All of that can't be attributed to differences in glue-logic and memory controllers.
Actually, if you know much about CPU design (more than I do, but less than some people I know who concur on this point), it can. As proof, I offer the Intel Core series of CPUs, the i3, i5, and i7 lines, each of which can be found on dual-core variants at similar clock speeds. What differentiates them is the number of instructions per cycle each core can execute, which is informed by the amount of on-die cache (L1, L2, and in the higher-end chips, L3) available. The cores are the same, the glue logic is effectively the same, with changes being necessary for the larger or smaller caches, but the caches are larger and that allows more instructions to be queued for execution, meaning that while the cores in all 3 chips could potentially execute the same number of instructions per second, the i3's caches will be emptied faster, leaving its cores idle while they wait for more instructions, then the i5's caches will be emptied, leaving it idle while the i7 is still processing.
You'll also note that the A6 barely outperformed the mid-range CPUs found in Android phones at the time and lost slightly to the high end. This indicates that Apple was utilizing larger caches to keep those two slower cores busy (I can ask for a better explanation of why that's what is indicated, but it's likely to be over both of our heads). It wasn't until the A7, which is a 64-bit chip, that Apple's CPUs became competitive with the high end of the Android market; and at that point they were completely destroying anything in the Android world. That is owed in large part to the larger 64-bit instruction set; many of these instructions execute in one cycle what requires multiple subsequent instructions (therefore multiple cycles, as you need the result from one instruction to be fed into the next, which prevents you from executing them concurrently) on a 32-bit CPU. This is the general reason why (all else, e.g. clock speed, caches, and such, being equal) 64-bit CPUs aren't any faster running 32-bit code, but the same source compiled to take advantage of the 64-but instruction set typically runs much faster; the 64-bit CPU isn't executing more instructions in the same amount of time, it's executing fewer and more efficient instructions.
The real fact of the matter is that, outside of synthetic benchmarks, the CPUs used high-end Android phones are every bit as performant as the CPUs used in the iPhone. In real-world usage, one is really not perceptibly faster than the other. And before you jump on me for limiting my comparison to high-end Android phones, can you provide a low-end or mid-range iPhone for me to compare against? Unless such a beast exists and you are willing to admit as much, we'll just keep comparing high-end to high-end. You see, the problem with benchmarks is that they test either the ability of a single core to belt out calculations as fast as possible or the ability all available cores to belt out the same types of calculations as quickly as possible, they don't test the cores all working on different things, and they don't account for switching from one execution context to another. A dual core chip can only work on two different things at once and, as a result, will switch execution context twice as often as a quad core chip when more than two processes are simultaneously demanding CPU time. Context switching is expensive, and that's why benchmarks that don't account for it don't matter in the real world.
I'd love to see someone write a benchmark that simultaneously runs eight different threads, each doing a different task. You could start with one thread repeatedly rendering an image of random static. When that thread finishes its first rendering, another thread starts that repeatedly encodes the most recent image as a PNG. When that thread finishes its first encoding, another thread starts that repeatedly decodes the most r
Yes, they do design the CPUs...and I never said they didn't... from ARM block designs. They arrange the blocks, they design the connecting lattice between the blocks, and yes, they've designed a few non ARM-core blocks to reside on the same die for specific functions; those blocks are not ARM, though. They're application-specific processors like audio and video hardware CODECs and such; living on the same die as the ARM CPU makes them ARM blocks in the same way that living on the same die as the x86 CPU makes an Intel GPU and x86 block: it doesn't.
You see, that's not really true, there would have to be a monkey in my ass, first. However, as ARM does, in fact, license designs to Apple, they actually could stop doing so.
I believe I'm not as crazy as you give me credit for. Nowhere did I say ARM would> or even should stop licensing to Apple. I simply stated that they could.
Intel would have to offer a sufficiently low-powered chip, which they currently do not do. However, that mosses the point; then Apple would make even fewer parts of the iPhone.
Yup, and those headphones with the thinner plug housings still worked everywhere else, as well. Not so this time around, so you can expect Sony et-al to not follow along, especially (in Sony's case) when it means making something that doesn't work with their own product.
The battery in the portable charger you'll need to carry with you to recharge your iPhone when the DAC and amplified in your headphones kills its battery. You could still listen while you charged if you had a 3.5mm jack, but you'll have to unplug those headphones from the lightning connector in order to plug in that battery.
