Tejas canned?

[Tony Hill]

Can't help you there. I don't consider OCing ability a feature, as I don't
do that. Low
heat output is a criteria for me, the goal being a fanless PC. Intel desktop
processor design
doesn't agree with my own criteria: overly vented cases (especially silly
side vents) required
by high-heat components, for example, make for noisy PCs. My goal is SILENT
PC, and with
Intel processors it's tough to get even a QUIET PC. To be fair, AMD is no
better. The good
piece and good engineering PC standard doesn't appear to be available! So
much for the
theory of capitalism producing what consumers (this consumer) wants/has
always wanted.

No amount of capitalism is going to force you to chose the right
product for yourself! Just because you bought a product that was not
well suited to your own needs doesn't mean that such a product does
not exist.

Have you considered trying to get a Pentium-M machine instead? Intel
has started selling retail-box Pentium-M chips into the market, though
motherboard support for them is still a bit weak. Or there's the
Opteron 140EE chip, which consumes only 30W of power and should be
possible to get into a fanless system without too much difficulty.
Hell, even P4 and AthlonXP/Athlon64 chips can be used in fanless PC
setups, Hush Technologies and VoodooPC both sells some:

http://www.hushtechnologies.com/

http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/f50.aspx


The latter simply uses a Zalman TNN 500A case, available here:

http://www.zalmanusa.com/

In short, don't blame capitalism for your ignorance. The market does
exist, companies have seen an opportunity for profit and they have
released products to satisfy this market. Just because you haven't
bothered to look for these products doesn't mean that they aren't out
there.

 

[tony]

No amount of capitalism is going to force you to chose the right
product for yourself! Just because you bought a product that was not
well suited to your own needs doesn't mean that such a product does
not exist.

Have you considered trying to get a Pentium-M machine instead? Intel
has started selling retail-box Pentium-M chips into the market, though
motherboard support for them is still a bit weak. Or there's the
Opteron 140EE chip, which consumes only 30W of power and should be
possible to get into a fanless system without too much difficulty.
Hell, even P4 and AthlonXP/Athlon64 chips can be used in fanless PC
setups, Hush Technologies and VoodooPC both sells some:

http://www.hushtechnologies.com/

http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/f50.aspx


The latter simply uses a Zalman TNN 500A case, available here:

http://www.zalmanusa.com/

In short, don't blame capitalism for your ignorance. The market does
exist, companies have seen an opportunity for profit and they have
released products to satisfy this market. Just because you haven't
bothered to look for these products doesn't mean that they aren't out
there.

But I'm forced to buy something special purpose and not mainstream
where it really should already be (IMO). Probably big bucks to get it
to and bigger bucks to support maybe. I think there's no stretch of the
imagination in looking at the PC industry as one of capitalism's failures to
produce the right thing in all these years. Capitalism is S-L-O-W!
Bottlenecked by the profit motive and the few controlling providers, no
doubt.

Tony

 

[Nate Edel]

to and bigger bucks to support maybe. I think there's no stretch of the
imagination in looking at the PC industry as one of capitalism's failures
to produce the right thing in all these years. Capitalism is S-L-O-W!

*ROFLOL*

I'm about as far from a rabid free-marketter as you can get without being
called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback faster
than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally managed
systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.

The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
around. WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
account for, or most capitalist industries.

We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday, but in general the
closer a company gets to a monopoly, the more chance someone else has of
stealing their niche. It nearly has happened to Intel a couple of times,
and they've always managed to counter it, but it's all of a 30 year history.
That's nothing -- and 30 years was around when IBM's dominance of the
mainframe market began to be a nonissue as the PC market exploded.

 

[tony]

*ROFLOL*

I'm about as far from a rabid free-marketter as you can get without being
called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback faster
than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally managed
systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.

Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.

The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
around.

God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!

WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
account for, or most capitalist industries.

Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I just
know
it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.

We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday,

Someday??


You probably are mistaking lot's of wheel spinning with moving forward fast.
Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few more
years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress. Probably
wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment. Oh well, like they
say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)

Tony

 

[Nate Edel]

Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.

