And since a cache line is 32 bytes on an Intel (16? no matter, either way it's 128 bits), that means all cached accesses utilize both channels and will have the increased transfer rate. It's apparent in the benchmarks anyway.
I do agree that configs can alter first word latency more than full burst latency. But I honestly have trouble understanding what interleaved 64-bit banks means versus 128-bit banks. Classic interleaving meant simply pulling from both banks at once, which would produce the same results as a 128-bit bank in all but edge cases.
I don't really agree AMD's integrated memory controller means they can use DDR2 better. In fact, I'm not really sure what AMD's integrated memory controller is really good for. It might mean lower latency, or it might not. It definitely locked AMD into DDR longer than they should have been with it. And the problems with routing the traces all the way from the CPU past the Northbridge (due to board layout issues) contributed to the problems trying to get 4-DIMM DDR working (which would have been easier with DDR2 also). It also definitely means all DMAs have to go up to the CPU and back down. I'm not crapping on AMD for their memory architecture, their NUMA stuff is fantastic. But I'm not sure that putting the memory controller on CPU is inherently better than on the Northbridge. I think that in low-cost chipsets the video accelerator has to go on the Northbridge to be cost effective, and that means even more memory accesses that would have to be routed up to the CPU and back down if the memory controller isn't on the NB. Because of this, I see a tough road for AMD in the non-gaming and laptop part of the market.
I don't get why command overhead goes up when you change the configuration. Does the controller not issue commands in parallel to the two banks in one of the configs?
Yes, that's means they are planning on making $400 profit on each standalone BR player.
That's how it works in the early days.
You may have a part you can make for a certain price, but only so many of them. So you raise the price of the product to moderate demand to match supply. Yes, that entails higher profit per unit.
Besides, I don't recall Sony being a charity in the first place.
If you don't like paying that much, don't early adopt.
Sony has sold a BluRay recorder/player in Japan for about a year at a listed price of $5K. I dunno how many they sold, but I'm sure there was some profit in there too.
I was speaking of latency, and you speak of bandwidth and burst sizes.
Neither bandwidth nor burst sizes affect latency.
The indications of AM2 performance definitely go against your idea that AMD is more prepared to take advantage of DDR2. Their performance gains are nil, when the latency stayed about the same and bandwidth increased significantly.
The up front fees to become a console dev don't cover the actual cost to the company. The hardware you'll get costs a few bucks, the software costs them a few bucks, and just getting their time so they can get it to you and get you up and running on it costs more than a few bucks.
When selling one of these kits, N is certainly expecting to see some back-end revenue from the license fees when you sell your game. So giving away a game is probably not going to fit into their plan.
Additionally, the legal agreements will restrict you from doing a lot of things, and probably require you to get an ESRB rating (which isn't free). It'll also keep you from sharing info with others, if it's like typical agreements.
Additionally, $2K is a lot, and this is slashdot, people don't even like paying $500 for dev tools (Dev Studio), $2K is far out of the ballpark.
Why you think Intel is selling at a loss? Why you think that Intel is having bad yields?
Yes, Conroe will only be 20% of Intel's production. But that's very likely sufficient. Conroe is their high-end chip. They already have Core Duo out and the remaining P4s and P4Ds (even 65nm P4s).
High-end chips make up a small amount of the market. 20% seems like plenty.
I agree that finding Core 2 Duos might be difficult for a while. But then again, when I bought my AMD X2 4200+, it wasn't easy to find, and ultimately I had to get it because the 4400+ was impossible to find at retail prices. And this was a almost two months after it came out.
They compare their fastest against the fast AMD available. Did you try to buy an FX-62? It's just not out there. I'm not sure why. But either way, Intel probably just couldn't get hold of the FX-62, or at least didn't go the extra mile to do so.
But saying they went out of their way to not use an FX-62 seems a stretch.
It appears AMD preannounced the FX-62, at least in terms of availablity to other than 1st-tier vendors.
If FX-62 really ships June 30th, that'd only be 1 week ahead of Conroe, thus making your "ask AMD for next year's cores" comment extra stupid.
