find much clear info on Rapid IO via Google, but one speed I found was "8-bit 500MHz."
I don't think it's such a bad idea to modernize the architecture of a good existing core. It worked well for Intel's Pentium-M, didn't it?
And yet, where is the stock price in comparison to five years ago? Sure the bubble broke, but MS is sitting at less than half of the price it was back when he took over.
I've got a nit to pick. Several comments have claimed Microsoft's stock price is now "less than half" of the price it was when Balmer took over on January 13, 2000.
MSFT on 13-Jan-00: 47.80 (adjusted for dividends and splits)
MSFT on 13-Jan-05: 26.27
26.27 is 55% of 47.80
Am I miscalculating or are people exaggerating?
As for the bubble bursting:
NASDAQ on 13-Jan-00: 3957.21
NASDAQ on 13-Jan-00: 2070.56
2070.56 is 52% of 3957.21
So MSFT did a little better than NASDAQ, but that probably doesn't mean shiite since both were overvalued by different degrees.
It's supposed to be here, but Apple pulled the system requirements from that page recently. Thankfully, a Google-cached version of that page is still available.
From that page:
Supported graphics cards:
ATI Radeon 9800 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600 XT
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200
NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra
These cards are available in today's PowerBooks, Power Mac G5s and both the 17-inch and 20-inch iMac.
So why did Apple pull the system requirements right before the Mac mini announcement? Are they lowering/raising the system requirements? Are they trying to hide the fact that a desktop Mac released this week does not meet the requirements?
Implement graphics system on high bandwidth AGP 4X or PCI Express 8 lane bus on discrete GPU solutions
Required for discrete GPU-based graphics systems
The Aero experience requires a minimum pipeline to support basic performance requirements, including scaling for high-density displays. These newer buses have stability and performance benefits over older buses.
I hope there's an option to disable all that cycle-wasting crud or MS may be shooting itself in the foot: how many offices will spend a few hundred dollars on individual video cards just to upgrade the OS?
For Longhorn, graphics requirements for desktop experiences are defined in relation to differentiated experiences:
Aero Glass experience: Delivers the full-fidelity Longhorn user experience on the desktop, including support for 3D graphics and animation.
Aero experience: Delivers the minimum hardware acceleration and desktop composition for the Longhorn user experience.
Classic experience: Equivalent to Windows 2000 capabilities, using software rendering.
What about those machines with onboard video (ala Dell?)
Intel's newest integrated graphics (GMA 900) apparently meets the requirements for "Aero." Pixel Shader 2.0 is needed, but not Vertex Shader 2.0. I think Intel had Longhorn in mind when they designed GMA 900.
GMA 900 is the integrated graphics that comes with Intel's PCI Express chipsets. It will also be included with their Sonoma notebook platform (next version of Centrino), which will be released next week.
I should have been more clear. I don't use or want these features in WMP (I prefer MPC), but many people use and want these features, so MPC would not be a good replacement for them. For these people MusicMatch or iTunes would be a more appropriate replacement for WMP.
For Windows, I use and recommend EAC and LAME. I don't own (or want) a portable music/video player (I prefer PDAs) and I keep my music organized in folders I choose (not in C:\Documents and Settings\jackass\My Documents\My Music).
But that's just me. Many people want that extra shit in their media player app.
Shop for Music and Video (Windows Media Format) on the Internet
Organize Your Digital Media Collection
Take Your Music and Video with You (portable music/video players)
Burn Your Own CDs
I don't use any of these features of WMP, but many people do, so MPC wouldn't be a good replacement. I would call MPC a better replacement for WMP 6.4 (current version is 10).
I think a better supplement for WMP is VLC media player. VLC plays (without installing additional codecs) DVDs, MPEG-2, MP4, DivX, XviD, Ogg, AC3, FLAC, H263, AAC, and others (VLC does not use DirectShow to play files). Before downloading a DirectShow codec, I always try playing a file in VLC media player first.