That's two components, at least one of which is based on licensed block designs from ARM, who could simply stop licensing them for future use and BAM, no more A series chips can be made. Go on thinking Apple invented everything in the iPhone, really, go ahead, don't let those pesky facts get in the way. Don't get me wrong, I've got a number of apple products and I do love them, but i don't bullshit myself about what Apple actually does as a company. The AC you replied to is absolutely correct.
Until it's "No-energy", meaning no power is required for any purpose other than driving the speakers to produce audio, and all of that power comes from the audio source, it's not fixing the problem stated in GP's post. As long as the limiting factor on my listening time is the size of the battery in my bluetooth headset, my bluetooth headset will always play second fiddle to my wired headphones. And I have a couple of really high-end bluetooth headsets that I really love but rarely use for that exact reason. They're great when wires are really a problem, like when laying down to sleep or working on a car, but they're not so great when using them means carrying twice as many battery-powered chargers, for example, on a two week hike.
You're absolutely right. I'm also talking about people who most likely have cars in which they can drive their TV to a repair shop, and smartphones with which to find one. $100-200 is definitely cheaper than a new TV.
Yes, it will be the first to feature an OLED screen in the same way the iPhone has been the first to have any feature since Apple's last first-to-platform feature introduction, multi-touch. That is, it will be the first iPhone to feature and OLED screen.
He's like Beetlejuice. How is he like Beetlejuice? Because, if you invoke the name of APK three times, he will appear. But if you only say it once or twice, like Beetlejuice, he will not.
Plus, now that Beetlejuice is here, he can take care of APK if he shows up.
You come off as an entitled dick with a huge case of unwarranted self importance.
Why? Because I realize that's not how things work and, as a result, avoid putting myself in situations where I might be liable for the misdeeds of others? You see, an entitled dick would go ahead and put himself in that position, then throw a bitch fit when things didn't go his way; again, I simply avoid the situation altogether rather than making unreasonable demands. My previous post is an example of such an unreasonable demand, with the explanation that I avoid putting myself in a position to make said demand by not using the service. Furthermore, an individual with a huge case of unwarranted self importance might be inclined to reply to a post on a public forum, somewhere like Slashdot for example, without reading the entire thing first; this often leads them to take what they have read entirely out of context and say something foolish, as you're done here. Your only saving grace, in that regard, is that you posted anonymously and didn't sign your message, while someone with aforementioned huge case of unwarranted self importance would do at least one of those things.
I figure I've got about a decade of work product on my computer. If my machine gets infected and that gets stolen, is Yahoo! willing to pay me... oh, let's see... 10 years, that's 520 weeks at 40hr/wk (being generous, most weeks are closer to 60 with some topping 80+), at my high-volume billable rate of $50/hr... 520 * 40 * 50 = $1.04 million? Oh, plus a day's work that will be lost to nuke-and-pave, another day to configure all the software I reinstalled the day prior, and another day to restore my backups, so tack another $1200 on there. And if my backups are damaged, tack on another decade of payment to cover my time to redo that work; if those backups simply don't exist, then, instead tack on two weeks of lost work ($4000) while I take the system off my network, go through everything and back up whatever's clean make note of what's not salvageable, a percentage of $1.04 million equal to the percentage of work that must be redone, in addition to the time to restore those backups after nuke-and-pave.
Unless Yahoo! is willing to accept potential liability of up to $2,085,200 (plus court costs, legal fees, and my billable rate for work lost having to sue them over it, let's just bump that number up to $3mil since I won't cheap out on my lawyer), they should allow me access to the email account I already have with them, without requiring me to view their ads, which have a history of carrying malware. At the very least, they should provide a list of alternate providers who don't block users of ad blockers, assistance in migrating to one of those providers, free forwarding from the old address to the new address for at least a year (preferably 5-10) and, if the newly chosen service is not free, cover the cost for that same period. After all, it's not like I can just stop using my Yahoo! mail, there is a fair bit of work involved in doing that and I would need access to my Yahoo! mail (without the ads that have proven to be dangerous) in during that time.
I say would because the real reason I can't just stop using my Yahoo! mail is that I don't use Yahoo! mail, or any other Yahoo! services, on the off chance that one of their potentially malicious ads slips past my ad blocker.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a hunch, meanwhile I can assure you that your hunch is incorrect, while I have facts backing my position.
All of that can't be attributed to differences in glue-logic and memory controllers.