AMD's biggest efforts right now in making maximum hay from their AM2 releases before Intel makes their announcements, even to the point apparently of preannouncing their chips. And all this despite the approximately 0% speedup the AM2 chips have given clock-per-clock.
Well, actually it was in the beginning. But it hasn't been for quite some time.
You're getting messed up because DDR latencies are measured against the SDR clock, while DDR2 latencies are measured against the DDR clock. This is why you see things like 2.5 clocks on DDR measurements and you never do on DDR2.
Anyway, when you see a latency 5 clock DDR2, that's the same as a 2.5 clock DDR. Except that the DDR2 is very likely running at a higher clock rate and thus the absolute latency is lower.
I don't think the Intel tests actually cripple the AMD. That's somehting you can get sued for. Very likely they just control the test parameters very closely (selecting datasets, etc.) and used the settings that favored them the most. AMD also suggests tests to the hardware testing sites that make them look good. Some of them use them, too, so when you see one of those "independent" tests it still is making AMD look better than perhaps is representative.
The case is pretty clear. I don't have a link to it, but the farmer's field, that he said was contaminated by windblown encroachment, turned out to be over 80% Monsanto seed, not just Monsanto at the edges.
He knowingly reaped seed from last year's crops and replanted it. Which was against his license agreement.
I dunno about unplugged. I'm just talking about switched off here. If you don't even switch on your Xbox for a couple weeks, it'll lose the time. At least on the model I have.
It might go even quicker if you unplug it, I never checked. Not that I've never unplugged my Xbox, just that I've never unplugged it for more than 15 mins and less than a few weeks.
I was going to post a similar thing, but from the other side.
I've shorted my RC NiCds before, and they won't vaporize a screwdriver. They do puff up, get very hot and leak, but not damage the screwdriver. And NiCds have very low internal resistance, 10X lower than a NiMH, which is more than 10X lower than LIon.
You've created an incorrect comparison. A battery will cause a violent release of energy like a capacitor, but the release is so much smaller compared to a capacitor that you need to use a very big battery to see results.
You can use a capacitor that is less than 1/10th the size of that battery (and thus has less than 1/1000th the energy storage of it) and put a screwdriver across it and get the same effect as that battery.
Note you cannot put a small resistor in the package to fix this problem. Small resistors have small power dissapation characteristics. If you put in a small value resistor, it will present little resistance and as such the currents in a short situation will be very high. Let's say you have a 4V battery (like a LIon) and you want to keep the current down to 10A. That means you have a 0.4ohm resistor. Now, when you short it, it will dissipate 4W across the resistor. That means your resistor will have to be something over a cubic inch in size. You probably want a smaller value resistor so as to waste less power but then your power dissipation goes up! An active circuit that cuts out on over current might be a better idea. It could have lower resistance and still not have to be large since it will open the circuit rapidly.
Car battery cases are very strong, it's just that car batteries are very heavy. A metal case wouldn't perform any better on something that heavy. The difference is when a car battery cracks open, the only thing that comes out is chemical energy. You end up with ionized electrolyte at your feet. If you impact a capacitor and the plates touch, you're gonna have a quite different result.
I really don't see this being a big player. Supercaps have been around for a while. They're good for some things, and not for others. Oddly, they aren't as good as batteries due to their high resistance (more than a LIon, IIRC). Also, they can't hold a charge for long enough to be useful as a battery in many applications. How'd you like to come back from a 2 week vacation and find your car battery dead?
Once it reaches a certain size/weight, it becomes very heavy. To counter this weight, you need wings with a lot of lift. Once you make a vehicle that can carry this weight it becomes very large itself. Lift creates drag and size creates drag, so you need to put on enough thrust to fight the drag up to 40,000 feet, maybe 50,000 if you want to stretch it. Finally, you need to put in enough fuel to fight this drag created by the vehicles and vehicle lift requirements for at least 15 minutes as it flies to its target altitude.
And the shuttle still needs a ton of thrust because it needs still needs to reach 500,000 feet (100 miles).
Meanwhile, the current shuttle makes that trip of the first 50,000 feet in about 40 seconds. So for all that effort spent fighting for 20 minutes, you saved 40 seconds of fuel. And even that is misleading because most of what the shuttle does in the first 40 seconds isn't even make altitude, it's make vertical velocity. A system where you fly to 50,000 feet starts with zero vertical velocity, so it has to carry even more thrust on the main engines to combat that.