Intel likes to say they are going to have dual-core processors for both the desktop and server segments in 2005, but this is very misleading. They are only planning dual-core Intaniums for 2005 and use this to say they have the server segment covered.
Intel will most likely use their own SOI technology without needing "permission" from IBM.
Tom's Hardware has some good information about thermal loss. Notice that an idle AMD Winchester (SOI Athlon 64) loses only 3.2 watts, while the more recent P4 chips are losing > 34 at idle.
Notice that you compared the "Cool 'n' Quiet" versions of the AMD Winchester to the older P4s (D0 stepping) without Enhanced Halt State. The same page you referenced shows a 3500+ Winchester without "Cool 'n' Quiet" technology losing 11.1 watts when idle and a "more recent" 3.4GHz P4 550 chip (E0 stepping with Enhanced Halt State) losing 13.4 watts.
This number changes at load to 30 watts for the Winchester and 100+ watts for the P4.
Only for the fastest (3.8GHz) P4. The previously-mentioned 3.4GHz P4 550 (E0 stepping) loses 73.6 watts and a slower Prescott (3.0GHz) loses 59.3 watts.
I know the new Winchesters are a lot cooler than the new P4s at load, but you seemed to be greatly exaggerating in your comparison (especially at idle).
The Wi-Fi Alliance will not certify 802.11n products until the standard is ratified.
The 802.11n standard will be completed in approximately November 2006.
"Pre-standard products always present an inherent risk for technology adopters"
"Vendors took advantage of unsuspecting buyers when they touted pre-standard technology for 802.11g that later did not meet the standard. Left unchecked, the industry is unfortunately poised to repeat itself with 802.11n."
Does the Wi-Fi Alliance's opinion mean shiit anyhoo?
AMD doesn't need to release a whole new line of processors just to compete with the Celeron -- they've had the Celeron beaten for years.
Of course, the submitter's reference to the Celeron was a joke (Turion = Asparagus, Celeron = Celery). I mostly agree that AMD has kicked Intel's arse in budget CPUs in the past. But I don't think AMD currently beats Intel in every budget segment.
Also consider current pricing (from Newegg) for the Sempron and the Celeron D. In Anandtech's benchmark results, the Socket 754-based Sempron 3100+ did beat the Socket 478-based Celeron D 335 in most of the bechmarks that count. However, the Sempron 3100+ costs $123/$108 (retail/OEM) while the Celeron D 335 costs $109/$89. The benchmarks also showed that the Socket A-based Sempron 2800+ ($109/$99) was about even with the Celeron D 335, but would you choose an aging Socket A platform (PCI, AGP, IDE, 333MHz FSB) over a modern platform (PCI Express, SATA, 533/800MHz FSB) that you can get with the Celeron D?
Of course, we're talking about building our own desktops, which is very different from what the big-name computer makers offer. Us home builders would choose nForce or 915 chipsets for Sempron and Celeron D CPUs. HP and Dell are more likely to offer VIA/SiS/ALi chipsets for Semprons and 865/845 chipsets for Celeron D. Ugh.
If I was building a budget desktop, I would choose a Socket 775-based Celeron D over a Socket A or Socket 754-based Sempron. I value the whole platform just as much (if not more) than the CPU itself. If AMD made a Socket 939-based Sempron, I'd reconsider.
I'll be interested to see how this unfortunately named "Turion" chip compares to the PentiumM.
Back to the article's topic (notebook CPUs), it looks like AMD will not have an answer to Intel's Celeron M. The Celeron M is based on the Pentium M core and performs almost equivalently clock-for-clock in Tom's Hardware benchmarks. Also note that Intel's Sonoma platform (533MHz bus, PCI Express, DDR2, GMA900 graphics, HD Audio) is about to be lauched.
In late 2003, Intel announced plans to produce inexpensive LCoS chips in 2004. Some predicted $1000 LCoS televisions by Christmas 2004. I blame Slashdot for getting my hopes up:
This may not be the end of the line for it, though. MS has only dropped their workstation version, not their server version.
