If you take features out of the kernel, they will run a bit slower than they would in the kernel. That might not be a big deal for people using the latest and greatest, but for people using old PCs it is.
From what I hear, Vista will have 3 different window managers (Aero, Aero Glass, and the ordinary Windows interface). So?
Many Windows machines have Windows Media Player. And Winamp. And iTunes/Quicktime. And RealPlayer. So?
Many Windows machines have Yahoo! Messenger. And MSN Messenger. And ICQ. And AIM. So?
Install what you want to use. If you don't want to use it, don't install it.
Can we please try and stick to topics we know about?
"the corpses of commercial operating systems that tried to take Microsoft on on their own turf (OS/2, BeOS, Novell, and others)"
OS/2 didn't try to step into MS' turf - for a while MS worked on it.
Novell's a company, not an OS, and they're still around. They're still stepping on MS' turf with SuSE Linux.
BeOS may be "dead", but it's still available for download, and there are still other OSes based off of it.
"Why can't you people get it through their thick heads that Apple is about selling a complete package, not trying to compete with Microsoft and "win" the OS war, or whatever war happens to be waged in the computer world at this moment."
So far I don't think anyone's said anything about an "OS war". The article's about them working with XP, not against it.
"Where I work we have Macs and PCs. No one refers to a Mac as an Apple. We call them G5s because we have some G4s and need to identify the model sometimes.
Anyway, a mac is a Mac, not an Apple in our house.;)"
*sigh*. Yes, the computer itself is usually called a Mac or a G5. As it should be. But Apple Computer (the company) is usually referred to as Apple or Apple Computer. You don't refer to Apple Computer as Mac or G5.
"Uh, yeah, and Apple computers is a corporation and Apple Records is but most won't associate Apple Corps with a record company. Just my opinion."
What? Apple Records = Apple Corps. How are you not going to associate Apple Corps with Apple Records - they're the same.
"I have never called them that. In my world it has always been Apple records or just Apple. I seldom refer to Apple computers as Apple computers. I refer to them as Macs or G5s;)"
How do you get "G5" from "Apple Computer"? I could see you calling them "Apple" maybe, but. . .
"Actually someone might confuse Apple Corps with Apple computers but I doubt they will confuse them with Apple records."
. . . you do realize that Apple Corps and Apple Records are both the same company?
"Apple Computer.... Apple records.... Apple sells music.... Apple sells Beatles music... Apple doesn't sell Beatles music... my brain hurts!"
Apple doesn't sell Beatles music.
Neither Apple sells Beatles music. Apple Corps doesn't sell Beatles music - in fact, they don't sell music at all. Apple Computer is the one that sells music.
"So who wants the money from the suit? I would guess it is not one of the original Beatles."
"I would have agreed with you in the past. But their system for for-profit "podcasts" - which is really just digital publishing when you get right down to it - I think definitiely pushes it into the "publisher" or even "label" category."
Podcasts are usually newscasts or interviews, though, not music. And most podcasts aren't published by Apple - Apple just lets you use the iTunes software to get them.
In fact, I don't think any podcasts are published by Apple.
No, the Beatles' music label is Apple Corps. People usually call it Apple Corps. Not Apple.
No company should have the right to the word "Apple" - it's a common word. So, as long as the full name of the company is different it should be OK, IMO. No one's going to ever confuse Apple Corps with Apple Computer.
I'm thinking they're a bunch of fanatics who are so afraid of people being genetically engineered that they go so far as to say that genetic research is bad.
From their site it seems like they don't like anyone who studies genetics - they criticized Mr. J Craig Venter for wanting to study microbes in the ocean and create his own organism. How that's bad I don't know - I guess because they're afraid it might poop in the water or something.
I don't have a cell phone so I can't try it, but I'd be willing to bet that on many of today's phones (probably most phones made in the last 5 years or so) you can run a Java app on them that can do this sort of thing. Most newer phones have Java capabilities - that's how they can have games and stuff.
