Hi guys.

I'm just sitting here drooling at all the hyper-fly multi-processor 
multi-core crazyness that I'll never be able to afford in a million 
years. I was just wondering... Does Windows XP actually support more 
than 2 physical cores? Anybody know?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

http://www.xkcd.com/313/

The madness can't be far away now...



...ah yes, there it is.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070905comp.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20070905m

Wahahahahaha!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:21:30 +0200, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Does Windows XP actually support more than 2 physical cores?

As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a  
single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two  
processors.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a 
> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two 
> processors.

Right. So a machine with 2 chips each having 4 cores would work?

(Frankly, you'd be very hard pressed to *find* a machine with more than 
2 physical chips...)

I did eventually manage to find this myself:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732

Doesn't make the matter especially clear, but it seems to confirm what 
you're saying.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a 
> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two 
> processors.

Micro$oft's own website is very vague on this point, but it appears that 
you're right: they limit physical CPUs, but not cores.

I found the following data for Vista:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions_final.asp

(Scroll down to nearly the bottom for some charts.)

So, Vista supports 64-bit CPUs, eh? That's interesting... I wonder if 
anybody has tried it yet? (There is of course a 64-bit edition of WinXP. 
Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly... I'm wondering if the Vista 
one does.)

Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. (I 
find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe it's an 
omission of the chart?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:22:27 +0200, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> So, Vista supports 64-bit CPUs, eh? That's interesting... I wonder if  
> anybody has tried it yet? (There is of course a 64-bit edition of WinXP.  
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly... I'm wondering if the Vista  
> one does.)

Pretty much, assuming you can get stable 64-bit drivers for your hardware.



> Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. (I  
> find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe it's an  
> omission of the chart?)

I think you are supposed to buy the server versions if you want support  
for more processors.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

>> So, Vista supports 64-bit CPUs, eh? That's interesting... I wonder if 
>> anybody has tried it yet? (There is of course a 64-bit edition of 
>> WinXP. Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly... I'm wondering if the 
>> Vista one does.)
> 
> Pretty much, assuming you can get stable 64-bit drivers for your hardware.

Mmm, OK.

>> Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. 
>> (I find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe 
>> it's an omission of the chart?)
> 
> I think you are supposed to buy the server versions if you want support 
> for more processors.

I thought Vista Enterprise *was* the server edition?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e2a1bf$1@news.povray.org...

> Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. (I
> find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe it's an
> omission of the chart?)

How many desktop-type PCs have more than 2 physical processors? Vista's not
a server OS and typically it's servers that have multi CPUs, not desktops.

I think (under correction) that Server 2003 DataCenter supports 64
processors. Server 2008 may support more.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e2ab1d@news.povray.org...

> I thought Vista Enterprise *was* the server edition?

You put Vista on a server, you need your head examining. It's a desktop OS.

Isn't Vista Enterprise just the bulk-licence version? Asfaik, Vista Ultimate
is the top for features.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 wrote:
...
>
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070905comp.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20070905m
> 
> 
> Wahahahahaha!
> 

What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:

> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...

Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
>> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
>> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
> 
> Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)

Or that Intel hasn't told anybody about them yet =)

Related articles:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/28/core_2_duo_errata/
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
>>> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
>> Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)
> 
> Or that Intel hasn't told anybody about them yet =)

...or that, yes. ;-)

> Related articles:
> 
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/28/core_2_duo_errata/

"Part of security exploitation is being able to crash a system reliably."

Wow. "Crash a system reliably." Now *there* is a concept! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>>>> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
>>>> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
>>> Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)
>>
>> Or that Intel hasn't told anybody about them yet =)
> 
> ...or that, yes. ;-)
> 
>> Related articles:
>>
>> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/28/core_2_duo_errata/
> 
> "Part of security exploitation is being able to crash a system reliably."
> 
> Wow. "Crash a system reliably." Now *there* is a concept! :-D

http://www.google.no/search?q=define:denial+of+service

=)

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

>> "Part of security exploitation is being able to crash a system reliably."
>>
>> Wow. "Crash a system reliably." Now *there* is a concept! :-D

One of the bugs is a branching instruction that may, or may not
jump to the intended address +1.  For the moment it's being
worked around in the compilers by putting a few NOP's at
spots that require such branching. Since there may be such
sets of NOP's in the code, a hacker might replace the NOP's
with a jump code of their own in order to execute their virus
code, then jump back to continue execution of the original
program. However, because of the bug itself, the hackers
jump instruction would fail with an invalid instruction quite
often, making this not really a security issue now, the security
issue will arise when the bug is fixed in hardware, but old
code still has the NOP's.  I don't see the security aspect of
this being a big deal, if a hacker already can modify the code
then they'll be able to take over a thread anyways elsewhere.
The bigger deal is that if a compiler uses this instruction it'll be
3 times slower than intended because of the workaround.