The really interesting question is: will Linux be able to carry Itanic, now that MS is starting to leave it behind?
Another question is: now that MS is dropping Windows for Itanium, will Intel contribute more free development tools for ia64 Linux and make more "investments" in Linux for Itanium? Since 1998, Intel has made many contributions to Linux for x86 and Itanium - I'm assuming much more than Alpha and MIPS have.
But even if they do, will enough Linux developers choose to develop for expensive Itanium workstations when cheap x86 workstations are "good enough." I think we'll see a lot more Itanium-specific Linux investments from Intel, but I don't know if Linux developers will invest more time in Itanium.
Continuing this off-topic, but interesting, thread...
My friend asked me for advice on upgrading his 17" CRT monitor (1024x768). He just bought a 6 megapixel camera and uses his computer for photos, word processing, and internet. I figure an upgrade would at least be a 19" CRT (running at 1280x960 most of the time) or a 17" LCD (running at 1280x1024 all of the time).
I'm thinking about recommending a 19" CRT because for about $200 he can get a decent Samsung or ViewSonic that can display 1920x1440. I know this is an unusable resolution for most tasks, but I think it would be nice to have this option when viewing/editing large photos or eventually watching 1920x1080i HDTV from his computer's HDTV tuner card (which I'll probably buy for his birthday).
Am I overvaluing the CRT's ability to display 1920x1400 (for photos and HDTV) for only $200?
No, they are telling you that HDTV's made with CRT technology (The huge, heavy boxes) display a better picture than the thing plasma or LCD screens.
Actually, I'm not too sure they are talking about HDTV CRTs. The "traditional tube TVs" (their words) they are talking about might be analog NTSC/PAL CRTs. The article doesn't make this clear. Note that "they" are from India, which seems to have very little HDTV content available. The article goes on to say:
Flat-panel sets and digital programming go hand in hand. The screens on flat-panel sets can better accommodate the high-resolution picture offered by HDTV, so combining the level of detail that comes with a digital signal with the large, thin screens of flat panels means an enhanced viewing experience.
An article from the Hindustan Times ("HDTV: Bigger, better but at a price") says that HDTV "could touch the lives of high-end consumers in India by 2007."
Buyers of HDTVs in India might be seeing the enhanced artifacts of 720x480 video that are less visible on a non-HDTV CRT. I wish the freakin' article had more details.
What if you could rip directly from CD onto the media hub, and then sync from the media hub onto an iPod? No computer needed, which some people might see as a benefit.
And why stop there? I think some people might like to store the songs they purchased from the iTunes Music Store on the media hub. However, HP would probably need to use an "illegal" hack to deal with Apple's DRM in Linux.
The story's submitter wrote: Since HP also sells self-branded iPods, it would be great if they'd make such a box iPod friendly.
... if we define "generations" as "processor cores."
Page 3 of Intel's pdf "The Microarchitecture of the Pentium 4 Processor" has a bar graph (Figure 2) that "shows the relative clock frequency of Intel's last six processor cores." According to Intel's graph, the last six cores are 286, 386, 486, P5, P6, and P4P.
The core that Intel calls "P5" is obviously the Pentium and Pentium MMX. The "P6" core is the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium 3. The "P4P" core (Pentium 4 Processor) is the next core after P6.
Look at the 4200 I think. They are the cheapest, and sure, they have onboard video but the Radeon 9200 is shit anyway. And you can add whatever AGP graphics card, something I'd take over a built in 9200 card.
After looking at Dell's current selection of Home & Home Desktops, do you mean the Dimention 2400 (not 4200)? Not only does the 2400 lack an AGP slot, but the chipset (and integrated graphics) is two generations old (Intel 845 chipset and Intel Extreme 3D graphics). In fact, they don't even offer a desktop with an AGP slot anymore (they've moved on to PCI Express 16x slots).