Maybe a good way to do it would be to have the program kick in when someone calls who's not in your address book, and have it make a special beep or vibration pattern, then if you don't hit a certain button to acknowledge you recognize the number it'll drop the call. . .
My problem is, what GPU do you get? I want a good, fast GPU whereas a business user might not even want one at all. Likewise, he might want a nice quick CPU where I don't really care too much. Sure, one day maybe it'll cost just as much to buy them separate as it will to buy them together, but if I can pay less to just not get a new CPU, I'll opt for that option.
As for with getting a motherboard with extra features on it. . . it depends on the price of the motherboard. I just bought a new CPU/motherboard combo for ~$160 (my other one fried two PSUs in about 3 weeks so that's why I got a new one). The new motherboard has great sound, Gigabit Ethernet, and plenty of USB ports - it was a great deal! But if it were more expensive, I certainly would've done without Gigabit Ethernet - my house can't even handle more than 100Mb/s anyways. I would've just used my old Ethernet card.
Now if they could come up with a way to make a CPU with a better GPU for cheaper than (or the same price as) the GPU alone, I'd buy it. But I doubt that'll ever happen. Or maybe I'd buy the CPU-GPU combo when I'm rich.
Now, maybe if there were a spot directly on the motherboard to attach a GPU (meaning not just an AGP slot for an actual card, but a spot for an actual chip). . .
Yes it will. Geez, they're even pulling XBOX PROGRAMMERS into the mess! Now THAT'S the definition of a "big mess" - when you are so clueless as to what you're doing that you have to pull someone else who has no clue what you're doing, and they can fix it better than you can. I mean, come on - the Vista programmers are working on an entire operating system and they need help from people who are making a game console?
How much you wanna bet Vista's gonna cause your PC's power supply to overheat?:)
Here's what I'm getting at: I upgrade ALL my other components more frequently than I upgrade my CPU. In fact, I never upgrade my CPU unless the other one either crapped out or is more than 3-4 years old. My GPU, however, I upgrade more frequently - I usually get a new video card or more memory whenever I get gift cards for Best Buy or wherever. Why? Simple - for games, the CPU speed doesn't much matter so long as it's above 1.8GHz. And that's mainly because of all the physics that is programmed into today's games - once they start making physics accelerators (I remember reading about some startup planning to make one) you won't even need it that fast.
The performance of my GPU is what I care about. I don't want to buy a new CPU. I don't care if it only costs the price of a new CPU because I don't want the CPU.
You're right, CPU manufacturers could team up with GPU manufacturers to make a nice high performance CPU-GPU combo. But then what happens when ATi or nVidia comes out with a new GPU? The only way to get the new GPU will be to buy a new CPU - but if your old CPU suits you just fine, what can you do? Not to mention that you won't be able to use the Intel chips in an AMD motherboard - what if you want to switch from Intel to AMD? Right now I can just pop my GeForce right in any AGP-enabled motherboard and go.
Also, what if you're partial towards certain companies? Some people prefer AMD, some prefer Intel. And some people prefer nVidia, some prefer ATi. What if you want an AMD processor and an nVidia GPU, but nVidia struck a deal with Intel and only makes their GPUs for Intel processors?
Which is a perfect explanation why I should have to upgrade my CPU when I want a new GPU. Yup.
Think about what you're suggesting. First off, look at Intel's GPUs. They don't even compete with nVidia's and ATi's GPUs! Do you really want to be stuck with a mediocre GPU just because you don't want to shell out the cash for a new CPU? Many high-end CPUs already cost upwards of $500, as do many high-end video cards. Why force people to spend $1000 for a new CPU when all they really want is a new GPU? It'll turn away many potential buyers.
Not to mention, where are you going to put the video RAM?
