That is just damage control going on at Ziff-Davis. Intel used to be a big investor in ZD, I don't know if they still are.
I remember when I worked at a mobo manufacturer back in the late 90's, ZD WinBench was the major benchmark used to measure the performance of chips/motherboards/PC's. This was during the time that AMD came out with the K6 processor, and had a lead in most benchmarks. Next thing you know, Intel's investing in ZD and ZD comes out with an "updated" version of the program. I test it out and suddenly AMD's chips seem to be choking on the benchmarks, while Intel's chips got a nice speed boost. Very shady tactics.
I dealt with Intel and I'll tell you that they're a very dirty company to deal with. They use the same tactics as the Microsofts, Walmarts, and other big companies that use their current power to stifle competition.
ZDNet tries to be slick about it, but there's no mistaking who has influence at Ziff-Davis.
When AMD comes out with something, it usually doesn't make the news or is seriously downplayed. However when Intel fires back a few months later, it's suddenly big news, worthy of headlines.
When Intel releases a CPU that is faster than any of AMD's offerings, there is usually a big story that accompanies the event, praising Intel and their engineering prowess. However, when AMD releases a CPU that outpaces the Intel offerings, the fact is heavily downplayed. You can tell there's some damage control going on at this "objective" media outlet.
Apple has 2% of marketshare for lots of really complicated reasons having to do with market forces, the state of IBM, the technology inherent in the Macintosh during its first years, etc. it's not just because of lame ass and popular opinion.
Of course. When you don't agree with the simple truth, make it sound like the truth is actually in your favor, but in an overly-complicated, totally abstract, completely unprovable way. Gotcha.
I use Macs because Windows is a piece of shit, a lame series of shells that can't help but be buggy, difficult, and ugly. Not because it was trendy, but because the Mac OS has always been useful.
So you say that I sound like I'm 12 because I don't like Macs, then you proceed to spew out this nonsense as if it's any better.
I think you like PCs because that's what your parents and friends use, because that's what you're used to and you can't wrap your mind around anything else, like FreeBSD, UNIX, Linux, etc.
I was into computers long before my parents were. I started with a C64, then moved into PC's. Macs were at my school but I just didn't like them. I gave them a shot later on but they kept the look and feel that repulsed me from them in the first place. My laptop runs RedHat. It's neat but it's just not as practical as Windows. I fiddle with it because it's something different to learn, but when I want work done I use Windows.
It's funny how the Mac drones all try SO hard to be individual, that they end up all looking the same.
Apple has less than 2% marketshare for a reason. I've tried Macs, but I've found that I don't like the software, I don't like their marketing, I don't like their designs, and I don't like their users. I feel like I'm in an art class surrounded by fags.
I don't own a Dell. I build all my own machines. I have an Athlon64 3500. It doesn't get choked by malware because I keep on top of that stuff. I use firefox instead of IE, I run Ad-Aware regularly, and my PC is protected behind a router with a firewall.
It seems that most Mac users are the hopelessly trendy, excessively vocal type.
You know the type, they want to make sure the entire world knows what they're thinking at the moment, they have a lame blog, they dress like a metrosexual and wear fruity clothes to get attention, etc.
This crowd seems to have a total lack of logic and thinks with raw emotion instead. When you try to show them that a faster PC sells for cheaper than a slower Mac, these users cannot admit reality and instead play the funny numbers game, trying to add up things that make it seem like the Mac is a better value. These people will try to claim that OSX adds $200 to the value of the system, while conveniently refusing to recognize Windows XP as having any value at all. They'll say the utilities the Mac ships with adds hundreds of dollars of value, while again ignoring all the software the PC ships with. What they're trying to do is compare the hardware-only price of the PC to the hardware+software price of the Mac in an effort to make it look competitive.
But the only one they're fooling are themselves. Apple has a scant few percent of the market for a good reason.
Apple has become a religion to these idiots. Trying to convince them that a PC actually is faster is like trying to convince a Christian that a ghost can't get someone pregnant.
And why are the Apple guys able to just get it right? And not just once, but most of their stuff looks really amazing. It's not like there aren't any designers out there...