However, I mostly agree with your comment. Your supposedly Informative Parent comment claims "comparable" (in tech specs) Dell desktops are more expensive than Apple eMacs. It's not even close. The cheapest Dell desktop (on their Home & Home Office site) with a graphics slot is the Dimension 4700, which has a PCI Express 16x slot (much better than an AGP slot). Furthermore, the 4700 has Intel's new integrated graphics (GMA 900), which is DirectX 9 compatible (Radeon 9200 is only Direct X 8 compatible). Since the 4700 has PCI Express graphics and 16x slot (vs AGP non-upgradeable graphics), PCI Express 1x slots (vs no PCI slots), 800MHz front side bus (vs 167MHz bus), dual-channel 400MHz DDR2 memory (vs single-channel 333MHz DDR memory), and serial-ATA (vs IDE), I think the 4700 is way more advanced (in tech specs) than the ancient eMac architecture.
The cheapest eMac costs $800. A "comparable" Dimension 4700 (with 17" CRT) costs $787. And that's on a current architecture with expandability. I know Apple has OS X, good customer support, style, etc. But the grandparent comment said similarly configured Dells cost more than eMacs.
Here's the configuration I got for $787:
Pentium® 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.80GHz, 800 FSB, 1MB L2 cache)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
FREE UPGRADE! 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (2x256M)
4 DIMM slots
40GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Single Drive: 48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM Combo Drive
17 in (16 in viewable,.27dp) E773c CRT Monitor
Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio
IEEE 1394 Adapter
Dell A215 Speakers
Dell Quietkey® Keyboard
Dell 2-button scroll mouse
Microsoft® Works Suite - Includes Word 2002, Streets & Trips 2004
Dell Media Experience
Dell Jukebox - easy-to-use music player and CD burning software
56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet
I thought we were supposed to hate and graphic card that uses System RAM ?!?!
I think we still are, but I don't think this product is targeted at us. NVIDIA's web page for GeForce 6200 with TurboCache technology describes it as a product "for entry-level PCs." Also, I think this product (when paired with nForce4) might be NVIDIA's low-cost PCI Express answer to Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics.
Ever since Intel's 810 chipset, almost all "entry-level" platforms have included integrated graphics with "shared" memory architectures. Intel has dominated this category (in sales) and this continues with their current PCI Express platforms with integrated GMA 900 graphics. Note that GMA 900 is (barely) DirectX 9 compatible.
NVIDIA's nForce4 chipsets with PCI Express, which are just starting appear in stores, don't have a version with integrated graphics. If NVIDIA can offer to OEMs an nForce4 (for Athlon 64 and Sempron) + NVIDIA 6200 w/TurboCache bundle that's competitively priced with Intel's 915G chipset, then we might see more big-name computer makers selling low-cost Athlon 64/Sempron systems.
Parent makes a good point. The Oscars, Grammies, and Emmys telecasts have a variety of movie stars, music stars, and tv stars to attract a large viewing audience that covers all demographics.
Video games, while outselling movies (in dollars), don't have "video game stars" that can attract a large audience to a televised awards show. I guess the geniuses at SpikeTV saw a huge video game industry (around $20 billion), a relatively narrow demographic (young males), but no "video game stars" to sell the telecast. The result: babes and loud music.
Even the Oscars Scientific and Technical Awards ceremony is held at a seperate venue on a different date than the main awards ceremony. Only brief highlights of the Sci & Tech Awards are shown during the Oscars telecast. And guess what: they use babes (J Garn, Ch Ther, R Zell, S Hay, A Heche) to keep viewers from changing the channel.
Gary Kildall is best known (usually only known) as the guy who "snubbed" IBM when they approached him about using his operating system (CP/M) for the original IBM PC (they went with Microsoft's CP/M-clone instead). Kildall should be known as the creator of the PL/M programming language for Intel's early microprocessors (including the 8080), which he then used to create CP/M, the first modern OS for microcomputers. One of CP/M's innovations was the logical separation between the BIOS (physical I/O) and the BDOS (Basic Disk Operating System, which was independent of the hardware platform).