All this together makes it seem to me it's pretty likely that the shuttle actually is more energy efficient with the current system than a partial fly-to-orbit system.
If it were smaller it could be different, like Spaceship One is probably more fuel efficient and definitely more cost efficient by a partial fly-to-orbit system. But then again, Spaceship One doesn't have the weight of a heat shield capable of withstanding reentry from orbital velocity.
As much as I like Spaceship One, it isn't actually anything NASA hadn't tried before. SS1 is basically a modern X-15. NASA didn't know how to turn the X-15 into an orbital vehicle in the 60s, in the 70s and it's unclear anyone knows how to do it today.
I do feel bad the "space plane", Delta Clipper and other SSTO projects have been cancelled so many times. It would like to see more time spent on that project and hopefully a solution.
If a person lives within 1.7km of wire from their nearest concentrator, then they can get 20MBps.
If you think "almost everyone" lives within 1.7km of wire from their nearest concentrator, I think you're wrong.
Over time, as more remote concentrators are installed, most people in dense areas will be able to get something like this. But right now, I can't imagine that over half of the people in your country live that close.
I think a lot of people know P4 sucks. I sure do. And yet I use one at work. I've bought them for my reports as recently as a month ago.
Why? Because my company doesn't buy off-brand machines, and all the on-brand companies use Intel-only for their mainstream machines. And of the few models that are offered, they're never as affordable as a cut-price Dell P4.
So the problem is probably because Intel has dominated the main part of the market, something AMD has complained about loudly. So even if you do know AMD had surpassed Intel long ago, you had little choice about what you purchased anyway.
And perhaps another small part is 3 years ago AMD systems were invariably not reliably long-term. Even though that has been fixed for a while, many people are very slow to take a chance again.
Intel is working on a release, jeez. Should they do like AMD and announce chips that you still can't get two weeks later? Intel hit 65nm long before AMD will. So I think Intel doesn't deserve to be crapped on for being behind the release curve.
I greatly look forward to buying some Core 2 Duos for my employees. Our speed of compiles will double easy (we're using 3.0 and 3.2 GHz single core P4s right now).
At once time, government projects had to use Ada. In the 80s, you had to use UNIX (it led to the development of Apple's UNIX back then). In the late 80s, OSI was going to be required.
In the end, none of these had any effect (the UNIX stuff died long before Linux game around). I dont know if this will be any different.
And besides, just being able to do it is probably enough. Mac OS X does IPv6, but does anyone use it?
"These are Vector Unit demos, written to run solely on Vector Unit 1, with 16K data memory and 16K instruction memory. In the past couple of years Sony has run a demo contest with some nice equipment prizes. Make sure you don't miss Mike Day's "Universe," the 2003 winning entry in the U.S. professional competition.
Coding doesn't have to be this low level. If you would rather, see an OpenGL-clone project called ps2gl in/usr/doc/ps2gl-0.2.2. The web site has updates."
So you can access the vector units (emotion engine), and you can use OpenGL on the unit, but you think you can't make a full 3D game on it? I can't say as I how I agree. As to whether you can make a decent game on it, that's a matter of gameplay and taste. No API can restrict gameplay or taste, so I would assert it is theoretically possible to make a decent game on there too. So I would assert you can make a decent 3D game.
It seems that no one has, which bolsters your argument though.
I've used PS2 Linux, and it's very rudimentary. I won't argue with that.
We'll see about Wii. I like N, so I do have some hope they might allow development. But really it comes down to whether it will add value to the platform. At this time, I don't see how it will. As you say, time will tell.
Where did I say the Linux wasn't crippled? I called it NetYaroze for the PS3.
NetYaroze (if you would investigate) didn't allow you access even to the CD-ROM drive. You only had the internal RAM to work with (actually, the PS2 Linux won't let you access the DVD drive either).
I state the Linux that comes with PS3 is similar to that, and then you want to say to me "hey dude, it's crippled."
No shit it's crippled.
Wii isn't even a little bit open. You simply cannot develop a single line of code for it without N permission. That's 100% closed.
