The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New iMacs Get Good Compliments and Superior Rating From PC Magazine
Originally posted by Asher
Can you explain to me why I'd be interested in reading some posts from fanatics who really have no clue what they're talking about, Cloud9?
YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! YOU DON'T EVEN USE A MAC, SO .
HAVE A DAY.
<--- Quote by Former U.S. President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
"And there will be strange events in the skies--signs in the sun, moon, and stars. And down here on earth the nations will be in turmoil, perplexed by the roaring seas and strange tides. The courage of many people will falter because of the fearful fate they see coming upon the earth, because the stability of the very heavens will be broken up. Then everyone will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds with power and great glory. So when all these things begin to happen, stand straight and look up, for your salvation is near!" --Luke 21:25-28
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the call of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, all the Christians who have died will rise from their graves. Then, together with them, we who are still alive and remain on the earth will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and remain with him forever. --1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
So you refuse to believe that Intel is making Prescott/Pentium 5?
Sure it has been "leaked," that is one way of making disinformation look official. We have all seen this haven't we? It is not unusal for a company to arrange for certain information to be carefully "leaked."
Certainly it doesn't surprise me that Intel has a backup plan just in case EPIC doesn't work out.
Well, considering certain websites (*cough*thereg*cough*) have talked to Intel engineers who have worked on it, I'd assume that it's true. Unless you're implying The Register intentionally lies?
Hammer is now officially out. You can find out the specs easily.
Hammer is not out at all, it's officially public if that's what you mean. It's also supposed to come out by December, whereas Prescott is due out around June next year. That's why Prescott's not public yet.
It's curious to note how badly AMD's promotion of hammer is hitting its Athlon line now. Sales have plummeted, they keep saying "wait for K8" now...
As for SMT, it can be interesting but the benefits are highly theoretical for Wintel boxes since the systems weren't designed around it. Neither was P4, as a matter of fact. Glueing on extra pieces isn't going to work well, if at all.
On the contrary, the P4 was designed for SMT. Why do you think it has a 20-stage pipeline? It wasn't all for marketing. SMT benefits from a highly superscalar processor.
Windows needs also be modifed.
It already has been from Windows XP on.
You are right if all the ALU's are fully utilised every clock cycle. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. The main problem with fast CPUs nowadays is the ALU's sit idle waiting for data (both opcodes and oprands) to arrive. Going with a 64-bit wide data bus goes a long way of solving the problem.
But there is simply no cache for it to be stored in, UR. 64-bit wide data bus does nothing when the ALU is expecting a 32-bit integer (this is still dealing with regular x86 legacy code). The ALU doesn't simply accept 2 integers and cache it for later. You'd need to have highly linear code for that to work anyway, and a prediction of what it'd need next.
ALUs only work on one number at a time, having a pipe that can send it two is useless. It's the same reason why the PPro core was faster in 32-bit and slower in 16-bit than the original Pentium. The PPro couldn't send 2 16-bit numbers on the 32-bit pathway and get performance increases...
I can see where you're trying to go, though, and your whole basis is on the assumption that there's a lack of internal bandwidth in the chip to move data around, which is certainly not the case with the Pentium 4/Athlon. The ALUs only sit idle because they're single-threaded. On P4 Xeons/P5s, the ALUs are idle less often because it can multithread, this has nothing to do with internal bandwidth.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Cloud9
YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! YOU DON'T EVEN USE A MAC, SO .
Cloud9, are you trying to make a point?
I'm not going to read user testimonials or other rants from Mac users.
I understand people can love the feel for a Mac, how they don't mind that they're buying something ridiculously overpriced and underpowered, that they just love the experience of it.
That's fine, but I reserve my right to disagree with them -- reading testamonials isn't going to change my mind.
And I'll have you know I've used OS X extensively on an iBook, and I know quite a lot on Apple's hardware since I did a project on the G4 last year.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
--"if you were to compare Motorola to those other chip-makers that would be..."