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a  
> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two  
> processors.

  How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a  
>> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two  
>> processors.
> 
>   How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.

It makes perfect sense. M$ charge you more money this way. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Isn't Vista Enterprise just the bulk-licence version? Asfaik, Vista Ultimate
> is the top for features.

  The sad thing is that people are just content with these braindead greedy
limitations MS puts in their OS.
  Basically what they do is: Disable support for multiple processors and
sell it at the regular price. Sell the version without the disabled features
at a higher price.
  Of course this is marketing. However, it's sad that people are just content
with this.

  Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:46e3bca5@news.povray.org...

>   Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
> When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.

So I'd use the same OS on a laptop, a desktop and a 36 processor 64 GB
memory server?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The sad thing is that people are just content with these braindead greedy
> limitations MS puts in their OS.
>   Basically what they do is: Disable support for multiple processors and
> sell it at the regular price. Sell the version without the disabled features
> at a higher price.
>   Of course this is marketing. However, it's sad that people are just content
> with this.

Realistically, what ya gonna do about it? If the product you need 
requires Windoze, you must pay whatever unreasonably price M$ demands of 
you. And there is a *lot* of important software which won't work without 
it. M$ made sure of that...

>   Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
> When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.

*cough* One?

Mac OS X + Mac OS X Server?

I'll agree with you on the "crippled" point though; surely no sane 
person could argue that it's more expensive to write an OS that handles 
multiple seperate CPU dies when it already handles multiple cores. 
(Handling multiple cores is pretty tricky, but once that's done...) 
Similarly with memory capacity. And "maximum number of SMB connections". 
(Oh, that's really cute!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e3bc69@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>
> >> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
> >> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
> >> processors.
> >
> >   How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.
>
> It makes perfect sense. M$ charge you more money this way. ;-)

Its marketing. Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they don't
need. Offer multiple versions with different feature sets and more people
will buy.

Software's not the only place that's done.

Look at BMW. They're a classic example. Often the only difference between
certain BMW models is the software, not the engines.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> It makes perfect sense. M$ charge you more money this way. ;-)
> 
> Its marketing. Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
> will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they don't
> need. Offer multiple versions with different feature sets and more people
> will buy.

There's a difference between a "feature" that takes effort to implement, 
and an artificial limitation that exists only for the purpose of revenue 
generation.

E.g., Server 2003 Standard 64-bit supports 32 GB RAM, while Server 2003 
Enterprise 64-bit supports 1 TB. There is absolutely no cause for this 
difference other than an artificially-added limitation. It's just as 
easy to implement either. (Indeed, arguably it's *more* work to add the 
limitation...)

> Software's not the only place that's done.

Something we can agree on...

> Look at BMW. They're a classic example. Often the only difference between
> certain BMW models is the software, not the engines.

Really? I thought the difference was the leather seats...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e3d60f$1@news.povray.org...
> E.g., Server 2003 Standard 64-bit supports 32 GB RAM, while Server 2003
> Enterprise 64-bit supports 1 TB. There is absolutely no cause for this
> difference other than an artificially-added limitation. It's just as
> easy to implement either. (Indeed, arguably it's *more* work to add the
> limitation...)

True, but my point was that if you only offer a version with everything and
the kitchen sink, less people would buy, because they don't want to pay for
what they don't need. Less sales means that the prices for the One Version
with Everything would have to be higher so make the same revenues (and
shareholders require that revenues only go up not down)

My bet is that the current multi-version hell of Vista is due to market
research on what people would buy. It would not have just been one dumb
exco's idea that stuck.

> > Look at BMW. They're a classic example. Often the only difference
between
> > certain BMW models is the software, not the engines.
>
> Really? I thought the difference was the leather seats...