I still don't get your Emotion Engine comment. Sony said it would have Emotion Engine. It has Emotion Engine. If you are a registered developer, you can develop for Emotion Engine (if you can get past the almost complete lack of tools). He said it would be there, it's there. He said it would have Toy Story graphics, it doesn't. But MS said the same BS. People forget that Toy Story was the touchstone of computer graphics at the time. If you wanted to say anything about computer graphics, you talked about Toy Story, to connect to the layman.
My quote is not wrong. It's just a different quote. Do you think I work at Netscape or Reuters so I can fake up a news story?
I dunno about banned in Iraq, the US banned shipment of it to Iraq. It required a change of the laws, since it had the kind of compute power (measured in FLOPS) that was considered useful to simulate nuclear explosions and thus develop a bomb. The story isn't bullshit, but perhaps some people didn't realize that all kinds of computers at that time had that kind of power. There were plenty of machines at that time that required exemptions from that law. Apple's G4's fell under the same restrictions. The law has been changed since, since that kind of compute power is pretty common now.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD makes press release.
Intel makes press release.
Other than the timing, is there much difference at all?
I don't see Intel making a bigger or smaller stink than AMD, just at a different time.
AMD definitely knows what they are doing and so does Intel. It's not surprising both companies are working on similar things.
And since a cache line is 32 bytes on an Intel (16? no matter, either way it's 128 bits), that means all cached accesses utilize both channels and will have the increased transfer rate. It's apparent in the benchmarks anyway.
I do agree that configs can alter first word latency more than full burst latency. But I honestly have trouble understanding what interleaved 64-bit banks means versus 128-bit banks. Classic interleaving meant simply pulling from both banks at once, which would produce the same results as a 128-bit bank in all but edge cases.
I don't really agree AMD's integrated memory controller means they can use DDR2 better. In fact, I'm not really sure what AMD's integrated memory controller is really good for. It might mean lower latency, or it might not. It definitely locked AMD into DDR longer than they should have been with it. And the problems with routing the traces all the way from the CPU past the Northbridge (due to board layout issues) contributed to the problems trying to get 4-DIMM DDR working (which would have been easier with DDR2 also). It also definitely means all DMAs have to go up to the CPU and back down. I'm not crapping on AMD for their memory architecture, their NUMA stuff is fantastic. But I'm not sure that putting the memory controller on CPU is inherently better than on the Northbridge. I think that in low-cost chipsets the video accelerator has to go on the Northbridge to be cost effective, and that means even more memory accesses that would have to be routed up to the CPU and back down if the memory controller isn't on the NB. Because of this, I see a tough road for AMD in the non-gaming and laptop part of the market.
I don't get why command overhead goes up when you change the configuration. Does the controller not issue commands in parallel to the two banks in one of the configs?
Yes, that's means they are planning on making $400 profit on each standalone BR player.
That's how it works in the early days.
You may have a part you can make for a certain price, but only so many of them. So you raise the price of the product to moderate demand to match supply. Yes, that entails higher profit per unit.
Besides, I don't recall Sony being a charity in the first place.
If you don't like paying that much, don't early adopt.
Sony has sold a BluRay recorder/player in Japan for about a year at a listed price of $5K. I dunno how many they sold, but I'm sure there was some profit in there too.
First of all, it's "lose money".
Second of all I doubt they are losing any money at $600 a piece.
And despite what you have read, Sony doesn't have a history of losing money on their consoles. Break even, yes. Losing money, nope.
Although I have to think PSP breaks that mold. But I have no proof of it.
What was this to address?
I was speaking of latency, and you speak of bandwidth and burst sizes.
Neither bandwidth nor burst sizes affect latency.
The indications of AM2 performance definitely go against your idea that AMD is more prepared to take advantage of DDR2. Their performance gains are nil, when the latency stayed about the same and bandwidth increased significantly.
The up front fees to become a console dev don't cover the actual cost to the company. The hardware you'll get costs a few bucks, the software costs them a few bucks, and just getting their time so they can get it to you and get you up and running on it costs more than a few bucks.
When selling one of these kits, N is certainly expecting to see some back-end revenue from the license fees when you sell your game. So giving away a game is probably not going to fit into their plan.