There's not really any point in comparing Motorola to AMD or Intel. Motorola is more interested in desgning embedded chips than desktop CPUs. This is one of the reasons Apple has fallen so far behind, they simply can not drive the CPU design.
--"Intel and HP spent the last ten years developing something called IA-64"
True, but this is not the unqualified good thing you seem to think. For one, it requires a major programming shift, and I'm not just talking about waiting for decent compilers.
You're also forgetting something called an "installed code base". IA-64 has basically zero backwards compatibility (it is so slow with x86 that even Intel has stopped marketing the emulation). No matter how good the technology may or may not be, this means it simply will not be adopted quickly, and this by itself could kill it. Even with Intel's muscle behind it.
You have to consider just when IA-64 was initiated. It was before AMD was a threat, and Intel had their monopoly. At the time they could push basically anything they wanted through. Unfortunately for them, by the time they finished the design, the market had changed. As Rambus shows, they can no longer unilaterially declare standards. AMD's Hammer is a much better design for the market needs.
--"Though I can't wait until home electronics actually use that BlueTooth"
I can. I'll wait until someone actually attempts to design a secure wireless protocol...
--"But if you prefer stability and ease of use over performance and affordability"
Funny thing about that... I get performance, affordability, stability and ease of use out of my PC...
--"Because it's been leaked. It's called Yamhill."
Yeah, that's one of those interesting "now you see it now you don't" rumors. We'll have to wait and see how exactly this plays out. I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on such a thing, or that they don't want to admit it.
--"There's even speculations of Intel shrinking down the P3-T core"
The sad thing is, this may be the only way to get decent x86 performance on the chip. What this will do to die sizes and yeilds is another thing altogether. I doubt it will happen, it just does not seem at all economical for desktop level chips.
--"Look at the Itanium 2 SPEC benchmarks for how a good compiler can work"
SPEC isn't a very good benchmark of anything other than memory bandwidth, sadly.
--"On the contrary, the P4 was designed for SMT."
No, it wasn't, and the length of the pipeline has nothing to do with suitability for SMT. The P4s are weak in a number of areas, all releated to keeping that pipeline fed (not "internal bandwidth"). For an already resource-starved chip, adding SMT doesn't help much.
Have you seen the benchmarks? Some apps it helps (mostly int-heavy apps, server side stuff), but in some it actually decreases performance. P4 Xeon workstations are shipped with it disabled by default, and for good reason. We've got several of them in the test lab I'm working at now, and SMT on the Xeons has not been impressive.
Wraith
"Forget Mother Mirabel, this crowd needs Father Thorazine. What the hell are you looking at?"
-- Duckman
Originally posted by Wraith
The sad thing is, this may be the only way to get decent x86 performance on the chip. What this will do to die sizes and yeilds is another thing altogether. I doubt it will happen, it just does not seem at all economical for desktop level chips.
By the time it's on the 0.10 process, it'd probably end up being 40-50mm^2, which is not that large and would definitely help Intel with getting x86 up to acceptable levels.
No, it wasn't, and the length of the pipeline has nothing to do with suitability for SMT. The P4s are weak in a number of areas, all releated to keeping that pipeline fed (not "internal bandwidth"). For an already resource-starved chip, adding SMT doesn't help much.
Have you seen the benchmarks? Some apps it helps (mostly int-heavy apps, server side stuff), but in some it actually decreases performance. P4 Xeon workstations are shipped with it disabled by default, and for good reason. We've got several of them in the test lab I'm working at now, and SMT on the Xeons has not been impressive.
The performance hit you see with SMT enabled is because those programs simply aren't designed to use it properly. You can also get a performance hit with SMP systems if they're not designed properly due to the overhead as well. That's why you can toggle SMT on/off in the BIOS.
The 20-stage pipeline of the Pentium 4 means that at any clock, certain parts of the chip are more likely to be idle than others, which means it has a better chance for SMT to be effective.