Real-world systems are f___ing complex. Just how they are.

God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!

Compare to the auto industry. "New models" every year, but _real_ changes
to most models every 3-10 years, whole new technologies... about once a
decade.

And compare that to the aviation industry. Or to banking. Or to consumer
aspects of the telecom industry.

Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I just
know it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.

Capitalism is about as unconstrained as you can get without taking the old
Cold-war DARPA approach of just throwing tons and tons of money at multiple
approaches to a problem.

TOO unconstrained, typically. Most industries require some balance of free
market and regulation, or excesses occur. True, to an extent, in the PC
industry but not really that badly yet.

Someday??

Yes, someday. If you think Microsoft is a monopoly now, or Intel, try
looking into a real monopoly someday. They're certainly dominant players,
but there's a real difference. If Intel tripled their prices arbitrarily,
you'd see pretty much the whole world turn to AMD and Via and not miss a
beat.

Compare that to what's happening in the oil industry...

Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few more
years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress.

Software evolves as fast as it has to. With hardware getting more powerful
much faster than most applications require, there's no need for it to. It's
hardly a matter of moving backwards.

We know how to do things better, but it's more expensive to do so. As long
as more MIPS/memory/disk keeps being close to a free bonus with the normal
replacement/purchasing cycle, why bother?

Probably wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment.

What are you visualizing for an unconstrained environment?

Oh well, like they say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)

They say that about life, too. But like many things, life is better than
the alternative.

 

[tony]

Real-world systems are f___ing complex. Just how they are.

That's how "they" like it.

Compare to the auto industry. "New models" every year, but _real_ changes
to most models every 3-10 years, whole new technologies... about once a
decade.

And compare that to the aviation industry. Or to banking. Or to consumer
aspects of the telecom industry.

It's slow compared to a free (unconstrained, unmanipulated) environment.
Things change more for profit reasons than other. Keep it complex, keep it
proprietary, keep it "new", keep "innovating" are the mottos to keep making
money. It's all very contrived.

Capitalism is about as unconstrained as you can get

That's just "defending the god". Sounds like it anyway.

without taking the old
Cold-war DARPA approach of just throwing tons and tons of money at multiple
approaches to a problem.

TOO unconstrained, typically. Most industries require some balance of free
market and regulation, or excesses occur. True, to an extent, in the PC
industry but not really that badly yet.

I guess if you "know the rules", you can easily be blinded by them. You
apparently
buy into the design without really knowing what factors are causing what
results since there are so many points of untraceability. But nevermind.
If mine was an RFP to improve, saying "it can't be done" would be rejected.

Yes, someday. If you think Microsoft is a monopoly now, or Intel, try
looking into a real monopoly someday. They're certainly dominant players,
but there's a real difference. If Intel tripled their prices arbitrarily,
you'd see pretty much the whole world turn to AMD and Via and not miss a
beat.

Surely we all miss what could have been and could have been sooner that
would have resulted in an environment that simply works well.

Compare that to what's happening in the oil industry...


Software evolves as fast as it has to.

It's tied mostly to profit rather than need. Hence it has been slow going
(no
"need" to evolve since it is making money or can be milked for more).

With hardware getting more powerful
much faster than most applications require, there's no need for it to.

I think you've just described a "vicious cycle".

It's
hardly a matter of moving backwards.

We know how to do things better, but it's more expensive to do so. As long
as more MIPS/memory/disk keeps being close to a free bonus with the normal
replacement/purchasing cycle, why bother?


What are you visualizing for an unconstrained environment?

Oh I wouldn't want to constrain your own thinking of such.

They say that about life, too. But like many things, life is better than
the alternative.

So much for analogies (and analogy wars)! Someone always has to escalate
the analogy just to win rather than make a point clear.

Tony

 

[KR Williams]

That's how "they" like it.

Indeed. Customers like complexity in their hardware. They pay
for it, after all.

