Right. So it's a matter of when. Why not just do it?? Maybe they are in development with it, who knows. One thing is certain - OEMs are shipping it, people will use it, and they will have to write drivers for it.
The real question is, when will there be a Windows 64 compatible version? Since XP 64 is currently shipping from OEMs, and a lot of other companies currently have 64 bit drivers and apps either out or in development, I wonder when Apple will release iTunes for it. Everything in iTunes currently works under 32 emu mode, but to burn CDs, you would need 64 bit drivers. Burning CDs from iTunes is a huge, important feature, so it's not a minor thing.
I agree that Via is the worst possible chipset vendor in history. I had countless problems with them. But it's not true that AMD doesn't make chipsets - they do, they are just generally used in the server market. I currently have 4 servers running Tyan motherboards with AMD MP cpus and chipsets on them. I also have 3 other servers running AMD Opteron's with AMD chipsets on the board. No problems at all with these systems as you might expect. I was very happy with Nforce 2 chipsets though, so I'm surprised you had any problems. I suppose it depends on the board you use though. I'm also using Nforce 3/4 at work now with the AMD 64, and so far, so good.
Definitely. People just don't get why buying a Dell won't get you a good "Gaming machine" like building one yourself, or have somebody else who knows what they are doing build it for you. My family routinely asks me if this or that Dell/HP/Whatever is a good deal because they are in the market for a new PC. They should know better by now...
I wish I had mod points to give you right now - you're exactly right. I'm SO tired of people complaining about "AMD quality sucks" when their only experience with them has been shitty OEM parts, like HP computers. The motherboards, memory, hard drives, and software all suck on those. Anybody who knows jack about computers also knows you would never compare an OEM notebook to a desktop chip from a competitor. Mainly because the notebooks are designed to run on lower power, and the hard drives normally run at 4400 RPM vs 7200 RPM on the desktop right now.
Yeah, I always get pissed when I see DVDs being sold as 4.7 GB of capacity. 300 megs is nothing to sneeze at when you're talking about something that's less than 5 GB to begin with. And yeah, I always partition up my drives to maximize the amount of space I can use on them. It sucks to loose 14 gigs to the filesystem:)
Um, this has nothing to do with what "format" the files are being written in - it has to do with space. A store bought DVD is dual layer, consisting of roughly 8.8 gigs of used space. Sure, they advertise 9.4 - but you can't actually use that much. So, when you buy a normal blank DVD, it's going to let you use 4.4 gigs. See a problem there? It has nothing to do with formats. Now that dual layer burners are out there, you can copy an entire movie onto once disc. However, blanks are not cost effective with dual layer yet.
You're kidding right? I use firewire everyday, at work and at home. Work: connect an ipod to, also my external firewire drive which I take between home and work. Home: video editing using my camcorder with firewire output on it. Beats the crap out of analog conversions using a haupauge card or something like that.
Right.... and immediately after that group gets formed and all games work on all systems, we'll forn another group and make sure all software works on all computing platforms, ie Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X.
As the AC rudely pointed out, yes, you lose massive amounts of quality doing it this way. Do I currently have to do it this way to make it work? Yes. This is why I don't mind the congress stuff, because I don't think DRM will go away. I wish it would and the world would be a better place if it did, but I don't think it will. Thus, the next best thing is having the ability to use my DRM'd file on any player I wish.
I agree with you 100% - but it would be massively inconvient and costly to prove your point in court after the RIAA sues you for copyright infringement. It's not right, but that's the way the market is working right now. That's why I'm fine with Congress getting involved, as long as they side with the consumer and the rights the consumer should have.
Yes, there are alternatives - but your ignoring the fact that if a person already purchased XXXX number of songs from Apple and later decided to switch music players, either by choice or because Apple disappeared or exited the market, that consumer is SOL. Why? Because they now have a large number of music files they paid for, which they can't use, unless the find a third party app or use iTunes to convert them to another lossy format, in which case they lose quality for music they legally purchased. Would it be the consumers fault for trusting Apple? Yes. But that doesn't mean the consumer should get screwed if they either want to or have to find a new music player.
Yeah, but my point is that you can't buy an non-DRM mp3 from a major artist legally online. It would be great if you could, but that's not reality. Instead of buying music online, you need the CD to rip from. Otherwise, you download them illegally, which is what most people end up doing because if you buy legally from Apple, you're locked into Apple if you want to keep the original quality.
Dumbass, you know what I meant - there is no MAJOR record label selling un-DRM'd music files for download on the internet. If there were, Apple would be out of business. The record labels would never allow non-DRM music to be legally sold online.
No I haven't. But imagine you had purchased a ton of music from an online retailer, and you had DRM protected files because that's what the major music labels sell. Then imagine that you wanted to use these on another brand of music player and didn't want to lose the quality by converting them to another lossy format. You'd be SOL. Worst case, say you had purchased that music from Sony for a Sony player and your Sony player breaks. Then imagine Sony not producing them anymore. You'd be serioulsy SOL, and that's what the point of this congressional work is - to make sure the consumer doesn't get screwed.
Ignorant????? Show me another MAJOR record label selling DRM protected files, that are NOT Apples that wil play on the Ipod. Yes, you can find Indie labels selling non-DRM music, but you can't buy a music file from Napster and play it on an Apple machine. I never said it was illegal to make something proprietary - you're a moron for even suggesting I thought so, because my post sure as hell didn't elude to that. What I'm saying is that it would be better for the consumer if there was a single standard for DRM protected music. Ofcourse somebody can rip a CD to AAC, MP3, whatever and throw it on there - but let's say you bought music online, from Sony's music store, and your Sony music player died and let's say Sony stopped producing their little mp3 music players. Say you had invested $2,000 worth of music, and you wanted to keep using the music files, but didn't want to kill the quality by moving it to another compressed format, like MP3.
You can't tell me it's not better for the consumer to have the option of using their LEGALLY purchased music on another brand of music player.
It is a standard when a majority of mp3 players being sold use it.... Face it, the iPod is killing everything else sales wise. As a result, nobody but Apple can legally sell music for it.... That's what it comes down to - because yes, you can convert another lossy format you download to mp3 and put it on there, but you lose quality. So, it's just like CDs in that regard - if Sony made Cd players that only play Sony discs, then Congress might have paid attention back then.
I have one, it came with my Blackberry 7100t. It was the first I had seen like this, and I think it's a slick idea. I can either plug into any computer for power or use this wall outlet box or car adapter.
Well, if M$ wins the market, you basically have what we had in a few different scenarios from the past:
1) The original Playstation: It was around for a very, very long time - even after PC games looked a million times better due to evolving hardware. The PS2 didn't hit until 2001, and even then, it didn't seem to outdo computer games at all. It took the Xbox for Sony to really get serious in my opinion, and we'll have to see what the PS3 can do.
2) Traditional Microsoft Monopoly, aka IE: Once Netscape was killed off, around 2000-2001 I'd estimate, Microsoft quit developing added features into IE. I don't care if IE 6 has a different version number, it's basically 5.0 with some security fixes, nothing really added feature wise. Not until XP SP2 did we see a pop up blocker, and a shitty one at that. Mozilla has them running scared right now in that department.
3) Intel Pentium III: It was a fine chip, but slowly evolving and extremely overpriced. Once AMD debuted the Athlon, Intel was racing to keep up, and basically still is today. The AMD/Intel battle has done marvelous things for the computer industry, even though it may end up killing one of the companies off... not Intel because of their cash reserves I think, but if AMD screws up, they are probably sunk.
It just goes to show that without serious competition, the market isn't forced to improve. If M$ can manage to kill Sony's game business unit (which is highly unlikely, but possible I suppose) it would probably just buy Nintendo, and whammo, XBox 3 won't come out until 2020.
I thought the same thing - but another person answered the question very well for me. If you had a $10,000 server for 3 years, and it's value after 3 years was $3,000 - if you leased it, you'd be borrowing the difference, $7k. It would save you $3k and let you upgrade after 3 years, because most servers aren't considered up to par at the end of 3 years anyhow. Most companies don't ebay their old servers after they are done with them anyhow, they either recycle them or donate them to schools or something as write offs.
However, it's dual channel and DDR 400, and that helps. Intel also offers dual channel boards and chipsets. I am no AMD "fanboi" as say, if Intel was making better products, I'd be telling you about them right now. It just so happens that AMD's crossbar architecture is much better than Intel's memory access for dual cores right now. It would be better for the industry if Intel could match the technology AMD is going to be shipping, that way prices would fall all the way around - but that won't happen until Intel gets the Pentium M line going in dual core mode, in which case they may also use on-chip memory controllers or atleast an improved northbridge.