I've seen 5-20% increases with SMT used on software designed for 2 processors, and it could probably be higher once it's designed for SMT in mind. On software designed mainly for 1 CPU, SMT results in a performance hit due to the overhead and the fact that there's not more than one thread running on the CPU.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Asher
It's not that simple, the stability comment is jibberish. And if you really have problems using a PC still, one has to wonder just how bright one is.
Actually, with as many problems as my cousin has been having with his XP box, I'm not too sure the stabillity comment is gibberish.
Likewise, however, OS X isn't as stable as Apple would like you to believe... in this case I suppose the grass is always browner on the other side of the fence.
(And since I know you'll ask, Asher, he's having driver problems... XP isn't properly auto-recognizing some of his devices... his sound card, and v.92 modem are the two causing him problems driver wise. He's having to reinstall the OS.)
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults...
Civ and WoW are my crack... just one... more... turn...
Ah, that's gibberish! Just listen to what all the Mac users out there have to say about the stability of Macs.
Going to have to disagree with you on that one... I don't know how many times a day I have to hit command-option-esc (for those of you who don't know, in Wintel speak that's control-alt-delete... didn't know Mac had a force quit key combo did you? )
Also, Mac OS X is just as laughable as Windows XP as far as almost everybody saying the OS is flawless, yet sometimes things happen.
They're computers, designed by human beings, built by humans (or human created robots), operated by humans, therefore they will be flawed and not perfect.
OS X.0 and X.1 are still rather dummied down versions... X.2 and I'll be ready to buy because it has the features I want, etc.
X.0 is so unstable that it's not even funny.
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults...
Civ and WoW are my crack... just one... more... turn...
Originally posted by Wraith
--"if you were to compare Motorola to those other chip-makers that would be..."
There's not really any point in comparing Motorola to AMD or Intel. Motorola is more interested in desgning embedded chips than desktop CPUs. This is one of the reasons Apple has fallen so far behind, they simply can not drive the CPU design.
*nods* Asher already pointed that out...
--"Though I can't wait until home electronics actually use that BlueTooth"
I can. I'll wait until someone actually attempts to design a secure wireless protocol...
Ah, so you're saying, in other words, that you're super paranoid about some person driving by your home with a BlueTooth scanner and going "HEY! They've got BlueTooth!!! Let's hack in!"
Right... as opposed to what the media would like you to do (live in fear) the common computer user need not have any worries about hackers. It's just like any other crime, make yourself uninteresting to the criminal, and you'll be fine... yet another up-side for the Mac...
Of course... it's only an upside because nobody cares to actually hack into a Mac system...
--"But if you prefer stability and ease of use over performance and affordability"
Funny thing about that... I get performance, affordability, stability and ease of use out of my PC...
Right... like I'm to believe that you haven't had any computer problems with whatever box you're using.
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults...
Civ and WoW are my crack... just one... more... turn...
The stability questions come to mind and if you want a stable PC then you have to use Windows 2000 Professional, not Windows XP. And it goes to restating a fact that has been restated a thousand times, the PC is much faster than the Mac and there is nothing Apple can do about it. Who have deeper pockets? The PC Industry or Apple?
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
You've got to be kidding me! The only thing that OS was good for was if you were a college student you could hack into your school's system no problem (at my school.) They guy that used to have that computer, guess what he owns now: an iBook!
The MHz myth does go a long way when all somebody is using to say that one type of computer is better than another is speed and cost. We've argued all of that already, try bringing something new to the table.
We've already pointed out that the PC Industry has the deeper pockets (and Motorola, an imbedded chip maker, has no desire to R&D faster G4 chips).
It all depends on what you're wanting to do. I mean, the guy that was using Windows 2000 switched because the iBook could do everything he wanted to do, mobily and fast enough.
Here's another part of the MHz myth you might not be aware of: some people don't care!