Other creations from Kildall's companies include Concurrent DOS (multitasking OS for PCs in the early 1980's), GEM graphical user interface (1984), and the first encyclopedia on a CD-ROM (1985).
The PBS show Computer Chronicles (which Kildall co-hosted from 1983-1988) devoted an entire show to him after his death in 1994. They even explain what "really happened" on that infamous day when IBM came calling. You can download it here: Gary Kildall Special (1995).
Slashdot Mirror
Name one. I have a recent NEC 21" Diamondtron. Sure, it'll sync up to whatever the video card can churn out, but I'm quite confident there's only about 1600 physical 'dots' from left to right.
2048x1536 CRTs from my two favorite CRT manufacturers:
- NEC MultiSync FP1355
- NEC MultiSync FP1370
- NEC MultiSync FP1375X
- Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u
- Samsung SyncMaster 1100DF
Note that the NEC/Mitsubishi 2048x1536 CRTs are in the "Non-Current Products" section of their web site because they are not as profitable as LCDs (or they might just be old).Heck, even a Newegg.com search got twelve results for 2048x1536 CRTs.
Price the whole thing at $99-$149 and release a couple more versions - people will be switching from Office in droves.
I'm not too sure that will do it. For Windows PCs, Microsoft Works 8 ($50) and Works Suite 2005 ($100) have not caused Office users to switch in droves. Works touts its compatibility with Word/Excel and Works Suite even comes with a full version of Word. These products even come bundled with new PCs for free or as a sub-$30 add-on, but Office still sells like hotcakes.
Also, didn't Mac OS have a great simple office suite in Claris Works (before they stopped updating it)? Claris Works didn't cause Office users to switch in droves.
iWork can be great, but I have doubts about mass switching from Office. I could be wrong, though.
I don't think it's such a bad idea to modernize the architecture of a good existing core. It worked well for Intel's Pentium-M, didn't it?
I've got a nit to pick. Several comments have claimed Microsoft's stock price is now "less than half" of the price it was when Balmer took over on January 13, 2000.
Am I miscalculating or are people exaggerating?As for the bubble bursting:
So MSFT did a little better than NASDAQ, but that probably doesn't mean shiite since both were overvalued by different degrees.Sources:
There. Nit is picked.
It's supposed to be here, but Apple pulled the system requirements from that page recently. Thankfully, a Google-cached version of that page is still available.
From that page:
So why did Apple pull the system requirements right before the Mac mini announcement? Are they lowering/raising the system requirements? Are they trying to hide the fact that a desktop Mac released this week does not meet the requirements?From the "Best Practices" section of Graphics Hardware and Drivers for Windows "Longhorn":
Apparently, there is. From Graphics Hardware and Drivers for Windows "Longhorn":
What about those machines with onboard video (ala Dell?)Intel's newest integrated graphics (GMA 900) apparently meets the requirements for "Aero." Pixel Shader 2.0 is needed, but not Vertex Shader 2.0. I think Intel had Longhorn in mind when they designed GMA 900.
GMA 900 is the integrated graphics that comes with Intel's PCI Express chipsets. It will also be included with their Sonoma notebook platform (next version of Centrino), which will be released next week.
But now the Apple Store is not Slashdotted and Apple Expoed.
I should have been more clear. I don't use or want these features in WMP (I prefer MPC), but many people use and want these features, so MPC would not be a good replacement for them. For these people MusicMatch or iTunes would be a more appropriate replacement for WMP.
For Windows, I use and recommend EAC and LAME. I don't own (or want) a portable music/video player (I prefer PDAs) and I keep my music organized in folders I choose (not in C:\Documents and Settings\jackass\My Documents\My Music).
But that's just me. Many people want that extra shit in their media player app.
