Not that sure about *below 512*
Las time I installed Vista on VirtualPC, It didn't even want to install with 256 MB. Had to kick it up to 512 just for it to install.
Undocumented switches? (like installing 98SE on less than 24MB RAM)
?
Besides, running a modern OS on anything less than 512-1GB is kinda asking for nasty slowdowns. (unless you're only browsing/playing solitaire)
WIth RAM prices the way they are, My main machine has 2GB, my PVR will soon be bumped from 512 to 1024, even my old P3-1000 98SE machine has 512 (old DOS games)
A CPU has to rely on old 386/486 code (20+ years old technology) or some software won't make it. (Some people *need* their old software)
What I would do, drop everything before the P6 core (Ppro/P2/PIII) from the hardware (CPU) itself, and run those bugs/instructions using an emulation layer. Just ship a CD with the CPU, and install it on the OS so it can emulate those instructions.
I mean, If your software *requires* 486 instructions,and used to run on a 66 or 100Mhz 486 it can be emulated quite easily with modern processors. That's what I would do. (VirtualPC and Vmware emulate a *whole PC* in software and manage to run at decent speeds, most of the times much faster than a 486)
Less transistors, so either a cheaper unit, or a faster/more efficient one. (not to mention it won't need liquid nitrogen:)
A GPU on the other hand relies on its driver and the OS's API (DirectX / OpenGL). So they can throw out inneficient(sic) code from the hardware itself and leave room for new hardware.
Besides, modern GPUs are massively parallel Floating Point Units, they are not a general purpose processor such as CPUs.
My X800XT has 16 Pipelines, but it's already outclassed, cards are coming out with *way* more than that:)
ATI & Nvidia have enough to worry about each other, they don't need big old Intel & AMD as their competitors.
(What I would like to see would be an up-to-date AMD chipset. It's their CPU, so why don't they build chipsets?)
Apple is already a niche market, striving to offer the best computing experience. They should've gone AMD. Both architectures are a lot more similar (G4/5 and Athlon, Hypertransport, etc...)
Besides, Apple going for the underdog would have helped AMD, brought recognition for the brand, and we have to agree, AMD has a superior dual-core chip. Faster, more efficient, and more energy efficient.
The last Intel machine I've bought is an old IBM PC Server 330 with dual Ppro200 processors. All my machines are either recycled K6-2s or Athlons. (exception being the PVR, it's powered by a 64-bit enabled Sempron, but it's still AMD:)
What are they going to call new Powermacs?
Macmacs?
It is utterly stupid. Even if they don't have PowerPCs in them, they still should be called Powerbooks.
"First to market = First to rule! Sony will win, they'll be out there, established, and it'll be far far too late for M$ to do anything."
BETA was there first, besides, Minidiscs and Memory Sticks are pretty much dead too.
So no, Blu-ray won't stay...
I used to own one of those 6.4s
Guess what? it blew itself.
Replacement did too.
Now using 'cudas and Raptors in my main machine.
COuple of Maxtors in the PVR.
They should've went with AMD...
AMD's architecture is almost the same as MAC (Hypertransport being one of the most crucial)
It would have kicked Intel's ass. But Intel probably threatened them or dumped the CPUs
(A La Dell, and others)
They could have gone with AMD (better CPUs, faster memory reads, etc...)
And by siding with AMD, they would have meaner machines. (dual Opterons are faster than dual Xeons, even when clocked at around 1 less Ghz)
Think about it. 2 dual-core Opterons on OS X. Would have wiped the floor with Wintel machines.
Altivec is good, but honnestly, 3Dnow! is much better than MMX or SSE (Newer Opterons support 3Dnow!, MMX, SSE and SSE2, and have much higher memory bandwidth than current Intel CPUs)
*NATIVE* 64-bit and multi-core support, not something patched-up and glued together like Intel.
IIRC, wasn't the X86 version of OS X built on Athlons? Intel is probably seeing AMD's better architecture (Powermacs are already using Hypertransport, from AMD)
I for sure don't want to go back to paying 1,000$ for a CPU like in the old days.
I used to own one. Blue LCD display (had to change it to reverse in the BIOS, otherwise Larry would look like a smurf:)
It was a lowly V20 (Nec's XT clone). That thing used standard AA Nicads in the powerpack, They even got replaced once.
Don't underestimate technological progress.
We won't even have to wait 15 years to see those things in action.
just a couple of years ago, who would have thought a CPU reaching 1GHz?
Since I'm a 70s guy, I'm lucky. back then almost all songs were good on an album.
Today?
1 maybe 2 good songs on an entire album. everything else is filler stuff.
Record companies should keep up.
Remember when 4-track tapes cost 10 bucks and CDs 20 bucks?
a tape costs something to manufacture. there's a casing, a roll of tape, some springs and rollers.
a CD is 1 cent of polycarbonate plastic molded on an aluminum sheet.
Why are they still that expensive?
I don't think the artist gets more than a buck on those. Producers are just getting greedier.
Bring back the old stuff. I don't like machine guns on vipers and cylon raiders.
Bring back lasers.
bring back those toaster look-alike robots with 170's speech synthetisers and that red scanner
(same as KITT BTW)
And of course, Starbuck sucks as a female...
Agreed.
I've always wondered how a WinNT server would compare to a *NIX box if we would be allowed to boot it in CLI only.
I mean, running a GUI on a *server* is pretty pointless.