They're not. It's the Mac fans out there that see the Apple logo and vocally praise anything that Apple makes. You could take one of those "black plastic PC laptops" that you hate so much, slap an Apple logo on it, and when you show it to Mac zealots, they'll all wet their pants in praise of it.
Apple fans are some of the most annoying, irrational, and emotionally unstable people out there. They're in close competition with the people who own 10+ cats, and many of them are also Mac users.
I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but the choice is easy- Windows XP.
While other operating systems may be prettier or more fun to use, Windows has 2 (major) things going for it- it does the job, and 90% of all the software out there is written for it.
When someone asks me something about computers or they want help with something, I can be almost certain they're using Windows. It's nearly universal. They have 95+% of the market
Let me put it to you this way: you can own a car that everybody has, parts are cheap and found at every corner garage, and everyone knows how to fix it, or you can own a car they a tiny niche group says is better, but hardly anyone has parts, they're expensive and next to nobody knows how to fix it.
I've heard it stated that the amount of energy in sunlight on Earth's surface is between 1 and 6 KW per square meter, probably being closer to 1 KW per square meter.
There are 1550 square inches in 1 square meter. Even if there was (optimistic) 6 KW/sq meter of sunlight hitting the Earth, you'd only have 3.9 watts per square inch.
So their claim of over 100+ Watts per square inch is obviously an error. I don't think they'd even claim that since it doesn't even come close.
They also claim that their panels are 12% efficient, so a more realistic figure would be 1 KW of sunlight per square meter, equalling about.65 Watts per square inch, with 12% efficiency would be about.08 watts per square inch made by these solar panels.
If you believe these claims, I have a good deal on a bridge.
Just from reading the claims, they use the typical pseudo-scientific marketingspeak that's often used in selling scams.
"Using a high-tech space-age polymer developed by NASA for use in space, this mattress delivers the most comfortable sleeping experience scientifically possible!!"
"for the hardcore gamers out there"
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 1
SLI is overkill for 99.99% of people out there. In fact, onboard video is fine for probably 80-90% of the PC market
From TFA:
"It looks like one video card is not going to cut it any more, at least for the hardcore gamers out there."
This article obviously is not about the average consumer with their onboard video. It's about gamers who buy add-in 3d cards. The average user who only reads email and browses the internet won't be buying a $300 video card, let alone two $300 video cards to run in SLI mode.
Admittedly, not many people actually screw up their motherboards today because of company-supplied BIOS updates, but in my opinion the most likely reason for that is that most people don't update their motherboard's BIOS.
I used to work as tech support for a motherboard manufacturer, and user error on bios updates was probably the #1 killer of MB's.
Most of the time people would flash the MB with the wrong version of BIOS and it would render the board unusable. They'd flash their "xxx version 1 motherboard" with a BIOS for a "xxx version 1.5 motherboard " not knowing that you often can't do that. We might have changed I/O chips starting with version 1.3, and when you flash the board with a bios written for a different I/O chip, you lose functionality of that chip. Then they call up saying that their keyboard, mouse, and floppy drive stopped working after a BIOS update, and they can't use their computer anymore.
Or they'll flash their MB with a BIOS written for a totally different MB that uses a different chipset, and that board is dead.
As I understand it, they work almost identically to a SMP setup, meaning they don't offer much of any performance benefit in most apps (particularly games). They draw more power, they run at higher temperatures, etc.
The reason most games don't get a performance boost from dual CPU's is because they aren't programmed to take advantage of the other CPU. How many end-users' home systems have dual CPU's? Hardly any of them. There was no reason for game makers to go through the effort programming for something that 99.99% of their customers can't use.
With the new dual core chips, technically it isn't anything groundbreaking but it will ensure that there's much more widespread adoption of multiprocessor systems. With more of the userbase using dual core CPU's, game makers will have a reason to program to take advantage of it, and you'll begin to see games that do see a performance increase when using dual CPU's (or dual cpu cores).
Wireless IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE. Sewer, Electricity, and Phone are. Cell, cable, broadband, and similar are not.
Since when do you need those things to live? All the things you mentioned are luxuries.