*g*

Some (many?) of the models have limitations in the software to make them
slightly less powerful than the next model up

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> E.g., Server 2003 Standard 64-bit supports 32 GB RAM, while Server 2003
>> Enterprise 64-bit supports 1 TB. There is absolutely no cause for this
>> difference other than an artificially-added limitation. It's just as
>> easy to implement either. (Indeed, arguably it's *more* work to add the
>> limitation...)
> 
> True, but my point was that if you only offer a version with everything and
> the kitchen sink, less people would buy, because they don't want to pay for
> what they don't need. Less sales means that the prices for the One Version
> with Everything would have to be higher so make the same revenues (and
> shareholders require that revenues only go up not down)

Sure, offering a version that doesn't contain expensive stuff that 
people don't need is a sensible strategy. But deliberately disabling 
functionallity that doesn't cost anything, just so you can charge money 
for it? That smacks of cheating...

Take WinXP Home vs Pro. The Pro has SMB networking, the Home doesn't. If 
you're a home user, you geniunely won't give a **** that SMB isn't 
there. And SMB is a complicated technology; it costs money to make that 
stuff.

What we're talking about here is software that has the ability to do 
something, with no additional effort, but that function has been 
purposefully disabled so the manufacturer can charge money for it - even 
though it doesn't cost them anything.

> My bet is that the current multi-version hell of Vista is due to market
> research on what people would buy. It would not have just been one dumb
> exco's idea that stuck.

Oh, I'm sure they *very* carefully planned the whole thing. (How long 
has this software been in development now?)

> Some (many?) of the models have limitations in the software to make them
> slightly less powerful than the next model up

Oh, that's really cute. Is there also a black market in devices to 
"crack" the limiter and get all the available power from the engine?

(Back in my day, the less expensive car would have an engie with 
physically smaller cylinders... Which is weird, really, because that way 
it has more metal in it, and metal is presumably more expensive than air...)

But then, Intel's low-end chips are actually high-end chips that didn't 
quite pass QC, so they turned the clock speed down a bit. :-S

As should be abundantly evident, I've never owned a BMW. (And it's 
unlikely I ever will...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> So I'd use the same OS on a laptop, a desktop and a 36 processor 64 GB
> memory server?

  Yes. All priced the same. No limitations, no twisted marketing schemes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
> will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they don't
> need.

  Not if you offer it at the price you are selling the crippled version.

  How many users would complain that their Windows supports multiple
processors instead of one? It's not even something you see (unless you
really have those multiple processors, in which case *not* having the
support would be quite visible).

> Offer multiple versions with different feature sets and more people
> will buy.

  I have hard time believing people are buying the Home version *because*
it has limited support for processors. They are only buying it because the
other alternatives are more expensive. It's not the features, it's the
price.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
> When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.

I love Steve Jobs' keynote at the latest MacWorld...

"Today, we're announcing the various versions of the new Mac OS.

We have the Home Basic version, which ships for $129.
Then there's the Home Premium version, which of course ships for $129.
Next up, is the Small Business Edition, shipping for $129.
And the Professional Edition ships for $129.
Not to forget, of course, the Enterprise Edition, which ships for $129.
And last, but certainly not least, the Ultimate Edition, for $129."

:)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a  
>> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two  
>> processors.
> 
>   How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.

It's not that unreasonable, and stems from how you define a single 
"computer".  Once you get into networked clusters ("Beowulf" and such), 
you could really consider several traditional PCs linked together as one 
system.  Or, you could plug several keyboards / mice / displays into a 
single computer.  Either way, companies see this as a means of avoiding 
licensing fees, being that many companies charge license fees based on 
the number of systems a particular piece of software is installed on.

MS for once took a reasonable approach to this, and decided to charge 
per core.  The vast majority of home users won't be affected. 
Professionals with dual socket workstations will buy the "Pro" version, 
but they would probably buy it anyway.  Servers will run the Windows 
Server rather than XP, so they aren't really affected either.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Sure, offering a version that doesn't contain expensive stuff that 
> people don't need is a sensible strategy. But deliberately disabling 
> functionallity that doesn't cost anything, just so you can charge money 
> for it? That smacks of cheating...

Well, there are two ways they could have done it:
1) Sell crippled version for normal price, sell regular version for more.
2) Sell regular version for normal price, sell crippled version for less.

My guess is that they actually do a combination, that is, sell the 
crippled version for less less and sell the regular version for less more.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> I love Steve Jobs' keynote at the latest MacWorld...
> 
> "Today, we're announcing the various versions of the new Mac OS.
> 
> We have the Home Basic version, which ships for $129.
> Then there's the Home Premium version, which of course ships for $129.
> Next up, is the Small Business Edition, shipping for $129.
> And the Professional Edition ships for $129.
> Not to forget, of course, the Enterprise Edition, which ships for $129.
> And last, but certainly not least, the Ultimate Edition, for $129."