Additionally, the legal agreements will restrict you from doing a lot of things, and probably require you to get an ESRB rating (which isn't free). It'll also keep you from sharing info with others, if it's like typical agreements.
Additionally, $2K is a lot, and this is slashdot, people don't even like paying $500 for dev tools (Dev Studio), $2K is far out of the ballpark.
Why you think Intel is selling at a loss?
Why you think that Intel is having bad yields?
Yes, Conroe will only be 20% of Intel's production. But that's very likely sufficient. Conroe is their high-end chip. They already have Core Duo out and the remaining P4s and P4Ds (even 65nm P4s).
High-end chips make up a small amount of the market. 20% seems like plenty.
I agree that finding Core 2 Duos might be difficult for a while. But then again, when I bought my AMD X2 4200+, it wasn't easy to find, and ultimately I had to get it because the 4400+ was impossible to find at retail prices. And this was a almost two months after it came out.
They compare their fastest against the fast AMD available. Did you try to buy an FX-62? It's just not out there. I'm not sure why. But either way, Intel probably just couldn't get hold of the FX-62, or at least didn't go the extra mile to do so.
But saying they went out of their way to not use an FX-62 seems a stretch.
Actually, from what I can tell, it still isn't available.
. mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=120987&AF FIL=pricewatch&NR=1
It's not on newegg. Pricegrabber only lists it at one place, and they say it comes June 30.
http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant
It appears AMD preannounced the FX-62, at least in terms of availablity to other than 1st-tier vendors.
If FX-62 really ships June 30th, that'd only be 1 week ahead of Conroe, thus making your "ask AMD for next year's cores" comment extra stupid.
AMD's biggest efforts right now in making maximum hay from their AM2 releases before Intel makes their announcements, even to the point apparently of preannouncing their chips. And all this despite the approximately 0% speedup the AM2 chips have given clock-per-clock.
Well, actually it was in the beginning. But it hasn't been for quite some time.
You're getting messed up because DDR latencies are measured against the SDR clock, while DDR2 latencies are measured against the DDR clock. This is why you see things like 2.5 clocks on DDR measurements and you never do on DDR2.
Anyway, when you see a latency 5 clock DDR2, that's the same as a 2.5 clock DDR. Except that the DDR2 is very likely running at a higher clock rate and thus the absolute latency is lower.
I don't think the Intel tests actually cripple the AMD. That's somehting you can get sued for. Very likely they just control the test parameters very closely (selecting datasets, etc.) and used the settings that favored them the most. AMD also suggests tests to the hardware testing sites that make them look good. Some of them use them, too, so when you see one of those "independent" tests it still is making AMD look better than perhaps is representative.
ATI and NVidia do the same.
From independent equpiment:
7 71
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2
You're right, these show lower numbers, more like 20% in gaming and still over 15% elsewhere.
The case is pretty clear. I don't have a link to it, but the farmer's field, that he said was contaminated by windblown encroachment, turned out to be over 80% Monsanto seed, not just Monsanto at the edges.
He knowingly reaped seed from last year's crops and replanted it. Which was against his license agreement.
I dunno about unplugged. I'm just talking about switched off here. If you don't even switch on your Xbox for a couple weeks, it'll lose the time. At least on the model I have.
It might go even quicker if you unplug it, I never checked. Not that I've never unplugged my Xbox, just that I've never unplugged it for more than 15 mins and less than a few weeks.
I was going to post a similar thing, but from the other side.
I've shorted my RC NiCds before, and they won't vaporize a screwdriver. They do puff up, get very hot and leak, but not damage the screwdriver. And NiCds have very low internal resistance, 10X lower than a NiMH, which is more than 10X lower than LIon.
You've created an incorrect comparison. A battery will cause a violent release of energy like a capacitor, but the release is so much smaller compared to a capacitor that you need to use a very big battery to see results.
You can use a capacitor that is less than 1/10th the size of that battery (and thus has less than 1/1000th the energy storage of it) and put a screwdriver across it and get the same effect as that battery.