I like and use Media Player Classic (MPC), but it's not a complete "replacement" for recent versions of Windows Media Player (WMP). Some features of WMP that MPC lacks:
- Rip/Encode CDs
- Shop for Music and Video (Windows Media Format) on the Internet
- Organize Your Digital Media Collection
- Take Your Music and Video with You (portable music/video players)
- Burn Your Own CDs
I don't use any of these features of WMP, but many people do, so MPC wouldn't be a good replacement. I would call MPC a better replacement for WMP 6.4 (current version is 10).I think a better supplement for WMP is VLC media player. VLC plays (without installing additional codecs) DVDs, MPEG-2, MP4, DivX, XviD, Ogg, AC3, FLAC, H263, AAC, and others (VLC does not use DirectShow to play files). Before downloading a DirectShow codec, I always try playing a file in VLC media player first.
Are you sure? Intel showed a dual-core Pentium 4 at CES last week and Anand thinks 2005 is realistic.
SOI is not patented by IBM. Only certain components of IBM's SOI technique are patented. Their most important patented SOI component is their SOI FET Design to Reduce Transient Bipolar Current.
Intel will most likely use their own SOI technology without needing "permission" from IBM.
Tom's Hardware has some good information about thermal loss. Notice that an idle AMD Winchester (SOI Athlon 64) loses only 3.2 watts, while the more recent P4 chips are losing > 34 at idle.
Notice that you compared the "Cool 'n' Quiet" versions of the AMD Winchester to the older P4s (D0 stepping) without Enhanced Halt State. The same page you referenced shows a 3500+ Winchester without "Cool 'n' Quiet" technology losing 11.1 watts when idle and a "more recent" 3.4GHz P4 550 chip (E0 stepping with Enhanced Halt State) losing 13.4 watts.
This number changes at load to 30 watts for the Winchester and 100+ watts for the P4.
Only for the fastest (3.8GHz) P4. The previously-mentioned 3.4GHz P4 550 (E0 stepping) loses 73.6 watts and a slower Prescott (3.0GHz) loses 59.3 watts.
I know the new Winchesters are a lot cooler than the new P4s at load, but you seemed to be greatly exaggerating in your comparison (especially at idle).
The Wi-Fi Alliance issued a press release last October ("Wi-Fi Alliance Will Not Certify Pre-Standard 802.11n Features") that says some pre-standard 802.11g products did not meet the final standard. I guess the earliest adapters got burned.
Other highlights from the press release:
- The Wi-Fi Alliance will not certify 802.11n products until the standard is ratified.
- The 802.11n standard will be completed in approximately November 2006.
- "Pre-standard products always present an inherent risk for technology adopters"
- "Vendors took advantage of unsuspecting buyers when they touted pre-standard technology for 802.11g that later did not meet the standard. Left unchecked, the industry is unfortunately poised to repeat itself with 802.11n."
Does the Wi-Fi Alliance's opinion mean shiit anyhoo?I predict Apple Airport Ntense. Get it?
That was lame. Shoot me.
Of course, the submitter's reference to the Celeron was a joke (Turion = Asparagus, Celeron = Celery). I mostly agree that AMD has kicked Intel's arse in budget CPUs in the past. But I don't think AMD currently beats Intel in every budget segment.
Consider Anandtech's conclusion from a Sempron vs. Celeron test they did last July
Also consider current pricing (from Newegg) for the Sempron and the Celeron D. In Anandtech's benchmark results, the Socket 754-based Sempron 3100+ did beat the Socket 478-based Celeron D 335 in most of the bechmarks that count. However, the Sempron 3100+ costs $123/$108 (retail/OEM) while the Celeron D 335 costs $109/$89. The benchmarks also showed that the Socket A-based Sempron 2800+ ($109/$99) was about even with the Celeron D 335, but would you choose an aging Socket A platform (PCI, AGP, IDE, 333MHz FSB) over a modern platform (PCI Express, SATA, 533/800MHz FSB) that you can get with the Celeron D?
