بحثالمحتوياتتسجيل دخولفي الموقع حالياهناك حاليا 10 أعضاء و 15 ضيوف في الموقع.
|
?Who's hand is that in PC buyers' pocket Some people are deploying web servers running several sites on half as powerful boxes as the ones required to run the latest Microsoft offering as a desktop.
Yes I know that.
but I think it's going to be the first PC OS to fully utilize graphics cards (which previously was only utilized in games) driving PC users (not just gamers) to buy better graphics cards and that is my friend the good news. 
Yes I know that. but I think it's going to be the first PC OS to fully utilize graphics cards (which previously was only utilized in games) driving PC users (not just gamers) to buy better graphics cards and that is my friend the good news. Utilize? In my Webster "utilize" is defined as "to make practical use of", which doesn't describe the attitude of the forthcoming Microsoft offering towards existing hardware. I thought that it is really clear who's pushing the other. If you were living on this planet for the past 10 years you should've noticed that hardware is expanding in the light of Microsoft's bloated code and not the other way around. Fact is that Unixes running X and and bleeding edge desktop environments on top of that are rock solid with todays hardware. You can run Xfce wonderfully on a PII, and Enlightenent, a far more innovative desktop than Microsoft's, runs on a Pentium 100MHz. That's what I call hardware utilization. Call having to upgrade to 1 gig of memory good news? Its sad that some hardware specifications are being kept secret so that only few can write appropriate drivers that take better advantage of it, and those happen to go into a most bloated proprietary operating system.
Wasn't I talking about Graphics Cards. (let me see... yes I was)
Anyway if you were living on this planet for the last three years you would know that today's high-end graphics cards have more 'horse power' than CPUs and they cost more too. But given the fact that only games benefits from this 'horse power' only gamers have been purchasing these high-end graphics cards, what've made these graphics cards very expensive. Now when more people are going to purchase powerful graphics cards... (You know the rest) So it's not good news to everyone. And I was hinting to the hardware accelerated graphics engine Vista uses which was previously introduced in MacOS X but wasn't available in any PC OS. And I'm pretty sure that's Microsoft's OS is bloaty and inefficient. Wasn't I talking about Graphics Cards. (let me see... yes I was) Anyway if you were living on this planet for the last three years you would know that today's high-end graphics cards have more 'horse power' than CPUs and they cost more too. But given the fact that only games benefits from this 'horse power' only gamers have been purchasing these high-end graphics cards, what've made these graphics cards very expensive. Now when more people are going to purchase powerful graphics cards... (You know the rest) So it's not good news to everyone. I didn't say that I don't know about the cost of video adapters. And the fact isn't simlpy that "people are going to buy powerful graphics crads". The fact is "people must buy powerful graphics card to be able to run Microsoft Windows". There is a difference. And I was hinting to the hardware accelerated graphics engine Vista uses which was previously introduced in MacOS X but wasn't available in any PC OS. And I'm pretty sure that's Microsoft's OS is bloaty and inefficient. There do exist such facilities for X. End patent insanity, publish hardware specifications and see if X won't support high performance graphics for all graphics cards. 
2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. I read that in one of the articles , but it doesn't sound correct, as evidenced here. Or perhaps I'm missing something. ____ Why would we pay to be screwed ? Now he got that right. ____ I read that in one of the articles , but it doesn't sound correct, as evidenced here. Or perhaps I'm missing something.
Yep, you're missing somthing, from the same wikipedia link:instructions for 64-bit computing take up more storage space than the earlier 32-bit ones, so it is possible that some 32-bit programs will fit into the CPU's high-speed cache while equivalent 64-bit programs will not.
And in our case "Windows Vista" all Handles and previously 32Bit variables will be converted to 64Bit -for performance reasons- taking double the amount of memory, So it's correct.By the time Vista comes, we might be able to run MacOSX, which is said to be have decreasing requirements with each new release. It will be a new option.