Note you cannot put a small resistor in the package to fix this problem. Small resistors have small power dissapation characteristics. If you put in a small value resistor, it will present little resistance and as such the currents in a short situation will be very high. Let's say you have a 4V battery (like a LIon) and you want to keep the current down to 10A. That means you have a 0.4ohm resistor. Now, when you short it, it will dissipate 4W across the resistor. That means your resistor will have to be something over a cubic inch in size. You probably want a smaller value resistor so as to waste less power but then your power dissipation goes up! An active circuit that cuts out on over current might be a better idea. It could have lower resistance and still not have to be large since it will open the circuit rapidly.
Car battery cases are very strong, it's just that car batteries are very heavy. A metal case wouldn't perform any better on something that heavy. The difference is when a car battery cracks open, the only thing that comes out is chemical energy. You end up with ionized electrolyte at your feet. If you impact a capacitor and the plates touch, you're gonna have a quite different result.
I really don't see this being a big player. Supercaps have been around for a while. They're good for some things, and not for others. Oddly, they aren't as good as batteries due to their high resistance (more than a LIon, IIRC). Also, they can't hold a charge for long enough to be useful as a battery in many applications. How'd you like to come back from a 2 week vacation and find your car battery dead?
The shuttle is just too big.
Once it reaches a certain size/weight, it becomes very heavy. To counter this weight, you need wings with a lot of lift. Once you make a vehicle that can carry this weight it becomes very large itself. Lift creates drag and size creates drag, so you need to put on enough thrust to fight the drag up to 40,000 feet, maybe 50,000 if you want to stretch it. Finally, you need to put in enough fuel to fight this drag created by the vehicles and vehicle lift requirements for at least 15 minutes as it flies to its target altitude.
And the shuttle still needs a ton of thrust because it needs still needs to reach 500,000 feet (100 miles).
Meanwhile, the current shuttle makes that trip of the first 50,000 feet in about 40 seconds. So for all that effort spent fighting for 20 minutes, you saved 40 seconds of fuel. And even that is misleading because most of what the shuttle does in the first 40 seconds isn't even make altitude, it's make vertical velocity. A system where you fly to 50,000 feet starts with zero vertical velocity, so it has to carry even more thrust on the main engines to combat that.
All this together makes it seem to me it's pretty likely that the shuttle actually is more energy efficient with the current system than a partial fly-to-orbit system.
If it were smaller it could be different, like Spaceship One is probably more fuel efficient and definitely more cost efficient by a partial fly-to-orbit system. But then again, Spaceship One doesn't have the weight of a heat shield capable of withstanding reentry from orbital velocity.
As much as I like Spaceship One, it isn't actually anything NASA hadn't tried before. SS1 is basically a modern X-15. NASA didn't know how to turn the X-15 into an orbital vehicle in the 60s, in the 70s and it's unclear anyone knows how to do it today.
I do feel bad the "space plane", Delta Clipper and other SSTO projects have been cancelled so many times. It would like to see more time spent on that project and hopefully a solution.
Xbox.
It uses a supercap for the real time clock. Each time you turn it on, it's good for a couple weeks. Leave it too long, and it loses the time.
Bud.
Bud is usually sold under the name "Bud", due to the unclear ownership of the other trademark.
And in my post I said "Bud", I meant "Bud".
No one would confuse the sales of Bud with Budvar. Even in Europe, Bud outsells Budvar by many orders of magnitude.
Have you see the market share numbers?
AMD is looking for switchers, not stickers. "sticking" is on the side of Intel with 80% of the market share.
"hence its disfavour outside of the USA (for the most part). "
Bud is the #1 pacakged beer in Ireland.
http://www.checkout.ie/MarketProfile.asp?ID=2
Beer snobbery knows no bounds. Projecting your opinions on an entire continent just to bolster how you feel about something. Astounding.
AMD is only putting rebates on single core chips.
If you've seen the info on the Intel cuts, they will be cutting all current products, including Pentium Ds.
Me, I'm getting a Core 2 Duo, so I guess I won't benefit.
http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/graph/index.htm
If a person lives within 1.7km of wire from their nearest concentrator, then they can get 20MBps.
If you think "almost everyone" lives within 1.7km of wire from their nearest concentrator, I think you're wrong.