Of course, we're talking about building our own desktops, which is very different from what the big-name computer makers offer. Us home builders would choose nForce or 915 chipsets for Sempron and Celeron D CPUs. HP and Dell are more likely to offer VIA/SiS/ALi chipsets for Semprons and 865/845 chipsets for Celeron D. Ugh.
If I was building a budget desktop, I would choose a Socket 775-based Celeron D over a Socket A or Socket 754-based Sempron. I value the whole platform just as much (if not more) than the CPU itself. If AMD made a Socket 939-based Sempron, I'd reconsider.
I'll be interested to see how this unfortunately named "Turion" chip compares to the PentiumM.
Back to the article's topic (notebook CPUs), it looks like AMD will not have an answer to Intel's Celeron M. The Celeron M is based on the Pentium M core and performs almost equivalently clock-for-clock in Tom's Hardware benchmarks. Also note that Intel's Sonoma platform (533MHz bus, PCI Express, DDR2, GMA900 graphics, HD Audio) is about to be lauched.
December 2003: Intel To Produce Cheap LCoS Chips
August 2004: Intel Delays TV Chip Launch
October 2004: Intel Cancels LCOS Development
The really interesting question is: will Linux be able to carry Itanic, now that MS is starting to leave it behind?
Another question is: now that MS is dropping Windows for Itanium, will Intel contribute more free development tools for ia64 Linux and make more "investments" in Linux for Itanium? Since 1998, Intel has made many contributions to Linux for x86 and Itanium - I'm assuming much more than Alpha and MIPS have.
But even if they do, will enough Linux developers choose to develop for expensive Itanium workstations when cheap x86 workstations are "good enough." I think we'll see a lot more Itanium-specific Linux investments from Intel, but I don't know if Linux developers will invest more time in Itanium.
For the near future, it looks like Itanium workstations have Debian 3.0 and Red Hat Enterprise WS.
My friend asked me for advice on upgrading his 17" CRT monitor (1024x768). He just bought a 6 megapixel camera and uses his computer for photos, word processing, and internet. I figure an upgrade would at least be a 19" CRT (running at 1280x960 most of the time) or a 17" LCD (running at 1280x1024 all of the time).
I'm thinking about recommending a 19" CRT because for about $200 he can get a decent Samsung or ViewSonic that can display 1920x1440. I know this is an unusable resolution for most tasks, but I think it would be nice to have this option when viewing/editing large photos or eventually watching 1920x1080i HDTV from his computer's HDTV tuner card (which I'll probably buy for his birthday).
Am I overvaluing the CRT's ability to display 1920x1400 (for photos and HDTV) for only $200?
Actually, I'm not too sure they are talking about HDTV CRTs. The "traditional tube TVs" (their words) they are talking about might be analog NTSC/PAL CRTs. The article doesn't make this clear. Note that "they" are from India, which seems to have very little HDTV content available. The article goes on to say:
An article from the Hindustan Times ("HDTV: Bigger, better but at a price") says that HDTV "could touch the lives of high-end consumers in India by 2007."
Buyers of HDTVs in India might be seeing the enhanced artifacts of 720x480 video that are less visible on a non-HDTV CRT. I wish the freakin' article had more details.
And why stop there? I think some people might like to store the songs they purchased from the iTunes Music Store on the media hub. However, HP would probably need to use an "illegal" hack to deal with Apple's DRM in Linux.
The story's submitter wrote: Since HP also sells self-branded iPods, it would be great if they'd make such a box iPod friendly.
Since HP also bundles and promotes the use of iTunes on their PCs, shouldn't he be asking Apple to make the iPod more Linux-friendly?
Page 3 of Intel's pdf "The Microarchitecture of the Pentium 4 Processor" has a bar graph (Figure 2) that "shows the relative clock frequency of Intel's last six processor cores." According to Intel's graph, the last six cores are 286, 386, 486, P5, P6, and P4P.