Where did you get that from?!!!From what I heard Apple have explicitly asked for guaranties from Intel that MacOSX wont run on x86 PCs (Apple-Intel CPUs deal) Thanks Foaad for clarifying that to me, I was just wondering whether a program will eat up twice the memory under 64-bit or not. It'll eat more than in 32-bit, to be sure, but doesn't twice the meory seem excessive? They say here that : The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies slightly more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). Not that I understand what's meant by "swollen pointers" or "alignment padding", but if theinstructions take twice the space, and the data slightly more, then it can't be twice the memory? Perhaps it depends on how much of the memory in a pc is eaten by instructions and how much is eaten by data. ______ Yes, but some hacker somewhere will get it working; you can get the demo working already. Even if it's difficult to run MacOSX on a pc, it will be possible to run windows (?) and Linux and FreeBSD on a Mac. And Macs will be very versatile and desirable then. Perhaps Macs are onto something, eventually, that security chip they're gonna implement kind of seems to resemble the Fritz chip of treacherous computing, and so they might release an "insecure" version of OSX for PC's and "secure" one for Macs; It's just a "maybe" anyway.
"Swollen pointers" is just another way to say that the pointers have doubled in size, and "alignment padding" refers to the machine addressing boundaries and the requirements thereof. For example 32-bit x86 usually allocaltes integral values at 4-byte boundaries. This is because some architectural peoperties allow faster fetch times if data is allocated in memory this way. Obviously in the case of 64-bit architectures, the boundaries will boost to 8 bytes, and if values fit in less than that, most of those 8 bytes will not be used. Regarding the increasing memory requirements of 64-bit architectures, I feel, like ahnaqsh, that it shouldn't be as drastic as twice as much. Yes the Wikipedia article describes only the most basic facts, but there must be more to it. There must be hardware-supported optimization methods to reduce insane memory consumption. Thanks Strontium90 for the explanation! I want to ask, while we're on the topic, should one write a post that has only a "Thank You" note? I wanted to thank you for that explanation the other day, but I thought it might be the wrong thing to do, as it might be considered a cheap way to increase post counts, and it might make people open a page that has no extra information content on it, beliving there is something new. So, Foaad and Strontium90, would you consider it the correct thing to do? On an unrelated note, It just occured to me that the Nintendo64 and the Playstaion2 use 64 and 128 bit processors respectively, and have little memory, so surely memory consumption can't be drastic..perhaps.
I want to ask, while we're on the topic, should one write a post that has only a "Thank You" note? I wanted to thank you for that explanation the other day, but I thought it might be the wrong thing to do, as it might be considered a cheap way to increase post counts, and it might make people open a page that has no extra information content on it, beliving there is something new. So, Foaad and Strontium90, would you consider it the correct thing to do? While I certainly didn't arrive in 2200+ with just thank you posts, I care to show appreciation and thank people who drop me bits of interest or clarify issues I was oblivious to. Just as in real life, you don't turn your back and walk away without showing courtesy. But of course tossing around to much thanks feels unnecessary sometimes.
It just occured to me that the Nintendo64 and the Playstaion2 use 64 and 128 bit processors respectively, and have little memory, so surely memory consumption can't be drastic..perhaps.
I don't think you can compare memory consumption in gaming consoles with memory consumption in PCs it's a completely different architecture. should one write a post that has only a "Thank You" note?
In most cases NO. See here for more details 
Well, you people have me stumped :-) Well, it's been a very informative discussion, and I learnt a lot, thanks a lot Strontium90*1, and thanks a lot Foaad*2. ___________ 1.I wasn't referring to your post count! 2.Sorry to violate your rules.
|
© 2004-2008 CSC-SY
But that's good news for us (gamers) cause now we don't have to pay the whole cost of GPUs R&D
What I mean is that we gonna see the prices of GPUs drop down because of the larger amounts to be sold.
And this is true for other components too.