Food and water are required to live. A phone is just a luxury that makes for an easy way to communicate. Electricity runs appliances that make your life easier. People used outhouses or septic systems before there were sewer systems.
The things you mentioned are taken for granted nowadays, but they are not necessities.
I've found that a lot of engineers and programmers have trouble forming coherent sentences. It's as if many of them think in a way that doesn't lend itself to making smoothly flowing sentences.
This isn't exactly a revelation, as we've known for years that engineers make horrible PR spokespeople, and smooth talkers usually make horrible engineers.
Area: Football Fields. Defined as 60x100 square yards, or 501.6 square meters. The European equivalent is the tennis court, which is 668.9 square meters.
He was just nit-picking stating that it didn't happen within the last 400 years. The event happened 50,000 light years away, and since light travels at the speed of light, that the event actually happened 50,000 years ago.
When people think of "terrorists", they think of some poor, young Middle-Eastern guy who trains in a poorly made camp in the desert and rigs up bombs using duct tape and sticks.
But you're forgetting about all the professionals who are sympathetic to their cause. These are highly educated people who might already work in places that give them access to the things they need. You don't need to build a bomb from scratch- all you need is an organized network of people who are willing to "turn a blind eye" to a warhead that gets "lost in the warehouse". If you find out how the security of those places works, you can find a way to currupt that security.
Hell, we've already had nuclear scientists in Pakistan who have admitted selling nuclear secrets to rogue states. Money corrupts people.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just damage control going on at Ziff-Davis. Intel used to be a big investor in ZD, I don't know if they still are.
I remember when I worked at a mobo manufacturer back in the late 90's, ZD WinBench was the major benchmark used to measure the performance of chips/motherboards/PC's. This was during the time that AMD came out with the K6 processor, and had a lead in most benchmarks. Next thing you know, Intel's investing in ZD and ZD comes out with an "updated" version of the program. I test it out and suddenly AMD's chips seem to be choking on the benchmarks, while Intel's chips got a nice speed boost. Very shady tactics.
I dealt with Intel and I'll tell you that they're a very dirty company to deal with. They use the same tactics as the Microsofts, Walmarts, and other big companies that use their current power to stifle competition.
ZDNet tries to be slick about it, but there's no mistaking who has influence at Ziff-Davis.
When AMD comes out with something, it usually doesn't make the news or is seriously downplayed. However when Intel fires back a few months later, it's suddenly big news, worthy of headlines.
When Intel releases a CPU that is faster than any of AMD's offerings, there is usually a big story that accompanies the event, praising Intel and their engineering prowess. However, when AMD releases a CPU that outpaces the Intel offerings, the fact is heavily downplayed. You can tell there's some damage control going on at this "objective" media outlet.
I'm joking- you don't.
Apple has 2% of marketshare for lots of really complicated reasons having to do with market forces, the state of IBM, the technology inherent in the Macintosh during its first years, etc. it's not just because of lame ass and popular opinion.
Of course. When you don't agree with the simple truth, make it sound like the truth is actually in your favor, but in an overly-complicated, totally abstract, completely unprovable way. Gotcha.
I use Macs because Windows is a piece of shit, a lame series of shells that can't help but be buggy, difficult, and ugly. Not because it was trendy, but because the Mac OS has always been useful.
So you say that I sound like I'm 12 because I don't like Macs, then you proceed to spew out this nonsense as if it's any better.
I think you like PCs because that's what your parents and friends use, because that's what you're used to and you can't wrap your mind around anything else, like FreeBSD, UNIX, Linux, etc.
I was into computers long before my parents were. I started with a C64, then moved into PC's. Macs were at my school but I just didn't like them. I gave them a shot later on but they kept the look and feel that repulsed me from them in the first place. My laptop runs RedHat. It's neat but it's just not as practical as Windows. I fiddle with it because it's something different to learn, but when I want work done I use Windows.
It's funny how the Mac drones all try SO hard to be individual, that they end up all looking the same.
Apple has less than 2% marketshare for a reason. I've tried Macs, but I've found that I don't like the software, I don't like their marketing, I don't like their designs, and I don't like their users. I feel like I'm in an art class surrounded by fags.
