15 posts • joined Saturday 16th December 2006 20:50 GMT
On the contrary, I've installed Real Player on Mac and Win7 this year and there's no nagging. It also has a nice Flash video downloader built in.
I find real Player to be a better player than Windows Media Player.
The just-launched E7 xeons (westmere-ex) are Sandy Bridge, I believe, or the newest microarchitecture, in any case. (I can't always keep track of codenames for architectures vs. implementations). Or am I wrong?
I was strictly keeping things on a per-socket basis, to avoid complete madness. But AMD will give you 32 cores in a mainstream 2-socket system and it looks like Intel will give you 16 or 20 cores which are faster by some as-yet unknown fraction.
In terms of FP, which is what I care about most about it looks like Bulldozer cores are equal, clock for clock, with the newest Xeon cores on SSE2 code and somewhere closer to half as fast with AVX, when that becomes important.
No, not so much.
I understand they hand out press releases but there's no need to smoke them up and inhale so deeply, while washing it down with Intel Kool-Aid.
I don't see Intel's slicing up of the chipset family as a benefit to anyone but Intel - OEMs can build systems with varying storage options without needing multiple silicon parts. It's Intel's attempt to grab a larger chunk of the price of higher cost servers. Nice to see as many as 8 x 6Gbps SAS ports, I believe AMD offers 6 x 3Gbps SATA at present, requiring additional chippery many times.
C32 only seems to make sense in low-end single socket, but with Bulldozer it offers 8 cores against the 4 Intel offers in the E3 Xeons. AMD looks to be equal/ahead in memory bandwidth per socket with G34 vs Intel (4 channels vs 3 or 4) and a bit behind in ultimate capacity (8 DIMMS vs 9 or 12) The AMD chipsets have as many or more PCIe lanes.
Intel will give you 8 cores in an E5 or 10 in a pricey E7, AMD offers 16. Who can say about performance until things are released, but AMD's CPU prices are relative bargins.
Apple feels your pain
Andrew Johnson complains: "I bought a brand new Mac Mini at an iStore 2 days ago. Today they released a faster better machine for less than I paid!! Thanks Apple!"
Apple Stores have a 14 day return policy (at least in the USA) and in the past they've been happy to refund your purchase price if you want the new machine OR they've given people a small sum as compensation to folks who complain if they'd rather keep the first machine.
Remarkably decent, really.
plastic macbooks only, for the moment
To be clear, a close perusal of the axiotron.com site confirms that they presently offer this only for the original macbooks, but they hope to have a revised shell casting available in "mid-2009" to serve the new ones. El Reg has had a bit of a cock-up on the press release comprehension front.
So far as Apple is concerned, for OS X licensing this _is_ an Apple-labeled product, just resold in a modified case. Axiotron sells through distributors in the US and Canada, with each responsible for warrenty service.
Reading their forums, I see the Axiotron CEO was an Apple engineer on the Newton and some other products, and the company is an Apple Premier Developer, though I'm not sure if that signfies more than dropping a few grand on ADC membership.
A pretty slick conversion
A friend has had one of these since August. It keeps the bottom shell of the MacBook intact, with the motherboard and peripherals. The top shell/keyboard and display are lopped off and replaced with a digitizer and display similar to the Wacom Cintiq digitizer/LCDs.
I believe they get some kind of accomodation from Apple to buy the base shells sans display which probably lets them offer the new units so inexpensively (relative to the conversion)
Axiotron does not have much software of their own on the beast, relying on Apple's Ink system and Wacom's tablet driver software. My friend does illustration work on hers, and I expect that's what most of them are used for, rather than a specialized vertical application
It's the money, honey
With production of 45nm chips being limited, they're selling them as more expensive Xeons and QX (extreme) packages.
Intel has always been very canny at making the most money they can.
When production ramps up significantly and the demand for upgraded servers moderates, they will release the lower cost desktop chips.
Not without genius engineering skills
Steve Jobs is, in fact the Devil.
Macs use a completely different pre-boot system called EFI, rather than the traditional BIOS which loads a known boot block address from disk and starts executing it. So there'd be a big software effort to write an EFI environment for your chipset.
Then, I believe Apple Intel Macs also have a "Trusted Platform Module" which gives some kind of secure way to verify the the identity of the machine and who manufactured it.
I'e seen photos on the web of someone's machine supposedly booting MacOS in a virtualized EFI environment, but it was supposed to take over an hour to boot.
Don't stop the fuel pump
I don't imagine GM means to actually shut off the fuel supply bang-full stop. There's safety issues as CBarn notes, and some fuel injection systems would be trashed running dry like that.
Many (most?) vehicles have "throttle by wire" nowadays, so a progressive limiting of the throttle plate opening would do the job gradually.
Failing throttle-by-wire, some manipulation of fuel injector pulse width or ignition timing would bring you to a crawl safely.
This cache is managed differently
To Oliver, the first commentator:
This is a non-volatile cache, so it's ready after being shut-off. The transfer rate from flash is not really better than a hard drive, but access is so much faster that by putting the most used bit of start-up libraries and favorite applications in flash the overall performance feels much snappier at the times when the waits are most annoying.
It's different from a traditional most-recently used cache scheme (CPU cache and filesystem RAM cache) in that once you shown a pattern of commonly used files, they'll live in flash with relatively little turn over.
The 6100/6150 _are_ Nvidia's current integrated parts, though they've been out at least a year. The clock rate for the 6150 is ~10% faster than the 6100. The 6150 does much better at scaling video for full screen playback, that's the real difference, not 3D performance.
The G965 is the only Intel integrated solution that supports Shader Model 3.0 in DirectX, and that's the critical feature. Anything with a Q965 or GMA-xxx (G945, etc) will not have the same appearance with Vista. AMD is not incorrect to make their claims - there are lots of mATX boards being sold with 945 chipsets, and driver support for G965 is currently very spotty.
The same image quality difference comes up in a game like World of Warcraft, where SM 3.0 chips give you greatly improved views in and around water, because the surface transparancy is enabled. The 6150 manages ~20fps in WoW, but they're really pretty frames...
What about ATI's integrated chipsets? are those available for Intel as well as AMD, and do they support SM 3.0?
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt