j l
United States of America
No favorite files added yet
(May 13, 2005 - 11:44 PM)
3 dual _threaded_ cores. But that doesn't have much more to do with interface than what the cpu's internally will accept as load.
So how are they combining the three cores onto one chip, is my question. Are they running in a hierarchical line or does each chip run independent of the other two.
Two cores or two cpus is simple(r) to communicate with and receive from. But that third core might serve a specific function like the prototype cell processor machines...
(May 13, 2005 - 12:28 PM)
@ MicroSoft fanboys : Good on ya for liking a company. Supporting a company's products provides revenue to make future innovations. Keep fueling my economy!
@ MicroSoft loathers : Good on ya for hating a company. Finding faults and looking for problems brings out the flaws that need to be corrected and provides room for competition. Keep fueling my economy as well!
@ Both parties : Try seeing eachother as benefits and not as a problem in the system.
ON TOPIC : Looks to be a powerful console, but I'm interested in how they acheived a tri-symmetric cpu architecture. Obviously, they're custom cpus, but typically, pairs are more efficient if not much much easier to architect.
(Nov 18, 2004 - 7:01 PM)
The IE user is a blind fool. Years ago, it was M$ that did the blinding. Now its the user him/herself that purposes ignores the signs that a switch is in order.
Firefox had a security patch put out already. A bug was found, and less than two days later, the patch was ready for download. But IE users ignore the incredible reaction time. I spoke with one woman who believed they new about it before and released the patch a month after it was found. Fortunately, in an open developement community, we have access to build notes and the builds themselves. But this woman shook her head, upset that I could explain the situation while all she had to voice was her imagination.
A rational person accepts a better product when it comes along. Nobody should be ashamed to switch to FireFox. If I had evangelized IE and saw that FireFox was indeed better, which I'll explain below, then only my pride keeps me from admitting it. Not the facts. The argument that "I know IE and I don't wanna switch" is false. That phrase is used by a person who doesn't wish to change.
If a major bug was found in FireFox (possible), and it wasn't possible to fix for months, I would switch. I'm not an extremist. Extremists commit cyber-suicide by sticking with dying platforms and old kernels.
Now. FireFox is better than IE and better than Mozilla and Netscape in many ways.
1. It is secure! You cannot argue that. Gary himself said that security is fleeting and changes constantly. So secure is in the moment. And currently FireFox is secure. To measure and platform security trackrecord is smart and if done will show that for longer than any other, IE has been the secure choice. But as Gary stated, security changes, and to stay secure, we should look at current security risks. IE has lately suffered more security threats than any browser ever in history. And that's only lately. "Sure cuz its been around a long time!" If so, then these problems have been too, and we'll continue to find these old problems surface. FireFox if only for a year, will be the safest browser. Hackers/crackers are geared to hit IE and will continue for as long as the target is larger.
2. Tabbed browsing is fast and leaves a smaller footprint in the system resources, though most people don't know. Rendering is dependant on the system so don't believe what someone else says about their machine.
3. Extensions. IE has many toolbars, over 73% use reporting technologies to "spy" on you. It is a proven statistic that the majority of IE add-ons are spyware adware.
Firefox currently does not have any spyware developers, lol.
Weigh the pros and cons and do what you want...