In addition to what's already been mentioned by everybody else, this can both be used to increase the granularity of the scale and increase the dynamic range. If you want to crank up to change contrast/brightness on your display, it's good if your display is not being fed a "cropped" signal as input for that transformation.
Well, it means that you can at least run Vista on VirtualPC for PPC running within Rosetta.
Disclaimer: this is a joke. I imagine that the code-generating nature of VirtualPC might mean that it breaks Rosetta (ignoring the dreadful net performance, if it would actually "work").
Two words: cooling and batteries. Even if power was free (it isn't), you either run into problems to cool your system properly, or get decent battery-life (for a laptop).
It's not a replacement. It's also news that it would be called.NET Framework 3.0, as the framework already contains different components (like the "actual" framework, including the VM and other APIs) and there have also been other plans already presented for what most of us assumed would be.NET 3.0 (LINQ and all, probably tied to VS.NET "Orcas").
Minor correction, DDE and OLE1 were closely related. OLE2 was the first use of what was then called COM..NET maintains a fairly good compatibility layer to COM, but so it also does to C/Pascal style of DLL (or even static) linking, but fact is of course that the COM part was what the VB fans cared about.
I detest this change (WinFX =>.NET 3.0), as the CLR, the actual VM of the environment, hasn't changed. On the other hand, it's still fairly consistent compared to Java version numbers... I guess:-)
It's one thing to say "in five years, this should scale to umph GHz". It's another to say "look, this is what we are going to release real soon now". If you think that Intel's credibility wasn't hurt in the minds of those (that is, geeks) that at all care about these things, I also think that you are wrong.
The difference is that there is no trivial way for an end-user to dispute those performance numbers. It's even out of reach for several hardware sites (and there are real differences between different production sets of the same panel). Compare this to CPU performance: ANYONE will be able to run these benchmarks in two months. Anyone can run them today on the AMD and NetBurst side to get reference data. If the Intel results differ a lot at actual release, hell will break loose and Intel would be really out of touch to think that they can succeed. Mainstream users won't care anyway, and the technical users would certainly disprove of the methods.
So, Intel could do this, but they are probably quite aware of the consequences.
Because, when we know of thousands of extrasolar objects, we will want to do some nice analysis of that data, and then we want some reasonable definitions.
Well, without any kind of fuse within the capacitor, the energy will still be dangerous if a short-circuit is achieved. This won't happen with most batteries, as they have a significant inner resistance.
Of course, 130 kW (reducing a 1 hour charge of my laptop to one second) might be a nobrainer to you... I would worry about some fuses and heating. But, it's a very welcome change that the battery itself wouldn't be the limiting component.
S-Video AND higher resolutions disabled sounds suspiciously like you running just a vanilla VGA driver. Not being able to play AVI surely doesn't make that less likely, but they might simply ignore AVI in the MCE interface now.
I would distrust wiring between discrete devices more than integrated functionality. Really, how often have you seen a chip or board malfunction due to not being seated properly, versus actual error in the chip itself?
Any generalized statements about crashing are just that, gross generalizations. There is no reason to make components interdependent, just because they are integrated. The opposite is true, related components make sense to integrate, but then it's just a matter of what else you might be able to get into that package. It may even have its own connection to the power supply through separate pins, if you're that paranoid.
Ehm, an Intel Core Duo only draws 31 W when you are at 100 % CPU usage. As a comparison, my complete Dothan system uses around 15 W when idle, while the CPU alone is specced to around 25 W. I can bring it up to 40 W by turning backlight all the way up and start some CPU intensive tasks. (I've not bothered measuring while playing games from battery with the DVD going, but I know for sure that this would give even higher numbers.) If I really turn the backlight down and forces the CPU to go at 600 MHz, closing all processes, I get 12 W. No, I wouldn't save an hour by turning the HD off, but I would at least save something, and your numbers are grossly inflated, as you assume 100 % CPU load.