Take myself as an example, I chose Mac because I already have hundreds-thousands dollars invested in software... there's no sense in my ever switching to a PC because I've grown up on Macs... all my files are Mac files, all my software are Mac OS ported softwares... it would actually be more expensive for me to build my own Windows box (XP, or otherwise) because then I'd have to go out and buy all new software as well.
The one main Mac vs. PC war item everybody seems to forget is that you can't easily switch. It is, however, easier to switch from Windows to Apple thanks to emulation software, but even emulation software only goes so far... and if you're wanting to emulate Windows, why not just buy a Windows machine?
ugh... I'm falling for the anti-Mac troll again... as I said before, bring something interesting to the table or go play somewhere else, we're trying to actually talk tech now, it seems, and I'm learning a lot from the discussion (minus your contributions.) The thread has officially be hijacked.
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults...
Civ and WoW are my crack... just one... more... turn...
Originally posted by FlameFlash
Windows 2000 Pro.?!?!
You've got to be kidding me! The only thing that OS was good for was if you were a college student you could hack into your school's system no problem (at my school.) They guy that used to have that computer, guess what he owns now: an iBook!
It is a stable operating system and goes a long way. It works with most games and is stable when running a LAN interface as I am doing right now. You see I need it for other reasons: Stability, and easy to use network interface.
The MHz myth does go a long way when all somebody is using to say that one type of computer is better than another is speed and cost. We've argued all of that already, try bringing something new to the table.
And what does that prove about this argument? Nothing. Mac is worse, PC is better. Simple.
It all depends on what you're wanting to do. I mean, the guy that was using Windows 2000 switched because the iBook could do everything he wanted to do, mobily and fast enough.
Windows 2000 is definitely fast enough and very stable for anyone. Anybody that would upgrade to an iBook in my mind is insane.
Here's another part of the MHz myth you might not be aware of: some people don't care!
Apparently 3% of people don't care. The other 97% do. That is why 97% of the people use PC.
Take myself as an example, I chose Mac because I already have hundreds-thousands dollars invested in software... there's no sense in my ever switching to a PC because I've grown up on Macs... all my files are Mac files, all my software are Mac OS ported softwares... it would actually be more expensive for me to build my own Windows box (XP, or otherwise) because then I'd have to go out and buy all new software as well.
Good for you. And I respect that. I am not forcing you to do anything.
The one main Mac vs. PC war item everybody seems to forget is that you can't easily switch. It is, however, easier to switch from Windows to Apple thanks to emulation software, but even emulation software only goes so far... and if you're wanting to emulate Windows, why not just buy a Windows machine?
Apple sucks trash... so why would I want to switch? This PC I have, is serving me loyally. No crashes, nothing like that.
ugh... I'm falling for the anti-Mac troll again... as I said before, bring something interesting to the table or go play somewhere else, we're trying to actually talk tech now, it seems, and I'm learning a lot from the discussion (minus your contributions.) The thread has officially be hijacked.
And that is why I recommend Windows 2000 if you want stability in a PC. You talk trash about it because of your own stupid little agenda against Microsoft.
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
And I think you have heard my opinion already... I have exhausted all other means in proving my point. And I believe I have proven my point very well.
Well good day, I have to play some bowling now.
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
Originally posted by FlameFlash
We've already pointed out that the PC Industry has the deeper pockets (and Motorola, an imbedded chip maker, has no desire to R&D faster G4 chips).
Firstly, I believe that IBM owns the intellectual property that is referred to as RISC 6000 - which is what the G4 is based on.
Secondly, Motorola are licensed to produce chips and to adjust the design for specific applications subject to IBM approval.
Thirdly, IBM sells a supercomputer based on 256 RISC 6000 chips per box. The chips however are not the same as the chips in the Apple computers. They are engineered to IBM standards for the supercomputer marketplace and are a little bit more expensive.
It is a stable operating system and goes a long way. It works with most games and is stable when running a LAN interface as I am doing right now. You see I need it for other reasons: Stability, and easy to use network interface.