My file server doesn't even have a monitor (it's on NT, so kill me:p
Slashdot Mirror
Not that sure about *below 512* Las time I installed Vista on VirtualPC, It didn't even want to install with 256 MB. Had to kick it up to 512 just for it to install. Undocumented switches? (like installing 98SE on less than 24MB RAM) ? Besides, running a modern OS on anything less than 512-1GB is kinda asking for nasty slowdowns. (unless you're only browsing/playing solitaire) WIth RAM prices the way they are, My main machine has 2GB, my PVR will soon be bumped from 512 to 1024, even my old P3-1000 98SE machine has 512 (old DOS games)
Actually, NT6.x
They are different animals...
:)
:)
A CPU has to rely on old 386/486 code (20+ years old technology) or some software won't make it. (Some people *need* their old software)
What I would do, drop everything before the P6 core (Ppro/P2/PIII) from the hardware (CPU) itself, and run those bugs/instructions using an emulation layer. Just ship a CD with the CPU, and install it on the OS so it can emulate those instructions.
I mean, If your software *requires* 486 instructions,and used to run on a 66 or 100Mhz 486 it can be emulated quite easily with modern processors. That's what I would do. (VirtualPC and Vmware emulate a *whole PC* in software and manage to run at decent speeds, most of the times much faster than a 486)
Less transistors, so either a cheaper unit, or a faster/more efficient one. (not to mention it won't need liquid nitrogen
A GPU on the other hand relies on its driver and the OS's API (DirectX / OpenGL). So they can throw out inneficient(sic) code from the hardware itself and leave room for new hardware.
Besides, modern GPUs are massively parallel Floating Point Units, they are not a general purpose processor such as CPUs.
My X800XT has 16 Pipelines, but it's already outclassed, cards are coming out with *way* more than that
ATI & Nvidia have enough to worry about each other, they don't need big old Intel & AMD as their competitors.
(What I would like to see would be an up-to-date AMD chipset. It's their CPU, so why don't they build chipsets?)
Why didn't they go with AMD chips?
:)
Apple is already a niche market, striving to offer the best computing experience. They should've gone AMD. Both architectures are a lot more similar (G4/5 and Athlon, Hypertransport, etc...)
Besides, Apple going for the underdog would have helped AMD, brought recognition for the brand, and we have to agree, AMD has a superior dual-core chip. Faster, more efficient, and more energy efficient.
The last Intel machine I've bought is an old IBM PC Server 330 with dual Ppro200 processors. All my machines are either recycled K6-2s or Athlons. (exception being the PVR, it's powered by a 64-bit enabled Sempron, but it's still AMD
What are they going to call new Powermacs? Macmacs? It is utterly stupid. Even if they don't have PowerPCs in them, they still should be called Powerbooks.
"First to market = First to rule! Sony will win, they'll be out there, established, and it'll be far far too late for M$ to do anything." BETA was there first, besides, Minidiscs and Memory Sticks are pretty much dead too. So no, Blu-ray won't stay...
Whoever wins is gonna get cracked anyways :)
the fastest way to wipe 500GB in a HD failure :)
I used to own one of those 6.4s Guess what? it blew itself. Replacement did too. Now using 'cudas and Raptors in my main machine. COuple of Maxtors in the PVR.
They should've went with AMD... AMD's architecture is almost the same as MAC (Hypertransport being one of the most crucial) It would have kicked Intel's ass. But Intel probably threatened them or dumped the CPUs (A La Dell, and others)
So, that's where the nipples on previous batsuits are now :)
more like 5 :)
*running around crying and pounding*
Why?
Why Intel...
They could have gone with AMD (better CPUs, faster memory reads, etc...)
And by siding with AMD, they would have meaner machines. (dual Opterons are faster than dual Xeons, even when clocked at around 1 less Ghz)
Think about it. 2 dual-core Opterons on OS X. Would have wiped the floor with Wintel machines.
Altivec is good, but honnestly, 3Dnow! is much better than MMX or SSE (Newer Opterons support 3Dnow!, MMX, SSE and SSE2, and have much higher memory bandwidth than current Intel CPUs)
*NATIVE* 64-bit and multi-core support, not something patched-up and glued together like Intel.
IIRC, wasn't the X86 version of OS X built on Athlons? Intel is probably seeing AMD's better architecture (Powermacs are already using Hypertransport, from AMD)
I for sure don't want to go back to paying 1,000$ for a CPU like in the old days.
I used to own one. Blue LCD display (had to change it to reverse in the BIOS, otherwise Larry would look like a smurf :)
It was a lowly V20 (Nec's XT clone). That thing used standard AA Nicads in the powerpack, They even got replaced once.
Don't underestimate technological progress. We won't even have to wait 15 years to see those things in action. just a couple of years ago, who would have thought a CPU reaching 1GHz?
Just use SMTP Authentication. That's what I do.
Since I'm a 70s guy, I'm lucky. back then almost all songs were good on an album. Today? 1 maybe 2 good songs on an entire album. everything else is filler stuff. Record companies should keep up. Remember when 4-track tapes cost 10 bucks and CDs 20 bucks? a tape costs something to manufacture. there's a casing, a roll of tape, some springs and rollers. a CD is 1 cent of polycarbonate plastic molded on an aluminum sheet. Why are they still that expensive? I don't think the artist gets more than a buck on those. Producers are just getting greedier.
Bring back the old stuff. I don't like machine guns on vipers and cylon raiders. Bring back lasers. bring back those toaster look-alike robots with 170's speech synthetisers and that red scanner (same as KITT BTW) And of course, Starbuck sucks as a female...
Agreed. I've always wondered how a WinNT server would compare to a *NIX box if we would be allowed to boot it in CLI only. I mean, running a GUI on a *server* is pretty pointless. My file server doesn't even have a monitor (it's on NT, so kill me :p