Actually, if you know much about CPU design (more than I do, but less than some people I know who concur on this point), it can. As proof, I offer the Intel Core series of CPUs, the i3, i5, and i7 lines, each of which can be found on dual-core variants at similar clock speeds. What differentiates them is the number of instructions per cycle each core can execute, which is informed by the amount of on-die cache (L1, L2, and in the higher-end chips, L3) available. The cores are the same, the glue logic is effectively the same, with changes being necessary for the larger or smaller caches, but the caches are larger and that allows more instructions to be queued for execution, meaning that while the cores in all 3 chips could potentially execute the same number of instructions per second, the i3's caches will be emptied faster, leaving its cores idle while they wait for more instructions, then the i5's caches will be emptied, leaving it idle while the i7 is still processing.
You'll also note that the A6 barely outperformed the mid-range CPUs found in Android phones at the time and lost slightly to the high end. This indicates that Apple was utilizing larger caches to keep those two slower cores busy (I can ask for a better explanation of why that's what is indicated, but it's likely to be over both of our heads). It wasn't until the A7, which is a 64-bit chip, that Apple's CPUs became competitive with the high end of the Android market; and at that point they were completely destroying anything in the Android world. That is owed in large part to the larger 64-bit instruction set; many of these instructions execute in one cycle what requires multiple subsequent instructions (therefore multiple cycles, as you need the result from one instruction to be fed into the next, which prevents you from executing them concurrently) on a 32-bit CPU. This is the general reason why (all else, e.g. clock speed, caches, and such, being equal) 64-bit CPUs aren't any faster running 32-bit code, but the same source compiled to take advantage of the 64-but instruction set typically runs much faster; the 64-bit CPU isn't executing more instructions in the same amount of time, it's executing fewer and more efficient instructions.
The real fact of the matter is that, outside of synthetic benchmarks, the CPUs used high-end Android phones are every bit as performant as the CPUs used in the iPhone. In real-world usage, one is really not perceptibly faster than the other. And before you jump on me for limiting my comparison to high-end Android phones, can you provide a low-end or mid-range iPhone for me to compare against? Unless such a beast exists and you are willing to admit as much, we'll just keep comparing high-end to high-end. You see, the problem with benchmarks is that they test either the ability of a single core to belt out calculations as fast as possible or the ability all available cores to belt out the same types of calculations as quickly as possible, they don't test the cores all working on different things, and they don't account for switching from one execution context to another. A dual core chip can only work on two different things at once and, as a result, will switch execution context twice as often as a quad core chip when more than two processes are simultaneously demanding CPU time. Context switching is expensive, and that's why benchmarks that don't account for it don't matter in the real world.
I'd love to see someone write a benchmark that simultaneously runs eight different threads, each doing a different task. You could start with one thread repeatedly rendering an image of random static. When that thread finishes its first rendering, another thread starts that repeatedly encodes the most recent image as a PNG. When that thread finishes its first encoding, another thread starts that repeatedly decodes the most r
Mine is in the shop.
Yes, they do design the CPUs ...and I never said they didn't... from ARM block designs. They arrange the blocks, they design the connecting lattice between the blocks, and yes, they've designed a few non ARM-core blocks to reside on the same die for specific functions; those blocks are not ARM, though. They're application-specific processors like audio and video hardware CODECs and such; living on the same die as the ARM CPU makes them ARM blocks in the same way that living on the same die as the x86 CPU makes an Intel GPU and x86 block: it doesn't.
You see, that's not really true, there would have to be a monkey in my ass, first. However, as ARM does, in fact, license designs to Apple, they actually could stop doing so.
I believe I'm not as crazy as you give me credit for. Nowhere did I say ARM would> or even should stop licensing to Apple. I simply stated that they could.
Intel would have to offer a sufficiently low-powered chip, which they currently do not do. However, that mosses the point; then Apple would make even fewer parts of the iPhone.
Yup, and those headphones with the thinner plug housings still worked everywhere else, as well. Not so this time around, so you can expect Sony et-al to not follow along, especially (in Sony's case) when it means making something that doesn't work with their own product.
The battery in the portable charger you'll need to carry with you to recharge your iPhone when the DAC and amplified in your headphones kills its battery. You could still listen while you charged if you had a 3.5mm jack, but you'll have to unplug those headphones from the lightning connector in order to plug in that battery.
That's two components, at least one of which is based on licensed block designs from ARM, who could simply stop licensing them for future use and BAM, no more A series chips can be made. Go on thinking Apple invented everything in the iPhone, really, go ahead, don't let those pesky facts get in the way. Don't get me wrong, I've got a number of apple products and I do love them, but i don't bullshit myself about what Apple actually does as a company. The AC you replied to is absolutely correct.