Nice peice of spin...

I note with moderate interest that Mac OS X is also *cheaper* than Vista 
Ultimate... (OTOH, it only runs on a Mac, which is significantly more 
expensive than any PC.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> (OTOH, it only runs on a Mac, which is significantly more 
> expensive than any PC.)

  That's just not true.

  The cheapest existing Mac is more expensive than the cheapest existing PC.

  However, compare the price of any Mac to the price of a PC with the
*same* specs (computing power, memory, graphics card, etc). You might
get a surprise.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> (OTOH, it only runs on a Mac, which is significantly more 
>> expensive than any PC.)
> 
>   That's just not true.
> 
>   The cheapest existing Mac is more expensive than the cheapest existing PC.
> 
>   However, compare the price of any Mac to the price of a PC with the
> *same* specs (computing power, memory, graphics card, etc). You might
> get a surprise.

I did that a while back. It wasn't very favourable.

(In fairness, the Mac is more expensive by a smaller margin than I 
expected.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I did that a while back. It wasn't very favourable.

> (In fairness, the Mac is more expensive by a smaller margin than I 
> expected.)

  Well, other people seem to disagree with that. One example:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=macintosh_os&articleId=9023959&taxonomyId=123&intsrc=kc_feat

  MacBook pro: $2799.
  Dell laptop with equivalent specs: $3459.
  A slightly less powerful Vaio laptop: $3150.

  iMac desktop computer (20-inch LCD): $1500.
  A comparable Vaio desktop computer (19-inch LCD): $1800.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I did that a while back. It wasn't very favourable.
> 
>> (In fairness, the Mac is more expensive by a smaller margin than I 
>> expected.)
> 
>   Well, other people seem to disagree with that. One example:
> 
>
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=macintosh_os&articleId=9023959&taxonomyId=123&intsrc=kc_feat
> 
>   MacBook pro: $2799.
>   Dell laptop with equivalent specs: $3459.
>   A slightly less powerful Vaio laptop: $3150.
> 
>   iMac desktop computer (20-inch LCD): $1500.
>   A comparable Vaio desktop computer (19-inch LCD): $1800.

Ah yes, Dell. The most over-priced PC supplier known to man. Surely even 
Rolls Royce are cheaper than Dell. ;-)

A while back I did sit down and churn through the numbers, and from the 
suppliers I could find, equivilent-spec PCs always came out cheaper. I'm 
pretty sure that my post has expired from this newserver now; maybe if I 
have the muse I'll redo that research sometime and post it to my blog...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:46e446b0$1@news.povray.org...


> A while back I did sit down and churn through the numbers, and from the 
> suppliers I could find, equivilent-spec PCs always came out cheaper.

  I thought they were cheap set-ups? Hmm..



 I'm
> pretty sure that my post has expired from this newserver now; maybe if I 
> have the muse I'll redo that research sometime and post it to my blog...


    'Sent Items'?  ;)



     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:46:44 +0200, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I too keep thinking about maybe getting a Mac of some kind... I've  
> always wondered what a Mac is like. Everybody says the Mac is the best,  
> but I've never actually seen one in real life. I don't know of any shop  
> anywhere in the world that sells them.
>
> Now and then I look online at prices. But... really... I just can't  
> justify such astronomical prices. If you buy a Mac, you buy a sealed box  
> with no upgradable components. For the kind of stuff I do, CPU power is  
> everything. And... well, I let the numbers speak for themselves:
>
> MacBook, 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 0.5 GB RAM   £770
> MacBook, 2.00 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £700
> MacBook, 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £800
>
> Acer Aspire 5633WLMi, 1.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 0.5 GB RAM   £450
> Lenovo N100,          1.60 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £450
> Compaq nx7300,        1.86 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £530
> Compaq nx7300,        2.00 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £630
> Toshiba Satelite Pro, 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £710
>
> Mac mini, 1.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 0.5 GB RAM   £410
> Mac mini, 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 0.5 GB RAM   £530
>
> iMac, 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 0.5 GB RAM     £710
> iMac, 2.00 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM     £800
> iMac, 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £1,040
>
> Maxdata,     1.86 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £350
> Maxdata,     2.13 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £400
> Lenovo M55p, 2.40 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1.0 GB RAM   £610
> HP WX4400,   2.40 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.0 GB RAM   £740
> HP WX4400,   2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.0 GB RAM   £790
>
> So, let me see here...
>
> * I can buy a 1.86 GHz laptop for less than the cheapest MacBook (which  
> is only 1.83 GHz and half as much RAM).
>
> * I can buy a 1.86 GHz desktop for less than the cheapest Mac mini  
> (which is only 1.66 GHz and has half as much RAM).
>
> * The iMac... OK, it's a monitor as well. A good LCD monitor costs,  
> what, maybe £150? If I buy the £350 Maxdata thing and add on £150 I get  
> £500 - still cheaper than the cheapest iMac (which is slower and has  
> less RAM).
>
> Add to that the fact that none of this stuff is upgradable, whereas the  
> comodity equivilents are... (BTW, I really dislike the iMac idea. So, if  
> my monitor breaks, I buy a whole new computer? That's a winner!)
>
> Of course, what none of the PCs have is Mac OS X. So I guess it depends  
> on whether you think that's worth an extra +80% in price or not... From  
> the pictures I've seen, OS X looks reeeeaaally pretty. But having never  
> actually used it, not knowing how hard it is to work it, etc... Do I  
> want to spend many hundreds of pounds on something I might not actually  
> like?
>
> (Then there's the minor issue that all my software requires M$ Windoze  
> in order to function. Well, except POV-Ray...)