This is indeed a good point, but there are the reasons like giving the PS2 to some younger (or older...) relative or outright selling it for $ 100 or so. Hardware failure is another reason. A third reason is to be able to advertise a complete and varied set of games directly at the debut of the machine, and for the store clerks to be able to tell clueless buyers that any Playstation game will work. It simply turns out that backcompat is popular. Actual usage is irrelevant.
To me, this seems like a gamble. They need to get the emulator VERY good to be able to eventually take that chip out again. Imagine the pissed-off customers if they ask their friends to make sure their favorite PS2 game still works on the PS3, they get a positive answer, go and buy a PS3, but then it fails when running under the emulator. Of course, it's possible that they wait long enough to assume that noone will actually care about the compatibility anymore, and even skip the emulator altogether at that point, or sell it as an extra.
It's not just that their current gen is weaking, they are actively hyping a product that's coming in a few months. That marketing tactic might cause some buyers to delay in their AMD purchases, but it will surely hurt Intel sales more.
OTOH, if Conroe really performs well, we might actually see the first big step upwards in performance for any mainstream desktop CPU in the last year or so.
There HAVE been planets where the presence of that thing known as sun has been mysteriously missing. (OTOH, on a Pluto-like body, it wouldn't matter too much.) I also come to think of one Enterprise episode with a planet that's always dark. Of course, it's still got plenty of something which grows in a manner surprisingly similar to Earth vegetation.
The contest results story is kind of relevant, and there were certainly a lot of comments made there. I might agree that it would make sense for them to post a poll where we could vote on the results, and also leave relevant comments.
On the other hand, things like effective time needed for context switches, cache starvation behavior and other aspects are quite alike for multitasking and multithreading. After all, multitasking (if all tasks are really active) is just another name for "multithreading with very independent threads carrying quite different workloads". The user won't care if transcoding to DivX and playing a game at the same time will result in a lower total efficiency during the tims spent on both chips, all he cares about is playing a smooth game while getting what else he needs to do, done.
Of course, the lack of HyperThreading alone is one reason for this. It's also why preferred keeping it active on desktop systems, even though it generally hurted artificial performance benchmarks -- the average response time of the UI goes down. The ability to keep several threads running well, even if they don't play nicely, is actually worth something.
They are more power-efficient. Except for that, I find it hard to see ANYTHING that the CPU can do that would matter for common customers in that way. Benchmarks for varying heavy duty scenarios will be quite characteristic for the short "bursts" where CPU power actually makes sense for a common user.
True, if you're using their Ethernet-based, and not DSL. The only issue is that BBB wouldn't be a very significant player if you just counted their Ethernet installations. 8 Mbps is all I can get at any price not approaching the rent for the apartment...
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what's already been mentioned by everybody else, this can both be used to increase the granularity of the scale and increase the dynamic range. If you want to crank up to change contrast/brightness on your display, it's good if your display is not being fed a "cropped" signal as input for that transformation.
Disclaimer: this is a joke. I imagine that the code-generating nature of VirtualPC might mean that it breaks Rosetta (ignoring the dreadful net performance, if it would actually "work").
Two words: cooling and batteries. Even if power was free (it isn't), you either run into problems to cool your system properly, or get decent battery-life (for a laptop).
It's not a replacement. It's also news that it would be called .NET Framework 3.0, as the framework already contains different components (like the "actual" framework, including the VM and other APIs) and there have also been other plans already presented for what most of us assumed would be .NET 3.0 (LINQ and all, probably tied to VS.NET "Orcas").
I detest this change (WinFX => .NET 3.0), as the CLR, the actual VM of the environment, hasn't changed. On the other hand, it's still fairly consistent compared to Java version numbers... I guess :-)
Anyway, we'll know in less than two months.
So, Intel could do this, but they are probably quite aware of the consequences.
Because, when we know of thousands of extrasolar objects, we will want to do some nice analysis of that data, and then we want some reasonable definitions.
