And it's high time for someone besides Intel to be the marketer of more-of-the-same-but-look-at-the-bigger-number. It's a step down for any competitor who enters the arena. May as well be AMD, I s'pose.
Video/Movies is a serial process. For most purposes only smallish chunks of the huge video stream need to be in core at any one time. There's no need to have a 4 GB chunk of video all in memory all at once. It makes a lot of difference when producing/editing. It makes little or no difference at the 'playback' station. Which is the volume business, the desktop market so to speak.
The world moved from 8088 to 80286 'without a problem' because aside from a few specialized houses (that actually used the '286 features, mainlya few specialized UNIX houses who produced the boxes Intel designed the chip for), the '286 was used as a 'newer, faster, 8088' to run a crippled OS. (MS-DOS). If there hadn't been a DOS-Intel partnership evolving into Wintel, the 286 would have been a horrible market failure. There's cool stuff in there that almost nobody used. There are a few rare collectable boxes from Intel and close partners that used the 286 properly. Clue: IBM's PC-AT isn't one of them.
The 'slow creeping evolution' that Intel started, and maintained in partnership with IBM/Microsoft, and has continued to maintain, is antithetical to an Open-Source multi-architecture worldview. It shouldn't Matter what the core instruction set is anymore.
Unless we're gonna continue to live in a closed binary-only world. People should already be running computers without caring what processor is inside. Does yours have an Alpha, an x86 variant, a StrongARM, a PowerPC variant? One of the new Fribbitz chips that FKA Labs just came out with? How quaint that these question are even asked by anybody but the guys coding the device driver layer.
How sad that the kids are still fighting about this stuff, eh?
Intel was too set in their old ways to put any kind of fight.
Wow. What an ironic assertion. Intel goes out of their way to produce a new 64-bit architecture, and AMD, clinging to the old instruction set, puts out a bolt-on 64-bit kludge in response.
Because a bunch of old farts want to 'stay the course' the kludge solution is perceived as 'more successful' (in the short term). As a result, you accuse Intel of being 'set in their old ways.'
You don't live on a farm. You're one of those urban utopian types who don't have a fucking clue and have probably never plowed a row of dirt, anywhere at all.
Really, it's a waste of time participating in a discussion with you. *Plonk*
The economy is not a zero-sum game. People produce value with their labor and the pot gets bigger. That's why 'gimmie-gimmie' utopians who want to slice apart what other people have created are such a disruptive force. They tend to throw a wrench in the process of wealth creation.
Perhaps you and your ilk should just go queue in your line for bread somewhere. Perhaps that is sufficient to meet your needs.
But fuck off if you're going to try to tell somebody else how much is 'enough' for them.
I could be a Trotskyite, or a DeLeon Socialist, or any of the other many flavors and schisms of 'Marxism' which have erupted in the last century and more.
You're obviously a 'Utopian Socialist.' Engels wrote a good essay that cut your drivel to bits over a century ago.
Grow up. And drop the 'postage stamp' simplification of a stone age culture you just mock by championing it in ignorance. We don't care that you've read a few books and know more than the rest of us.
Yep- because they are sacrificing what is really important for something that isn't important at all.
That's a wildly ignorant statement. We would all still be living on farms if there weren't people who had ideas and dreams of making a better life for themselves, and the world as a whole, by enriching themselves with innovative plots that shake up their corner of the world.
Most creative people could easily make enough money for the bags of groceries and a few pails of diapers, to keep this 'family' you're fawning over well-fed and tended to. They could make it bagging groceries. They want more, and 'levelers' like you have no business telling them they can't have more.
Don't tell them what's important. Oh, and enjoy your pastoral life. If you're really into that.
I have quite a bit (I bought a whole bunch of it to celebrate the Windows 98 launch event) of boxed commercial software for Linux. About as much as I could find at the time. None of it will easily run on a modern Linux system. Anything at all that I'd bought at that time to run on a Windows 95/98/NT system would 'just install' on Windows 2000 or XP.
Windows NT made that disasterous transition to 'video in the kernel' with NT 4.0 and it reduced stability from NT 3.51. Why are the hooks for AGP ports vendor-specific? Why is the AGP hardware driver not a well-tested checkbox option in the kernel? Why is any vendor code at all required? Is AGP I/O that quirky and vendor-keyed?
I'm just asking. It sounds like it could be an issue.
I run NetBSD on some of my systems, and install all packages from source using the excellent pkgsrc system. I know for a fact that on occasion I've wanted to use some minor utility, and that it makes use of, say, GNOME or KDE libraries. Whoop! Whoom! There I am, building all of the KDE or GNOME base system from source. And suddenly my small package has 120MB of dependencies.
It used to be a lot different in the old days when people coded to bare X11 and a simple tarball would build nicely from source.
Every other major OS sees the need for a stable API and backwards compatability except Linux.
What you're referring to is a stable ABI, not API. A stable, locked-down binary interface.