Sorry, it's not for me.
An anonymous coward... sounds like a Mac user :-)
I don't own a Dell. I build all my own machines. I have an Athlon64 3500. It doesn't get choked by malware because I keep on top of that stuff. I use firefox instead of IE, I run Ad-Aware regularly, and my PC is protected behind a router with a firewall.
It seems that most Mac users are the hopelessly trendy, excessively vocal type.
You know the type, they want to make sure the entire world knows what they're thinking at the moment, they have a lame blog, they dress like a metrosexual and wear fruity clothes to get attention, etc.
This crowd seems to have a total lack of logic and thinks with raw emotion instead. When you try to show them that a faster PC sells for cheaper than a slower Mac, these users cannot admit reality and instead play the funny numbers game, trying to add up things that make it seem like the Mac is a better value. These people will try to claim that OSX adds $200 to the value of the system, while conveniently refusing to recognize Windows XP as having any value at all. They'll say the utilities the Mac ships with adds hundreds of dollars of value, while again ignoring all the software the PC ships with. What they're trying to do is compare the hardware-only price of the PC to the hardware+software price of the Mac in an effort to make it look competitive.
But the only one they're fooling are themselves. Apple has a scant few percent of the market for a good reason.
Apple has become a religion to these idiots. Trying to convince them that a PC actually is faster is like trying to convince a Christian that a ghost can't get someone pregnant.
And why are the Apple guys able to just get it right? And not just once, but most of their stuff looks really amazing. It's not like there aren't any designers out there ...
They're not. It's the Mac fans out there that see the Apple logo and vocally praise anything that Apple makes. You could take one of those "black plastic PC laptops" that you hate so much, slap an Apple logo on it, and when you show it to Mac zealots, they'll all wet their pants in praise of it.
Apple fans are some of the most annoying, irrational, and emotionally unstable people out there. They're in close competition with the people who own 10+ cats, and many of them are also Mac users.
I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but the choice is easy- Windows XP.
While other operating systems may be prettier or more fun to use, Windows has 2 (major) things going for it- it does the job, and 90% of all the software out there is written for it.
When someone asks me something about computers or they want help with something, I can be almost certain they're using Windows. It's nearly universal. They have 95+% of the market
Let me put it to you this way: you can own a car that everybody has, parts are cheap and found at every corner garage, and everyone knows how to fix it, or you can own a car they a tiny niche group says is better, but hardly anyone has parts, they're expensive and next to nobody knows how to fix it.
The convenience of standardization.
If you wanted the picture put together for you, you'd buy a poster, not a jigsaw puzzle.
When the entire purpose of buying a puzzle is to make you do some mental work, then having that work done automatically is self-defeating.
I've heard it stated that the amount of energy in sunlight on Earth's surface is between 1 and 6 KW per square meter, probably being closer to 1 KW per square meter.
.65 Watts per square inch, with 12% efficiency would be about .08 watts per square inch made by these solar panels.
There are 1550 square inches in 1 square meter. Even if there was (optimistic) 6 KW/sq meter of sunlight hitting the Earth, you'd only have 3.9 watts per square inch.
So their claim of over 100+ Watts per square inch is obviously an error. I don't think they'd even claim that since it doesn't even come close.
They also claim that their panels are 12% efficient, so a more realistic figure would be 1 KW of sunlight per square meter, equalling about
If you believe these claims, I have a good deal on a bridge.
Just from reading the claims, they use the typical pseudo-scientific marketingspeak that's often used in selling scams.
"Using a high-tech space-age polymer developed by NASA for use in space, this mattress delivers the most comfortable sleeping experience scientifically possible!!"
SLI is overkill for 99.99% of people out there. In fact, onboard video is fine for probably 80-90% of the PC market
From TFA:
"It looks like one video card is not going to cut it any more, at least for the hardcore gamers out there."
This article obviously is not about the average consumer with their onboard video. It's about gamers who buy add-in 3d cards. The average user who only reads email and browses the internet won't be buying a $300 video card, let alone two $300 video cards to run in SLI mode.