I'll concede that point to you - that Intel is now putting 2 cores on a die... however they were never engineered to work that way initially. They only have an 800 MHZ FSB, not 1066 like the newer P4's, so they have even less bandwidth to share. Want a source?? Here:
It actually uses a cross-bar to handle the switching as well.
"Now for the best part - anybody with an existing Socket 939 AMD based motherboard will be able to use one. Worst case, you'll have to download a bios update to enable it, but it will work."
"AMD designed the K8 core to be dual ready out of the box, so this whole thing about them having an extra year isn't exactly true - they've had much longer than that."
Still think almost my whole post was wrong? About what you said:
"Re: sharing I/O bandwidth. Intel has to do this because they don't have a built-in MCH. It has *nothing* to do with "selling chips with 2 normal P4 dies on them"."
It has EVERYTHING to do with having 2 P4 cores in a single package - look at that anand article I posted above, here is a quote from it:
"The major issue with Intel's approach to dual core designs is that the dual cores must contest with one another for bandwidth across Intel's 64-bit NetBurst FSB. To make matters worse, the x-series line of dual core CPUs are currently only slated for use with an 800MHz FSB, instead of Intel's soon to be announced 1066MHz FSB. The reduction in bandwidth will hurt performance scalability and we continue to wonder why Intel is reluctant to transition more of their CPUs to the 1066MHz FSB, especially the dual core chips that definitely need it.
With only a 64-bit FSB running at 800MHz, a single x40 processor will only have 6.4GB/s of bandwidth to the rest of the system. Now that 6.4GB/s is fine for a single CPU, but an x40 with two cores the bandwidth requirements go up significantly."
Slashdot Mirror
Right. So it's a matter of when. Why not just do it?? Maybe they are in development with it, who knows. One thing is certain - OEMs are shipping it, people will use it, and they will have to write drivers for it.
The real question is, when will there be a Windows 64 compatible version? Since XP 64 is currently shipping from OEMs, and a lot of other companies currently have 64 bit drivers and apps either out or in development, I wonder when Apple will release iTunes for it. Everything in iTunes currently works under 32 emu mode, but to burn CDs, you would need 64 bit drivers. Burning CDs from iTunes is a huge, important feature, so it's not a minor thing.
I agree that Via is the worst possible chipset vendor in history. I had countless problems with them. But it's not true that AMD doesn't make chipsets - they do, they are just generally used in the server market. I currently have 4 servers running Tyan motherboards with AMD MP cpus and chipsets on them. I also have 3 other servers running AMD Opteron's with AMD chipsets on the board. No problems at all with these systems as you might expect. I was very happy with Nforce 2 chipsets though, so I'm surprised you had any problems. I suppose it depends on the board you use though. I'm also using Nforce 3/4 at work now with the AMD 64, and so far, so good.
Definitely. People just don't get why buying a Dell won't get you a good "Gaming machine" like building one yourself, or have somebody else who knows what they are doing build it for you. My family routinely asks me if this or that Dell/HP/Whatever is a good deal because they are in the market for a new PC. They should know better by now...
I wish I had mod points to give you right now - you're exactly right. I'm SO tired of people complaining about "AMD quality sucks" when their only experience with them has been shitty OEM parts, like HP computers. The motherboards, memory, hard drives, and software all suck on those. Anybody who knows jack about computers also knows you would never compare an OEM notebook to a desktop chip from a competitor. Mainly because the notebooks are designed to run on lower power, and the hard drives normally run at 4400 RPM vs 7200 RPM on the desktop right now.
Yeah, I always get pissed when I see DVDs being sold as 4.7 GB of capacity. 300 megs is nothing to sneeze at when you're talking about something that's less than 5 GB to begin with. And yeah, I always partition up my drives to maximize the amount of space I can use on them. It sucks to loose 14 gigs to the filesystem :)
Um, this has nothing to do with what "format" the files are being written in - it has to do with space. A store bought DVD is dual layer, consisting of roughly 8.8 gigs of used space. Sure, they advertise 9.4 - but you can't actually use that much. So, when you buy a normal blank DVD, it's going to let you use 4.4 gigs. See a problem there? It has nothing to do with formats. Now that dual layer burners are out there, you can copy an entire movie onto once disc. However, blanks are not cost effective with dual layer yet.