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>  The sad thing is that people are just content with these braindead greedy
> limitations MS puts in their OS.
>  Basically what they do is: Disable support for multiple processors and
> sell it at the regular price. Sell the version without the disabled 
> features
> at a higher price.

It's not just MS that use this strategy, a lot of other companies do even 
outside of computing.  It helps keep costs down rather than having to 
develop 2 or more totally separate products (think NT and Win9x).  If you 
buy a BMW 316, 318 or 320 they will all have the same physical engine, just 
different software to generate a different amount of power.  Graphics cards 
do the same, the cheaper variant just have a few of the pipelines disabled.

>  Of course this is marketing. However, it's sad that people are just 
> content
> with this.

It's not really just marketing, it makes total financial sense if you need 
to sell to a wide range of customers.  No doubt all companies do a careful 
calculation to work out the best way to price their products and what 
features to include at what level.  They're not stupid.

And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of mid-range-price 
for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the 
features in the top version?  Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate 
product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more development 
required?

Post a reply to this message

> Oh, that's really cute. Is there also a black market in devices to "crack" 
> the limiter and get all the available power from the engine?

Yes there is, although obviously you'll be screwed if anything every happens 
to the car, it probably voids all warranties.  Official dealers will likely 
not service your car and hence you won't have a full-dealer-service history 
so the re-sale price will drop significantly.  Probably in recent times they 
are more "hacker proof", but certainly the older models can be done.

> (Back in my day, the less expensive car would have an engie with 
> physically smaller cylinders... Which is weird, really, because that way 
> it has more metal in it, and metal is presumably more expensive than 
> air...)

Huh?  If the cylinders are smaller then the engine is usually smaller too. 
The amount of metal in the engine only needs to be strong enough to stop it 
falling apart.  Bigger cylinders usually means higher internal forces, so 
you then need *thicker* metal around the cylinders, not thinner!  When you 
look at the specs of cars, the ones with bigger engine sizes are heavier...

> But then, Intel's low-end chips are actually high-end chips that didn't 
> quite pass QC, so they turned the clock speed down a bit. :-S
>
> As should be abundantly evident, I've never owned a BMW. (And it's 
> unlikely I ever will...)

I would imagine other manufacturers do the same, it's a no brainer that 
making 3 million 2.0 engines is cheaper than 1 million each of 1.6, 1.8 and 
2.0.

Post a reply to this message

>> Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
>> will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they 
>> don't
>> need.
>
>  Not if you offer it at the price you are selling the crippled version.

But you can't do that because your total revenue will be lower then so 
you'll have to charge more.  This will mean a lot of people at the lower-end 
of the market won't buy the software.

>  I have hard time believing people are buying the Home version *because*
> it has limited support for processors. They are only buying it because the
> other alternatives are more expensive. It's not the features, it's the
> price.

Exactly.  And the only reason MS can sell the basic version that cheap is 
because they are getting a load of money for the people who buy the 
expensive versions for the features.

Post a reply to this message

> One of the bugs is a branching instruction that may, or may not
> jump to the intended address +1.  For the moment it's being
> worked around in the compilers by putting a few NOP's at
> spots that require such branching. Since there may be such
> sets of NOP's in the code, a hacker might replace the NOP's
> with a jump code of their own in order to execute their virus
> code, then jump back to continue execution of the original
> program.