Admittedly, not many people actually screw up their motherboards today because of company-supplied BIOS updates, but in my opinion the most likely reason for that is that most people don't update their motherboard's BIOS.
I used to work as tech support for a motherboard manufacturer, and user error on bios updates was probably the #1 killer of MB's.
Most of the time people would flash the MB with the wrong version of BIOS and it would render the board unusable. They'd flash their "xxx version 1 motherboard" with a BIOS for a "xxx version 1.5 motherboard " not knowing that you often can't do that. We might have changed I/O chips starting with version 1.3, and when you flash the board with a bios written for a different I/O chip, you lose functionality of that chip. Then they call up saying that their keyboard, mouse, and floppy drive stopped working after a BIOS update, and they can't use their computer anymore.
Or they'll flash their MB with a BIOS written for a totally different MB that uses a different chipset, and that board is dead.
Threads that mention Microsoft end up as free-for-alls to bash Microsoft.
Threads that mention Linux end up as free-for-alls that revolve around the view that Linux is 256x better than Windows.
This thread that mentions Microsoft killing Linux will surely spark some flames.
Most chips nowadays throttle down when they're not doing intensive calculations. They aren't running full-bore all the time.
Even my video card throttles down. The Geforce 6600GT and it runs at 350 mhz when doing 2D stuff, and speeds up to 500 mhz when playing a 3D game.
As I understand it, they work almost identically to a SMP setup, meaning they don't offer much of any performance benefit in most apps (particularly games). They draw more power, they run at higher temperatures, etc.
The reason most games don't get a performance boost from dual CPU's is because they aren't programmed to take advantage of the other CPU. How many end-users' home systems have dual CPU's? Hardly any of them. There was no reason for game makers to go through the effort programming for something that 99.99% of their customers can't use.
With the new dual core chips, technically it isn't anything groundbreaking but it will ensure that there's much more widespread adoption of multiprocessor systems. With more of the userbase using dual core CPU's, game makers will have a reason to program to take advantage of it, and you'll begin to see games that do see a performance increase when using dual CPU's (or dual cpu cores).
The P4's run much hotter than the first gen Athlons.
"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hog's head and that's the way I likes it!"
Because of it's influence, the axis of our planet wobbles in a fairly regular pattern, giving us seasons.
We'd have seasons even without the Moon. The Moon isn't what gives us seasons.
Wireless IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE. Sewer, Electricity, and Phone are. Cell, cable, broadband, and similar are not.
Since when do you need those things to live? All the things you mentioned are luxuries.
Food and water are required to live. A phone is just a luxury that makes for an easy way to communicate. Electricity runs appliances that make your life easier. People used outhouses or septic systems before there were sewer systems.
The things you mentioned are taken for granted nowadays, but they are not necessities.
I've found that a lot of engineers and programmers have trouble forming coherent sentences. It's as if many of them think in a way that doesn't lend itself to making smoothly flowing sentences.
This isn't exactly a revelation, as we've known for years that engineers make horrible PR spokespeople, and smooth talkers usually make horrible engineers.
Area: Football Fields. Defined as 60x100 square yards, or 501.6 square meters. The European equivalent is the tennis court, which is 668.9 square meters.
That's a tiny football field!
You're all morans.
No, I live in New Jersey. The Morans live in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and Wyoming.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moran
He was just nit-picking stating that it didn't happen within the last 400 years. The event happened 50,000 light years away, and since light travels at the speed of light, that the event actually happened 50,000 years ago.
Pretty lame, I know.
When people think of "terrorists", they think of some poor, young Middle-Eastern guy who trains in a poorly made camp in the desert and rigs up bombs using duct tape and sticks.
But you're forgetting about all the professionals who are sympathetic to their cause. These are highly educated people who might already work in places that give them access to the things they need. You don't need to build a bomb from scratch- all you need is an organized network of people who are willing to "turn a blind eye" to a warhead that gets "lost in the warehouse". If you find out how the security of those places works, you can find a way to currupt that security.
Hell, we've already had nuclear scientists in Pakistan who have admitted selling nuclear secrets to rogue states. Money corrupts people.