There is strong resistance to a frozen, controlled ABI in Linux, significantly in part for political reasons. Linux folks have a strong bias toward requiring people and organizations to release their software in source form, and an ABI would make this significantly less necessary.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is trapped into a world where they find themselves still having to honor the ABI from Windows 3. Important customers call up and holler when critical Windows 3 apps quit working on their latest-greatest Windows system.
I can see why some people suspect there would be a tremendous vendor/support lock-in if they want to a Linux environment. They're bound to whatever version they 'targeted' and that's what they're stuck with, until they do a complete reinstall.
That wouldn't be a problem, except the recent track history, i.e. Red Hat's abandonment of their desktop product, kinda points somewhere bad...
I have Red Hat packaged version of ApplixWare. I bought it in a boxed set from a Red Hat dealer, and it was a nice spreadsheet and word processor.
It won't work on any current version of Linux in any way that I've tried. There is no new RPM to download. I suspect it's bound to Kernel 1.2 era systems.
I can easily install Office 2000, or Office 97, or Office 95, or even Office 4.3 (which was for Windows 3.1) onto my Windows 2000 desktop machine.
You don't need to even download the software, apt does it for you.
Whoah. You mean the OS actually has it's own connection to the internet? I won't have to turn on the 56K modem that I can sometimes get as fast as a 19K connection through?
Yep. You just made downloading that 3.4 Meg Install Shield EXE file seem like a burden...
How is 'apt-get install foo' or 'yum install foo' or 'emerge foo' going through bullshit?
Not everybody has a broadband connection capable of connecting to 'the hive' and downloading 120 megs of stuff every time they want to install some small package on their system.
Okay. So things are fine, so long as enough people who use the same 'distro' as you want a particular app, and you get along with them, and want to belong to their particular clique.
Static libraries suck memory like crazy. Do you really believe the 'solution' is to devolve software/OS design a decade or two, and abandon shared libraries?
Slashdot Mirror
And it's high time for someone besides Intel to be the marketer of more-of-the-same-but-look-at-the-bigger-number. It's a step down for any competitor who enters the arena. May as well be AMD, I s'pose.
If that's the WHOLE advantage then AMD is doomed.
Binary compatability is a dead horse, and needs to cease being beaten on.\
Unless you're Microsoft & co, of course.
(fortunately for AMD, that isn't the whole picture)
Video/Movies is a serial process. For most purposes only smallish chunks of the huge video stream need to be in core at any one time. There's no need to have a 4 GB chunk of video all in memory all at once. It makes a lot of difference when producing/editing. It makes little or no difference at the 'playback' station. Which is the volume business, the desktop market so to speak.
The world moved from 8088 to 80286 'without a problem' because aside from a few specialized houses (that actually used the '286 features, mainlya few specialized UNIX houses who produced the boxes Intel designed the chip for), the '286 was used as a 'newer, faster, 8088' to run a crippled OS. (MS-DOS). If there hadn't been a DOS-Intel partnership evolving into Wintel, the 286 would have been a horrible market failure. There's cool stuff in there that almost nobody used. There are a few rare collectable boxes from Intel and close partners that used the 286 properly. Clue: IBM's PC-AT isn't one of them.
The 'slow creeping evolution' that Intel started, and maintained in partnership with IBM/Microsoft, and has continued to maintain, is antithetical to an Open-Source multi-architecture worldview. It shouldn't Matter what the core instruction set is anymore.
Unless we're gonna continue to live in a closed binary-only world. People should already be running computers without caring what processor is inside. Does yours have an Alpha, an x86 variant, a StrongARM, a PowerPC variant? One of the new Fribbitz chips that FKA Labs just came out with? How quaint that these question are even asked by anybody but the guys coding the device driver layer.
How sad that the kids are still fighting about this stuff, eh?
Correction:
Either you're lucky as hell, or you're spinning a heck of a yarn.
Intel was too set in their old ways to put any kind of fight.
Wow. What an ironic assertion. Intel goes out of their way to produce a new 64-bit architecture, and AMD, clinging to the old instruction set, puts out a bolt-on 64-bit kludge in response.
Because a bunch of old farts want to 'stay the course' the kludge solution is perceived as 'more successful' (in the short term). As a result, you accuse Intel of being 'set in their old ways.'
That's amazing, ya know.
You don't live on a farm. You're one of those urban utopian types who don't have a fucking clue and have probably never plowed a row of dirt, anywhere at all.
Really, it's a waste of time participating in a discussion with you. *Plonk*
The economy is not a zero-sum game. People produce value with their labor and the pot gets bigger. That's why 'gimmie-gimmie' utopians who want to slice apart what other people have created are such a disruptive force. They tend to throw a wrench in the process of wealth creation.
Perhaps you and your ilk should just go queue in your line for bread somewhere. Perhaps that is sufficient to meet your needs.