Or the fact that you're taking things out of proportion. The CPU and the FPU are almost directly related in that they both do math calculations, so they should be together. The GPU and the Video RAM are both used for video, so they should go together. But the GPU and the CPU - one does graphics processing, one does a multitude of different calculations. They shouldn't be put together. When you want better graphics, you usually upgrade your GPU - not your CPU. When you want your computer to be more responsive overall, you upgrade your CPU - not your GPU. What makes you think it's a good idea to force people to upgrade both when they only need/want to upgrade one?
(then again, isn't that the idea of the Cell processor?)
Yes! Finally, SOMEONE gets why the Cell is faster!
Actually, the biggest thing about the Cell is that (I think) it uses vector processing, which is the same technique that your GPU uses. Vector processing is quite a bit faster than scalar processing (what most CPUs use) due to the fact that the vector processor can run operations on multiple data elements all at the same time.
And that's why I'd recommend that anyone who doesn't care that much about Halo 3 wait for the PS3 - it'll likely have noticeably better graphics than the 360 due to the fact that it can do a lot more math faster. That means it'll be able to not only have better graphics, but also to do all kinds of nice physics processing with the cycles it saves.
You're right, they could make some pretty powerful chips. But there's a few reasons why they don't.
First of all, all their chips use vector processing, which is what makes them so fast. Vector processors are quite a bit faster than regular microprocessors, but they also cost more to make. Also, because it's a vector processor, it might not be compatible with other more common architectures, such as x86.
Not to mention, you generally just don't need that much raw power.
If vector CPUs were to become a commodity, that'd be great! But I don't see that happening since most people just don't need that kind of speed. Although maybe some gamers would. . .
Yeah, because the Europeans buy TONS of stuff from the US. That's why Ford's all over Germany.
I went to Germany a couple summers ago. I don't think I saw ANYONE with an iPod except the Americans in the group.
They may listen to our music and like to wear American clothes, but that doesn't mean they'll buy our technology.
This is stupid anyways, though. Silly French - you don't need iTunes to put MP3s on your iPod. I don't use iTunes at all and I can still download MP3s and play them on my iPod.
"The future's not all Firefox, Deer Park and Camino, insists Microsoft. At its Mix '06 conference in Las Vegas, reports Microsoft Watch, company execs insisted that there's a bright future for IE."
Wow, THERE's news for ya - MS promoting its own products? No kidding!
"Complete and utter safety in case of a bad flash."
Not so much.
You can re-flash the "backup" BIOS too. It's just that you have to do that through the normal BIOS. But if the virus attacked the backup first, you'd still be screwed.
Hello. . . open-source programmers VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME! They're not making any money off of OOo - what makes you think they have much money to put into making it look better?
Also, I'm getting the feeling that you and I are using different versions of OOo - mine looks and feels quite a bit like Office 2003.
Although Nero was the worst persecutor of the Christians, John was NOT predicting another emperor as bad as him. Rather, he was writing to give consolation to his fellow Christians by letting them know that the power of God will triumph over Nero in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
If you take features out of the kernel, they will run a bit slower than they would in the kernel. That might not be a big deal for people using the latest and greatest, but for people using old PCs it is.
Many Windows machines have Windows Media Player. And Winamp. And iTunes/Quicktime. And RealPlayer. So?
Many Windows machines have Yahoo! Messenger. And MSN Messenger. And ICQ. And AIM. So?
Install what you want to use. If you don't want to use it, don't install it.
Goatse got shut down, but it used to be a "shock site" (in fact, I think it was the first shock site).
"the corpses of commercial operating systems that tried to take Microsoft on on their own turf (OS/2, BeOS, Novell, and others)"
OS/2 didn't try to step into MS' turf - for a while MS worked on it.
Novell's a company, not an OS, and they're still around. They're still stepping on MS' turf with SuSE Linux.
BeOS may be "dead", but it's still available for download, and there are still other OSes based off of it.
"Why can't you people get it through their thick heads that Apple is about selling a complete package, not trying to compete with Microsoft and "win" the OS war, or whatever war happens to be waged in the computer world at this moment."