Over time, as more remote concentrators are installed, most people in dense areas will be able to get something like this. But right now, I can't imagine that over half of the people in your country live that close.
I think a lot of people know P4 sucks. I sure do. And yet I use one at work. I've bought them for my reports as recently as a month ago.
Why? Because my company doesn't buy off-brand machines, and all the on-brand companies use Intel-only for their mainstream machines. And of the few models that are offered, they're never as affordable as a cut-price Dell P4.
So the problem is probably because Intel has dominated the main part of the market, something AMD has complained about loudly. So even if you do know AMD had surpassed Intel long ago, you had little choice about what you purchased anyway.
And perhaps another small part is 3 years ago AMD systems were invariably not reliably long-term. Even though that has been fixed for a while, many people are very slow to take a chance again.
Intel is working on a release, jeez. Should they do like AMD and announce chips that you still can't get two weeks later? Intel hit 65nm long before AMD will. So I think Intel doesn't deserve to be crapped on for being behind the release curve.
I greatly look forward to buying some Core 2 Duos for my employees. Our speed of compiles will double easy (we're using 3.0 and 3.2 GHz single core P4s right now).
At once time, government projects had to use Ada. In the 80s, you had to use UNIX (it led to the development of Apple's UNIX back then). In the late 80s, OSI was going to be required.
In the end, none of these had any effect (the UNIX stuff died long before Linux game around). I dont know if this will be any different.
And besides, just being able to do it is probably enough. Mac OS X does IPv6, but does anyone use it?
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/03/ 25/ps2_linux.html
/usr/doc/ps2gl-0.2.2. The web site has updates."
"These are Vector Unit demos, written to run solely on Vector Unit 1, with 16K data memory and 16K instruction memory. In the past couple of years Sony has run a demo contest with some nice equipment prizes. Make sure you don't miss Mike Day's "Universe," the 2003 winning entry in the U.S. professional competition.
Coding doesn't have to be this low level. If you would rather, see an OpenGL-clone project called ps2gl in
So you can access the vector units (emotion engine), and you can use OpenGL on the unit, but you think you can't make a full 3D game on it? I can't say as I how I agree. As to whether you can make a decent game on it, that's a matter of gameplay and taste. No API can restrict gameplay or taste, so I would assert it is theoretically possible to make a decent game on there too. So I would assert you can make a decent 3D game.
It seems that no one has, which bolsters your argument though.
I've used PS2 Linux, and it's very rudimentary. I won't argue with that.
We'll see about Wii. I like N, so I do have some hope they might allow development. But really it comes down to whether it will add value to the platform. At this time, I don't see how it will. As you say, time will tell.
Where did I say the Linux wasn't crippled? I called it NetYaroze for the PS3.
NetYaroze (if you would investigate) didn't allow you access even to the CD-ROM drive. You only had the internal RAM to work with (actually, the PS2 Linux won't let you access the DVD drive either).
I state the Linux that comes with PS3 is similar to that, and then you want to say to me "hey dude, it's crippled."
No shit it's crippled.
Wii isn't even a little bit open. You simply cannot develop a single line of code for it without N permission. That's 100% closed.
I still don't get your Emotion Engine comment. Sony said it would have Emotion Engine. It has Emotion Engine. If you are a registered developer, you can develop for Emotion Engine (if you can get past the almost complete lack of tools). He said it would be there, it's there. He said it would have Toy Story graphics, it doesn't. But MS said the same BS. People forget that Toy Story was the touchstone of computer graphics at the time. If you wanted to say anything about computer graphics, you talked about Toy Story, to connect to the layman.
My quote is not wrong. It's just a different quote. Do you think I work at Netscape or Reuters so I can fake up a news story?
I dunno about banned in Iraq, the US banned shipment of it to Iraq. It required a change of the laws, since it had the kind of compute power (measured in FLOPS) that was considered useful to simulate nuclear explosions and thus develop a bomb. The story isn't bullshit, but perhaps some people didn't realize that all kinds of computers at that time had that kind of power. There were plenty of machines at that time that required exemptions from that law. Apple's G4's fell under the same restrictions. The law has been changed since, since that kind of compute power is pretty common now.