Right... most games... he was mainly a gamer and LAN hacker... he loved it for the LAN stuff, but couldn't get any of the Tom Clancy series to play worth anything... along with most of the other real-time strategy games he played... just could never convince him to get CtP or any of Sid family games... *sighs*
And what does that prove about this argument? Nothing. Mac is worse, PC is better. Simple.
I could ask you the same thing about the above quote... it's nothing simple about it, you're just reporting biased information via your egoist viewpoint on the matter. Apple sucks from your POV so therefore it sucks overall... egoist, and incorrect logic circuits: trolling point 1.
Windows 2000 is definitely fast enough and very stable for anyone. Anybody that would upgrade to an iBook in my mind is insane.
Again, another egoist statement... he switched because it filled whatever needs he was looking for, likewise, you continue to use Windows 2000 because it still fills your needs. Nothing insane whatsoever, and being that you're taking the egoist POV on this arguement it just makes you hypocritical: trolling 2.
Apparently 3% of people don't care. The other 97% do. That is why 97% of the people use PC.
I'm remembering a movie that had almost this exact quote in it: Contact. "Around 97% of the people in the world beleive in a higher being... are you going to tell me that the 3% of you out there think they're all wrong?" (okay, so not exact quote, but it gets the point across.)
Just because they're an incredibly small minority still doesn't make them second-class computer users. They deserve as much respect as any PC user, attack the computer, not the user: trolling point 3.
Good for you. And I respect that. I am not forcing you to do anything.
And they must have just predicted snow in you know where... finally, some human decency... we're here to discuss not argue. Listening to other people's POVs is essential for that. Have I ever said anything, on this thread, actually against Asher because he's corrected me at multiple points? Didn't think so. Because he's using facts and figures as opposed to feelings and presumptions. Again, that's why I've been calling for you to actually bring something to the table. I know I appreciated the old TIME article to try and prove your point... but it was still facts and figures instead of "I think Macs suck, so they do."
That kind of statement isn't what we're looking for and just causes (insert my) tempers to flair: trolling point 4.
Apple sucks trash... so why would I want to switch? This PC I have, is serving me loyally. No crashes, nothing like that.
I'll start repeating myself, it seems. Egoist example again: trolling point 5. Saying that Apple doesn't fill your needs and that your PC does everything you need to do so there's no point for you to switch would have been the enlightening way to put it.
And that is why I recommend Windows 2000 if you want stability in a PC. You talk trash about it because of your own stupid little agenda against Microsoft.
There, that I can understand again. But you're putting words in my mouth. I "talked trash" from an egoist perspective, my apologizes, but you do infuriate me to no ends for some reason. And what I said about that OS you directly quoted and responded to... I've now countered with my experiances again... proving why it doesn't fill the needs of the friend who switched, but why it still fills your needs. Therefore it wasn't "talking trash" but simply telling you my experianes with the OS... as opposed to just blanketly stating that an OS sucks and not giving your reasons (oh, excuse me, you used lack of speed and performance).
I'd like a few more than that though, I know I'm trying to give more than just that regarding why I don't work with Windows.
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults...
Civ and WoW are my crack... just one... more... turn...
Originally posted by Fez
And I think you have heard my opinion already... I have exhausted all other means in proving my point. And I believe I have proven my point very well.
Well good day, I have to play some bowling now.
*sighs* I do hope you haven't exhausted all other means in proving your point... because I have yet to see why Apple "sucks trash" other than the speed (which is given and doesn't need elaboration) and performance issues (which isn't, and does need elaboration.)
Have fun bowling, though.
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults...
Civ and WoW are my crack... just one... more... turn...
.
I'm falling for the anti-Mac troll again... as I said before, bring something interesting to the table or go play somewhere else, we're trying to actually talk tech now, it seems, and I'm learning a lot from the discussion (minus your contributions.) The thread has officially be hijacked. 
Tweet
Comment