The core that Intel calls "P5" is obviously the Pentium and Pentium MMX. The "P6" core is the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium 3. The "P4P" core (Pentium 4 Processor) is the next core after P6.
After looking at Dell's current selection of Home & Home Desktops, do you mean the Dimention 2400 (not 4200)? Not only does the 2400 lack an AGP slot, but the chipset (and integrated graphics) is two generations old (Intel 845 chipset and Intel Extreme 3D graphics). In fact, they don't even offer a desktop with an AGP slot anymore (they've moved on to PCI Express 16x slots).
However, I mostly agree with your comment. Your supposedly Informative Parent comment claims "comparable" (in tech specs) Dell desktops are more expensive than Apple eMacs. It's not even close. The cheapest Dell desktop (on their Home & Home Office site) with a graphics slot is the Dimension 4700, which has a PCI Express 16x slot (much better than an AGP slot). Furthermore, the 4700 has Intel's new integrated graphics (GMA 900), which is DirectX 9 compatible (Radeon 9200 is only Direct X 8 compatible). Since the 4700 has PCI Express graphics and 16x slot (vs AGP non-upgradeable graphics), PCI Express 1x slots (vs no PCI slots), 800MHz front side bus (vs 167MHz bus), dual-channel 400MHz DDR2 memory (vs single-channel 333MHz DDR memory), and serial-ATA (vs IDE), I think the 4700 is way more advanced (in tech specs) than the ancient eMac architecture.
The cheapest eMac costs $800. A "comparable" Dimension 4700 (with 17" CRT) costs $787. And that's on a current architecture with expandability. I know Apple has OS X, good customer support, style, etc. But the grandparent comment said similarly configured Dells cost more than eMacs.
Here's the configuration I got for $787:
The specs for the $800 eMac are on this page.Nobody's gonna read this comment anyway.
I think we still are, but I don't think this product is targeted at us. NVIDIA's web page for GeForce 6200 with TurboCache technology describes it as a product "for entry-level PCs." Also, I think this product (when paired with nForce4) might be NVIDIA's low-cost PCI Express answer to Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics.
Ever since Intel's 810 chipset, almost all "entry-level" platforms have included integrated graphics with "shared" memory architectures. Intel has dominated this category (in sales) and this continues with their current PCI Express platforms with integrated GMA 900 graphics. Note that GMA 900 is (barely) DirectX 9 compatible.
NVIDIA's nForce4 chipsets with PCI Express, which are just starting appear in stores, don't have a version with integrated graphics. If NVIDIA can offer to OEMs an nForce4 (for Athlon 64 and Sempron) + NVIDIA 6200 w/TurboCache bundle that's competitively priced with Intel's 915G chipset, then we might see more big-name computer makers selling low-cost Athlon 64/Sempron systems.
Video games, while outselling movies (in dollars), don't have "video game stars" that can attract a large audience to a televised awards show. I guess the geniuses at SpikeTV saw a huge video game industry (around $20 billion), a relatively narrow demographic (young males), but no "video game stars" to sell the telecast. The result: babes and loud music.
Even the Oscars Scientific and Technical Awards ceremony is held at a seperate venue on a different date than the main awards ceremony. Only brief highlights of the Sci & Tech Awards are shown during the Oscars telecast. And guess what: they use babes (J Garn, Ch Ther, R Zell, S Hay, A Heche) to keep viewers from changing the channel.
Other creations from Kildall's companies include Concurrent DOS (multitasking OS for PCs in the early 1980's), GEM graphical user interface (1984), and the first encyclopedia on a CD-ROM (1985).
The PBS show Computer Chronicles (which Kildall co-hosted from 1983-1988) devoted an entire show to him after his death in 1994. They even explain what "really happened" on that infamous day when IBM came calling. You can download it here: Gary Kildall Special (1995).
I highly recommend the Computer Chronicles video archive for amusing nostalgia like "Intel 386 - The Fast Lane" (1987) and "The Macintosh Computer" (1985).