So far I don't think anyone's said anything about an "OS war". The article's about them working with XP, not against it.
Anyway, a mac is a Mac, not an Apple in our house. ;)"
*sigh*. Yes, the computer itself is usually called a Mac or a G5. As it should be. But Apple Computer (the company) is usually referred to as Apple or Apple Computer. You don't refer to Apple Computer as Mac or G5.
"Uh, yeah, and Apple computers is a corporation and Apple Records is but most won't associate Apple Corps with a record company. Just my opinion."
What? Apple Records = Apple Corps. How are you not going to associate Apple Corps with Apple Records - they're the same.
How do you get "G5" from "Apple Computer"? I could see you calling them "Apple" maybe, but. . .
"Actually someone might confuse Apple Corps with Apple computers but I doubt they will confuse them with Apple records."
. . . you do realize that Apple Corps and Apple Records are both the same company?
"Apple Computer.... Apple records.... Apple sells music.... Apple sells Beatles music... Apple doesn't sell Beatles music... my brain hurts!"
Apple doesn't sell Beatles music.
Neither Apple sells Beatles music. Apple Corps doesn't sell Beatles music - in fact, they don't sell music at all. Apple Computer is the one that sells music.
"So who wants the money from the suit? I would guess it is not one of the original Beatles."
I'm guessing it's Yoko.
. . . that was exactly the point I was trying to make. . .
Podcasts are usually newscasts or interviews, though, not music. And most podcasts aren't published by Apple - Apple just lets you use the iTunes software to get them. In fact, I don't think any podcasts are published by Apple.
No, the Beatles' music label is Apple Corps. People usually call it Apple Corps. Not Apple.
No company should have the right to the word "Apple" - it's a common word. So, as long as the full name of the company is different it should be OK, IMO. No one's going to ever confuse Apple Corps with Apple Computer.
From their site it seems like they don't like anyone who studies genetics - they criticized Mr. J Craig Venter for wanting to study microbes in the ocean and create his own organism. How that's bad I don't know - I guess because they're afraid it might poop in the water or something.
How about Carl suing anyone who buys a laser home security system that can be seen from space :^)
Maybe a good way to do it would be to have the program kick in when someone calls who's not in your address book, and have it make a special beep or vibration pattern, then if you don't hit a certain button to acknowledge you recognize the number it'll drop the call. . .
If you're going to fight Ballmer, you'd better hope those chairs are bolted to the floor!
As for with getting a motherboard with extra features on it. . . it depends on the price of the motherboard. I just bought a new CPU/motherboard combo for ~$160 (my other one fried two PSUs in about 3 weeks so that's why I got a new one). The new motherboard has great sound, Gigabit Ethernet, and plenty of USB ports - it was a great deal! But if it were more expensive, I certainly would've done without Gigabit Ethernet - my house can't even handle more than 100Mb/s anyways. I would've just used my old Ethernet card.
Now if they could come up with a way to make a CPU with a better GPU for cheaper than (or the same price as) the GPU alone, I'd buy it. But I doubt that'll ever happen. Or maybe I'd buy the CPU-GPU combo when I'm rich.
Now, maybe if there were a spot directly on the motherboard to attach a GPU (meaning not just an AGP slot for an actual card, but a spot for an actual chip). . .
How much you wanna bet Vista's gonna cause your PC's power supply to overheat? :)
Here's what I'm getting at: I upgrade ALL my other components more frequently than I upgrade my CPU. In fact, I never upgrade my CPU unless the other one either crapped out or is more than 3-4 years old. My GPU, however, I upgrade more frequently - I usually get a new video card or more memory whenever I get gift cards for Best Buy or wherever. Why? Simple - for games, the CPU speed doesn't much matter so long as it's above 1.8GHz. And that's mainly because of all the physics that is programmed into today's games - once they start making physics accelerators (I remember reading about some startup planning to make one) you won't even need it that fast.