You're kidding right? I use firewire everyday, at work and at home. Work: connect an ipod to, also my external firewire drive which I take between home and work. Home: video editing using my camcorder with firewire output on it. Beats the crap out of analog conversions using a haupauge card or something like that.
Right.... and immediately after that group gets formed and all games work on all systems, we'll forn another group and make sure all software works on all computing platforms, ie Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X.
Yes, but my point is that not only do you have to do the work of converting, you lose quality - lots of it.
Yes, HT does connect the cpu to the memory controller, but the new AMD chips do not have a Northbridge, so you're off there.
As the AC rudely pointed out, yes, you lose massive amounts of quality doing it this way. Do I currently have to do it this way to make it work? Yes. This is why I don't mind the congress stuff, because I don't think DRM will go away. I wish it would and the world would be a better place if it did, but I don't think it will. Thus, the next best thing is having the ability to use my DRM'd file on any player I wish.
I agree with you 100% - but it would be massively inconvient and costly to prove your point in court after the RIAA sues you for copyright infringement. It's not right, but that's the way the market is working right now. That's why I'm fine with Congress getting involved, as long as they side with the consumer and the rights the consumer should have.
Yes, there are alternatives - but your ignoring the fact that if a person already purchased XXXX number of songs from Apple and later decided to switch music players, either by choice or because Apple disappeared or exited the market, that consumer is SOL. Why? Because they now have a large number of music files they paid for, which they can't use, unless the find a third party app or use iTunes to convert them to another lossy format, in which case they lose quality for music they legally purchased. Would it be the consumers fault for trusting Apple? Yes. But that doesn't mean the consumer should get screwed if they either want to or have to find a new music player.
Yeah, but my point is that you can't buy an non-DRM mp3 from a major artist legally online. It would be great if you could, but that's not reality. Instead of buying music online, you need the CD to rip from. Otherwise, you download them illegally, which is what most people end up doing because if you buy legally from Apple, you're locked into Apple if you want to keep the original quality.
Dumbass, you know what I meant - there is no MAJOR record label selling un-DRM'd music files for download on the internet. If there were, Apple would be out of business. The record labels would never allow non-DRM music to be legally sold online.
No I haven't. But imagine you had purchased a ton of music from an online retailer, and you had DRM protected files because that's what the major music labels sell. Then imagine that you wanted to use these on another brand of music player and didn't want to lose the quality by converting them to another lossy format. You'd be SOL. Worst case, say you had purchased that music from Sony for a Sony player and your Sony player breaks. Then imagine Sony not producing them anymore. You'd be serioulsy SOL, and that's what the point of this congressional work is - to make sure the consumer doesn't get screwed.
Ignorant????? Show me another MAJOR record label selling DRM protected files, that are NOT Apples that wil play on the Ipod. Yes, you can find Indie labels selling non-DRM music, but you can't buy a music file from Napster and play it on an Apple machine. I never said it was illegal to make something proprietary - you're a moron for even suggesting I thought so, because my post sure as hell didn't elude to that. What I'm saying is that it would be better for the consumer if there was a single standard for DRM protected music. Ofcourse somebody can rip a CD to AAC, MP3, whatever and throw it on there - but let's say you bought music online, from Sony's music store, and your Sony music player died and let's say Sony stopped producing their little mp3 music players. Say you had invested $2,000 worth of music, and you wanted to keep using the music files, but didn't want to kill the quality by moving it to another compressed format, like MP3.
You can't tell me it's not better for the consumer to have the option of using their LEGALLY purchased music on another brand of music player.
It is a standard when a majority of mp3 players being sold use it.... Face it, the iPod is killing everything else sales wise. As a result, nobody but Apple can legally sell music for it.... That's what it comes down to - because yes, you can convert another lossy format you download to mp3 and put it on there, but you lose quality. So, it's just like CDs in that regard - if Sony made Cd players that only play Sony discs, then Congress might have paid attention back then.
I have one, it came with my Blackberry 7100t. It was the first I had seen like this, and I think it's a slick idea. I can either plug into any computer for power or use this wall outlet box or car adapter.
Well, if M$ wins the market, you basically have what we had in a few different scenarios from the past:
1) The original Playstation: It was around for a very, very long time - even after PC games looked a million times better due to evolving hardware. The PS2 didn't hit until 2001, and even then, it didn't seem to outdo computer games at all. It took the Xbox for Sony to really get serious in my opinion, and we'll have to see what the PS3 can do.