Until it's "No-energy", meaning no power is required for any purpose other than driving the speakers to produce audio, and all of that power comes from the audio source, it's not fixing the problem stated in GP's post. As long as the limiting factor on my listening time is the size of the battery in my bluetooth headset, my bluetooth headset will always play second fiddle to my wired headphones. And I have a couple of really high-end bluetooth headsets that I really love but rarely use for that exact reason. They're great when wires are really a problem, like when laying down to sleep or working on a car, but they're not so great when using them means carrying twice as many battery-powered chargers, for example, on a two week hike.
You're absolutely right. I'm also talking about people who most likely have cars in which they can drive their TV to a repair shop, and smartphones with which to find one. $100-200 is definitely cheaper than a new TV.
Troll moderation? LOL
Yes, it will be the first to feature an OLED screen in the same way the iPhone has been the first to have any feature since Apple's last first-to-platform feature introduction, multi-touch. That is, it will be the first iPhone to feature and OLED screen.
He's like Beetlejuice. How is he like Beetlejuice? Because, if you invoke the name of APK three times, he will appear. But if you only say it once or twice, like Beetlejuice, he will not.
Plus, now that Beetlejuice is here, he can take care of APK if he shows up.
You come off as an entitled dick with a huge case of unwarranted self importance.
Why? Because I realize that's not how things work and, as a result, avoid putting myself in situations where I might be liable for the misdeeds of others? You see, an entitled dick would go ahead and put himself in that position, then throw a bitch fit when things didn't go his way; again, I simply avoid the situation altogether rather than making unreasonable demands. My previous post is an example of such an unreasonable demand, with the explanation that I avoid putting myself in a position to make said demand by not using the service. Furthermore, an individual with a huge case of unwarranted self importance might be inclined to reply to a post on a public forum, somewhere like Slashdot for example, without reading the entire thing first; this often leads them to take what they have read entirely out of context and say something foolish, as you're done here. Your only saving grace, in that regard, is that you posted anonymously and didn't sign your message, while someone with aforementioned huge case of unwarranted self importance would do at least one of those things.
The one with all its goo oozing out. By desoldering it and soldering in a new one. They would have done so and sold the old one on Craigslist already.
You can always recognize the brilliant work of a deep thinker when their vocabulary includes...
You mean like yours does?
But they are Finnish and I'm sure they'll finish eventually.
You forgot step 2a) Get infected by malware-laden Yahoo! ad.
What's a good alternative to Yahoo webhosting these days?
Anything. Hell, if I had to choose between Yahoo! web hosting and a bullet to the head, it would be the last decision I ever had to make.
I figure I've got about a decade of work product on my computer. If my machine gets infected and that gets stolen, is Yahoo! willing to pay me... oh, let's see... 10 years, that's 520 weeks at 40hr/wk (being generous, most weeks are closer to 60 with some topping 80+), at my high-volume billable rate of $50/hr... 520 * 40 * 50 = $1.04 million? Oh, plus a day's work that will be lost to nuke-and-pave, another day to configure all the software I reinstalled the day prior, and another day to restore my backups, so tack another $1200 on there. And if my backups are damaged, tack on another decade of payment to cover my time to redo that work; if those backups simply don't exist, then, instead tack on two weeks of lost work ($4000) while I take the system off my network, go through everything and back up whatever's clean make note of what's not salvageable, a percentage of $1.04 million equal to the percentage of work that must be redone, in addition to the time to restore those backups after nuke-and-pave.
Unless Yahoo! is willing to accept potential liability of up to $2,085,200 (plus court costs, legal fees, and my billable rate for work lost having to sue them over it, let's just bump that number up to $3mil since I won't cheap out on my lawyer), they should allow me access to the email account I already have with them, without requiring me to view their ads, which have a history of carrying malware. At the very least, they should provide a list of alternate providers who don't block users of ad blockers, assistance in migrating to one of those providers, free forwarding from the old address to the new address for at least a year (preferably 5-10) and, if the newly chosen service is not free, cover the cost for that same period. After all, it's not like I can just stop using my Yahoo! mail, there is a fair bit of work involved in doing that and I would need access to my Yahoo! mail (without the ads that have proven to be dangerous) in during that time.
I say would because the real reason I can't just stop using my Yahoo! mail is that I don't use Yahoo! mail, or any other Yahoo! services, on the off chance that one of their potentially malicious ads slips past my ad blocker.
Just use APK's Hosts File Engine, I'm sure he's already got their domains in the list.
The only thing he (you, APk) broke is his (your, APK) own brain.
That's funny coming from most likely) APK of all people.