It's actually more like Solaris 2.6/7.
Well, without any kind of fuse within the capacitor, the energy will still be dangerous if a short-circuit is achieved. This won't happen with most batteries, as they have a significant inner resistance.
Of course, 130 kW (reducing a 1 hour charge of my laptop to one second) might be a nobrainer to you... I would worry about some fuses and heating. But, it's a very welcome change that the battery itself wouldn't be the limiting component.
S-Video AND higher resolutions disabled sounds suspiciously like you running just a vanilla VGA driver. Not being able to play AVI surely doesn't make that less likely, but they might simply ignore AVI in the MCE interface now.
No, only 150 % more. (100 - 60 = 40, 100 / 40 = 2.5, (2.5 - 1) * 100 = 150)
Any generalized statements about crashing are just that, gross generalizations. There is no reason to make components interdependent, just because they are integrated. The opposite is true, related components make sense to integrate, but then it's just a matter of what else you might be able to get into that package. It may even have its own connection to the power supply through separate pins, if you're that paranoid.
Ehm, an Intel Core Duo only draws 31 W when you are at 100 % CPU usage. As a comparison, my complete Dothan system uses around 15 W when idle, while the CPU alone is specced to around 25 W. I can bring it up to 40 W by turning backlight all the way up and start some CPU intensive tasks. (I've not bothered measuring while playing games from battery with the DVD going, but I know for sure that this would give even higher numbers.) If I really turn the backlight down and forces the CPU to go at 600 MHz, closing all processes, I get 12 W. No, I wouldn't save an hour by turning the HD off, but I would at least save something, and your numbers are grossly inflated, as you assume 100 % CPU load.
This is indeed a good point, but there are the reasons like giving the PS2 to some younger (or older...) relative or outright selling it for $ 100 or so. Hardware failure is another reason. A third reason is to be able to advertise a complete and varied set of games directly at the debut of the machine, and for the store clerks to be able to tell clueless buyers that any Playstation game will work. It simply turns out that backcompat is popular. Actual usage is irrelevant.
To me, this seems like a gamble. They need to get the emulator VERY good to be able to eventually take that chip out again. Imagine the pissed-off customers if they ask their friends to make sure their favorite PS2 game still works on the PS3, they get a positive answer, go and buy a PS3, but then it fails when running under the emulator. Of course, it's possible that they wait long enough to assume that noone will actually care about the compatibility anymore, and even skip the emulator altogether at that point, or sell it as an extra.
OTOH, if Conroe really performs well, we might actually see the first big step upwards in performance for any mainstream desktop CPU in the last year or so.
There HAVE been planets where the presence of that thing known as sun has been mysteriously missing. (OTOH, on a Pluto-like body, it wouldn't matter too much.) I also come to think of one Enterprise episode with a planet that's always dark. Of course, it's still got plenty of something which grows in a manner surprisingly similar to Earth vegetation.
It's in the mirror, goateesque universe.
The contest results story is kind of relevant, and there were certainly a lot of comments made there. I might agree that it would make sense for them to post a poll where we could vote on the results, and also leave relevant comments.
Hey, wait, you just stole my joke!
Of course, the lack of HyperThreading alone is one reason for this. It's also why preferred keeping it active on desktop systems, even though it generally hurted artificial performance benchmarks -- the average response time of the UI goes down. The ability to keep several threads running well, even if they don't play nicely, is actually worth something.
They are more power-efficient. Except for that, I find it hard to see ANYTHING that the CPU can do that would matter for common customers in that way. Benchmarks for varying heavy duty scenarios will be quite characteristic for the short "bursts" where CPU power actually makes sense for a common user.
True, if you're using their Ethernet-based, and not DSL. The only issue is that BBB wouldn't be a very significant player if you just counted their Ethernet installations. 8 Mbps is all I can get at any price not approaching the rent for the apartment...