2) Traditional Microsoft Monopoly, aka IE: Once Netscape was killed off, around 2000-2001 I'd estimate, Microsoft quit developing added features into IE. I don't care if IE 6 has a different version number, it's basically 5.0 with some security fixes, nothing really added feature wise. Not until XP SP2 did we see a pop up blocker, and a shitty one at that. Mozilla has them running scared right now in that department.
3) Intel Pentium III: It was a fine chip, but slowly evolving and extremely overpriced. Once AMD debuted the Athlon, Intel was racing to keep up, and basically still is today. The AMD/Intel battle has done marvelous things for the computer industry, even though it may end up killing one of the companies off... not Intel because of their cash reserves I think, but if AMD screws up, they are probably sunk.
It just goes to show that without serious competition, the market isn't forced to improve. If M$ can manage to kill Sony's game business unit (which is highly unlikely, but possible I suppose) it would probably just buy Nintendo, and whammo, XBox 3 won't come out until 2020.
I thought the same thing - but another person answered the question very well for me. If you had a $10,000 server for 3 years, and it's value after 3 years was $3,000 - if you leased it, you'd be borrowing the difference, $7k. It would save you $3k and let you upgrade after 3 years, because most servers aren't considered up to par at the end of 3 years anyhow. Most companies don't ebay their old servers after they are done with them anyhow, they either recycle them or donate them to schools or something as write offs.
I already answered questions like these.
1 36499
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144909&cid=12
You are correct - there is only path to memory in a standard AMD socket 939 motherboard, I never said there wasn't.
1 682262,00.asp
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1759,
However, it's dual channel and DDR 400, and that helps. Intel also offers dual channel boards and chipsets. I am no AMD "fanboi" as say, if Intel was making better products, I'd be telling you about them right now. It just so happens that AMD's crossbar architecture is much better than Intel's memory access for dual cores right now. It would be better for the industry if Intel could match the technology AMD is going to be shipping, that way prices would fall all the way around - but that won't happen until Intel gets the Pentium M line going in dual core mode, in which case they may also use on-chip memory controllers or atleast an improved northbridge.
"Arrgh... practically every point in the above post is misleading or wrong, and it get's modded to +5"
1 34740.html
x
Ok, the two dies on one chip was true, or believed to be true when they first demoed:
Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040915
I'll concede that point to you - that Intel is now putting 2 cores on a die... however they were never engineered to work that way initially. They only have an 800 MHZ FSB, not 1066 like the newer P4's, so they have even less bandwidth to share. Want a source?? Here:
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2252
As far as my other points go, let's go over them, shall we???
"the new dual core P4s won't be compatible with a majority of Intel boards on the market"
Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21793
"The two cores use hyper transport to communicate with various system devices"
Source: http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_11787,00.html
It actually uses a cross-bar to handle the switching as well.
"Now for the best part - anybody with an existing Socket 939 AMD based motherboard will be able to use one. Worst case, you'll have to download a bios update to enable it, but it will work."
Source: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-1583-x-x-
"AMD designed the K8 core to be dual ready out of the box, so this whole thing about them having an extra year isn't exactly true - they've had much longer than that."
Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13344
Still think almost my whole post was wrong? About what you said:
"Re: sharing I/O bandwidth. Intel has to do this because they don't have a built-in MCH. It has *nothing* to do with "selling chips with 2 normal P4 dies on them"."
It has EVERYTHING to do with having 2 P4 cores in a single package - look at that anand article I posted above, here is a quote from it:
"The major issue with Intel's approach to dual core designs is that the dual cores must contest with one another for bandwidth across Intel's 64-bit NetBurst FSB. To make matters worse, the x-series line of dual core CPUs are currently only slated for use with an 800MHz FSB, instead of Intel's soon to be announced 1066MHz FSB. The reduction in bandwidth will hurt performance scalability and we continue to wonder why Intel is reluctant to transition more of their CPUs to the 1066MHz FSB, especially the dual core chips that definitely need it.
With only a 64-bit FSB running at 800MHz, a single x40 processor will only have 6.4GB/s of bandwidth to the rest of the system. Now that 6.4GB/s is fine for a single CPU, but an x40 with two cores the bandwidth requirements go up significantly."