Bah, a hacker can put a jump to their code anywhere. The instruction they 
overwrote with their "jump" they just execute somewhere in their own code 
before returning.  Easiest way is to just overwrite another jump 
instruction, then jump to the location of that jump at the end of your virus 
code.  I don't think they need to specifically look out for NOPs to write 
over.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   However, compare the price of any Mac to the price of a PC with the
> *same* specs (computing power, memory, graphics card, etc). You might
> get a surprise.

Admittedly I haven't done this in the last 6 months or so, but the last 
time I compared specs the Apple computers were more expensive than 
Alienware.

I was able to find stock computers from several other suppliers at 
better prices, and of course building it myself would save me quite a 
lot more.

Maybe things have changed this year, but I doubt it.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of mid-range-price 
> for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the 
> features in the top version?  Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate 
> product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more development 
> required?

  No, I would prefer they do the same thing as Apple.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Exactly.  And the only reason MS can sell the basic version that cheap is 
> because they are getting a load of money for the people who buy the 
> expensive versions for the features.

  Yeah, with something like 90% of marketshare they really need to fiddle
with the prices in order to not to get bankrupt.

  Yet Apple, with something like 3% of marketshare sells full versions at
low prices.
  Of course the difference might be that they sell quality.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of mid-range-price
>> for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the
>> features in the top version?  Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate
>> product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more 
>> development
>> required?
>
>  No, I would prefer they do the same thing as Apple.

And I would prefer MS made Vista free :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Exactly.  And the only reason MS can sell the basic version that cheap is
>> because they are getting a load of money for the people who buy the
>> expensive versions for the features.
>
>  Yeah, with something like 90% of marketshare they really need to fiddle
> with the prices in order to not to get bankrupt.

It's not about not going bankrupt, it's about maximising their profit to 
ensure they have maximum available funds to develop the next OS.  Why on 
earth with any company choose a sales strategy that wasn't the one that gave 
them most profit?

>  Yet Apple, with something like 3% of marketshare sells full versions at
> low prices.
>  Of course the difference might be that they sell quality.

No, the difference is that MS sells its OSs to a different customer base 
using different methods.  What will generate the most profit for Apple 
probably won't be the right strategy to generate the most profit for 
Microsoft.  It's like saying that Ford and Porsche should both have the same 
product and sales strategy.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And I would prefer MS made Vista free :-)

  I would still not touch it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> It's not about not going bankrupt, it's about maximising their profit to 
> ensure they have maximum available funds

  So far it sounds rational

> to develop the next OS.

  Now that's something I doubt. ;)

>  Why on 
> earth with any company choose a sales strategy that wasn't the one that gave 
> them most profit?

  I don't know. PR?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> And I would prefer MS made Vista free :-)
>
>  I would still not touch it.

The only reason I will upgrade is for DirectX 10.  Until a game I like comes 
out that requires DX10 (or looks amazing with DX10 and crap with DX9) I will 
stay with XP.  Of course if I get a new computer before then that comes with 
Vista, I would use it.

From a developer perspective, DX10 is a huge improvement over DX9.  Calling 
it DX10 is a bit misleading because it really is vastly different from DX9 
in many areas, a much bigger change than anything before.  Once developers 
start to make good use of DX10 hardware we should see some pretty 
spectacular stuff.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of  
>> mid-range-price
>> for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the
>> features in the top version?  Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate
>> product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more  
>> development
>> required?
>
>   No, I would prefer they do the same thing as Apple.

Fine go buy a copy of OS X and install it on your PC... oh wait you can't.  
It's easy to sell the OS at one price when it's constricted to one  
hardware platform that you also own.

Scott nailed it, it's makes more econmical sense to make one OS then  
disable some of its parts and sell them at a 'discount'. You're  
identifying the buyers, sell product X at £100 and product Y at £150  
you'll get those who aren't willing to cough up £150, but are £100. At the  
same time those who are willing to pay the full whack for the 'added'  
features will do so.

What you seem to be saying is that you should sell product Y at £125,  
except you strip out those who'd only pay £100 and give a discount to  
those who would be willing to pay £150. The only reason to do that is if  
you're coining it elsewhere.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Fine go buy a copy of OS X and install it on your PC... oh wait you can't.  

  Yes, I can:

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message