But fuck off if you're going to try to tell somebody else how much is 'enough' for them.
You have friends?
And what makes you think I am a 'conservative'?
I could be a Trotskyite, or a DeLeon Socialist, or any of the other many flavors and schisms of 'Marxism' which have erupted in the last century and more.
You're obviously a 'Utopian Socialist.' Engels wrote a good essay that cut your drivel to bits over a century ago.
Also, most of those archs don't have very good support in Debian.
The NetBSD arch naming conventions have a LOT more credibility that way.
Grow up. And drop the 'postage stamp' simplification of a stone age culture you just mock by championing it in ignorance. We don't care that you've read a few books and know more than the rest of us.
Yep- because they are sacrificing what is really important for something that isn't important at all.
That's a wildly ignorant statement. We would all still be living on farms if there weren't people who had ideas and dreams of making a better life for themselves, and the world as a whole, by enriching themselves with innovative plots that shake up their corner of the world.
Most creative people could easily make enough money for the bags of groceries and a few pails of diapers, to keep this 'family' you're fawning over well-fed and tended to. They could make it bagging groceries. They want more, and 'levelers' like you have no business telling them they can't have more.
Don't tell them what's important. Oh, and enjoy your pastoral life. If you're really into that.
I have quite a bit (I bought a whole bunch of it to celebrate the Windows 98 launch event) of boxed commercial software for Linux. About as much as I could find at the time. None of it will easily run on a modern Linux system. Anything at all that I'd bought at that time to run on a Windows 95/98/NT system would 'just install' on Windows 2000 or XP.
Windows NT made that disasterous transition to 'video in the kernel' with NT 4.0 and it reduced stability from NT 3.51. Why are the hooks for AGP ports vendor-specific? Why is the AGP hardware driver not a well-tested checkbox option in the kernel? Why is any vendor code at all required? Is AGP I/O that quirky and vendor-keyed?
I'm just asking. It sounds like it could be an issue.
I run NetBSD on some of my systems, and install all packages from source using the excellent pkgsrc system. I know for a fact that on occasion I've wanted to use some minor utility, and that it makes use of, say, GNOME or KDE libraries. Whoop! Whoom! There I am, building all of the KDE or GNOME base system from source. And suddenly my small package has 120MB of dependencies.
It used to be a lot different in the old days when people coded to bare X11 and a simple tarball would build nicely from source.
Every other major OS sees the need for a stable API and backwards compatability except Linux.
What you're referring to is a stable ABI, not API. A stable, locked-down binary interface.
There is strong resistance to a frozen, controlled ABI in Linux, significantly in part for political reasons. Linux folks have a strong bias toward requiring people and organizations to release their software in source form, and an ABI would make this significantly less necessary.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is trapped into a world where they find themselves still having to honor the ABI from Windows 3. Important customers call up and holler when critical Windows 3 apps quit working on their latest-greatest Windows system.
ABI=Application Binary Interface, btw.
I can see why some people suspect there would be a tremendous vendor/support lock-in if they want to a Linux environment. They're bound to whatever version they 'targeted' and that's what they're stuck with, until they do a complete reinstall.
That wouldn't be a problem, except the recent track history, i.e. Red Hat's abandonment of their desktop product, kinda points somewhere bad...
I have Red Hat packaged version of ApplixWare. I bought it in a boxed set from a Red Hat dealer, and it was a nice spreadsheet and word processor.
It won't work on any current version of Linux in any way that I've tried. There is no new RPM to download. I suspect it's bound to Kernel 1.2 era systems.
I can easily install Office 2000, or Office 97, or Office 95, or even Office 4.3 (which was for Windows 3.1) onto my Windows 2000 desktop machine.
It isn't a pretty comparison.
You don't need to even download the software, apt does it for you.
Whoah. You mean the OS actually has it's own connection to the internet? I won't have to turn on the 56K modem that I can sometimes get as fast as a 19K connection through?
Yep. You just made downloading that 3.4 Meg Install Shield EXE file seem like a burden...
How is 'apt-get install foo' or 'yum install foo' or 'emerge foo' going through bullshit?
Not everybody has a broadband connection capable of connecting to 'the hive' and downloading 120 megs of stuff every time they want to install some small package on their system.
1) You are running debian/unstable
As opposed to, say, running on a code base newer than 2002?
Welcome to the 21st century.
Okay. So things are fine, so long as enough people who use the same 'distro' as you want a particular app, and you get along with them, and want to belong to their particular clique.
Exactly why do you think MS has introduced rollback and system files protection?
Umm, to solve the five-year-old problem that you're bringing up now as if it's a current issue for most Windows users???
Static libraries suck memory like crazy. Do you really believe the 'solution' is to devolve software/OS design a decade or two, and abandon shared libraries?
Why is video hardware support getting stuffed into the Linux kernel? Is Linux finally making the transition that Windows NT did from 3.51 to 4.0?