The performance of my GPU is what I care about. I don't want to buy a new CPU. I don't care if it only costs the price of a new CPU because I don't want the CPU.
You're right, CPU manufacturers could team up with GPU manufacturers to make a nice high performance CPU-GPU combo. But then what happens when ATi or nVidia comes out with a new GPU? The only way to get the new GPU will be to buy a new CPU - but if your old CPU suits you just fine, what can you do? Not to mention that you won't be able to use the Intel chips in an AMD motherboard - what if you want to switch from Intel to AMD? Right now I can just pop my GeForce right in any AGP-enabled motherboard and go.
Also, what if you're partial towards certain companies? Some people prefer AMD, some prefer Intel. And some people prefer nVidia, some prefer ATi. What if you want an AMD processor and an nVidia GPU, but nVidia struck a deal with Intel and only makes their GPUs for Intel processors?
Think about what you're suggesting. First off, look at Intel's GPUs. They don't even compete with nVidia's and ATi's GPUs! Do you really want to be stuck with a mediocre GPU just because you don't want to shell out the cash for a new CPU? Many high-end CPUs already cost upwards of $500, as do many high-end video cards. Why force people to spend $1000 for a new CPU when all they really want is a new GPU? It'll turn away many potential buyers.
Not to mention, where are you going to put the video RAM?
Or the fact that you're taking things out of proportion. The CPU and the FPU are almost directly related in that they both do math calculations, so they should be together. The GPU and the Video RAM are both used for video, so they should go together. But the GPU and the CPU - one does graphics processing, one does a multitude of different calculations. They shouldn't be put together. When you want better graphics, you usually upgrade your GPU - not your CPU. When you want your computer to be more responsive overall, you upgrade your CPU - not your GPU. What makes you think it's a good idea to force people to upgrade both when they only need/want to upgrade one?
Sweet! Then when I want a faster GPU I can shell out some more cash for a newer CPU and motherboard that I don't want!
Yes! Finally, SOMEONE gets why the Cell is faster!
Actually, the biggest thing about the Cell is that (I think) it uses vector processing, which is the same technique that your GPU uses. Vector processing is quite a bit faster than scalar processing (what most CPUs use) due to the fact that the vector processor can run operations on multiple data elements all at the same time.
And that's why I'd recommend that anyone who doesn't care that much about Halo 3 wait for the PS3 - it'll likely have noticeably better graphics than the 360 due to the fact that it can do a lot more math faster. That means it'll be able to not only have better graphics, but also to do all kinds of nice physics processing with the cycles it saves.
You're right, they could make some pretty powerful chips. But there's a few reasons why they don't. First of all, all their chips use vector processing, which is what makes them so fast. Vector processors are quite a bit faster than regular microprocessors, but they also cost more to make. Also, because it's a vector processor, it might not be compatible with other more common architectures, such as x86. Not to mention, you generally just don't need that much raw power. If vector CPUs were to become a commodity, that'd be great! But I don't see that happening since most people just don't need that kind of speed. Although maybe some gamers would. . .
I went to Germany a couple summers ago. I don't think I saw ANYONE with an iPod except the Americans in the group.
They may listen to our music and like to wear American clothes, but that doesn't mean they'll buy our technology.
This is stupid anyways, though. Silly French - you don't need iTunes to put MP3s on your iPod. I don't use iTunes at all and I can still download MP3s and play them on my iPod.
Wow, THERE's news for ya - MS promoting its own products? No kidding!
Not so much.
You can re-flash the "backup" BIOS too. It's just that you have to do that through the normal BIOS. But if the virus attacked the backup first, you'd still be screwed.
Also, I'm getting the feeling that you and I are using different versions of OOo - mine looks and feels quite a bit like Office 2003.
Although Nero was the worst persecutor of the Christians, John was NOT predicting another emperor as bad as him. Rather, he was writing to give consolation to his fellow Christians by letting them know that the power of God will triumph over Nero in the end.