It's slow compared to a free (unconstrained, unmanipulated) environment.
Things change more for profit reasons than other. Keep it complex, keep it
proprietary, keep it "new", keep "innovating" are the mottos to keep making
money. It's all very contrived.

Give us an example of a business that is more un-constrained, and
faster moving than the PeeCee business.

I do note that you're still using WinBlows, even though your in a
tiff about the hardware. ...go figgr.

That's just "defending the god". Sounds like it anyway.

Nope, simply sating the facts that you don't want to see.

I guess if you "know the rules", you can easily be blinded by them. You
apparently
buy into the design without really knowing what factors are causing what
results since there are so many points of untraceability. But nevermind.
If mine was an RFP to improve, saying "it can't be done" would be rejected.

I guess *you* don't understand the rules. You buy, we sell what
you buy (and *only* what you buy). It's all *YOUR* fault! ;-)

Surely we all miss what could have been and could have been sooner that
would have resulted in an environment that simply works well.

I note that you're using WinBlows. Isn't that *your* fault?

It's tied mostly to profit rather than need. Hence it has been slow going
(no
"need" to evolve since it is making money or can be milked for more).

....and *you're* still a WinBlows customer. Amazing!

I think you've just described a "vicious cycle".

Certainly, but you've done exactly what to end it? Let me remind
you that you're still a Win-luser. You're a hypocrite if you
want others to change, but aren't willing yourself.

Oh I wouldn't want to constrain your own thinking of such.

Nice (non)answer. Of course no one takes your seriously with
your adolescent attitude. Take charge of your own life and stop
whining!

So much for analogies (and analogy wars)! Someone always has to escalate
the analogy just to win rather than make a point clear.

No someone has to take charge of their own life. If you don't
like what's offered, don't buy. I build my own systems because
noone offers what I want. There is a lesson here, but I suspect
that you don't want to pay any premium for your *wants*. ...I
am.

 

[bill davidsen]

| I wonder if I can get a refund on that crappy 2.8E (Prescott) I bought (or
| at least
| a Northwood replacement?).

You chose to buy a CPU which is strong in OC potential instead of one
which meets your desire for low power, and you call the CPU crappy? How
about taking responsibility and saying you didn't do your homework and
buy a Pentium-M? And you want a replacement which also isn't the right
choice for low power.

You made a really bad consumer choice, you seem to want to make another,
and you're mad at the world because it didn't protect you from yourself.
Think of it as evolution in action.

I bought one on spec, I'm going to test drive it this weekend with luck,
if it doesn't o/c well I'll be disappointed, but I won't blame anyone
but me. I'm going to burn a month or so of SETI@home in a room at
ambient, which means I may get to test thermal throttling as well, and
if I don't like the result I can at least say I took a gamble
deliberately.

--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> CTO, TMR Associates
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
-Benjamin Franklin (who would have liked open source)

 

[Mike Smith]

| I wonder if I can get a refund on that crappy 2.8E (Prescott) I bought (or
| at least
| a Northwood replacement?).

You chose to buy a CPU which is strong in OC potential instead of one
which meets your desire for low power, and you call the CPU crappy? How
about taking responsibility and saying you didn't do your homework and
buy a Pentium-M?

Um, what was he supposed to put the Pentium-M into?

 

[tony]

| I wonder if I can get a refund on that crappy 2.8E (Prescott) I bought (or
| at least
| a Northwood replacement?).

You chose to buy a CPU which is strong in OC potential instead of one
which meets your desire for low power, and you call the CPU crappy? How
about taking responsibility and saying you didn't do your homework and
buy a Pentium-M? And you want a replacement which also isn't the right
choice for low power.

You made a really bad consumer choice, you seem to want to make another,
and you're mad at the world because it didn't protect you from yourself.
Think of it as evolution in action.

I bought one on spec, I'm going to test drive it this weekend with luck,
if it doesn't o/c well I'll be disappointed, but I won't blame anyone
but me. I'm going to burn a month or so of SETI@home in a room at
ambient, which means I may get to test thermal throttling as well, and
if I don't like the result I can at least say I took a gamble
deliberately.

Even Intel thinks it's crappy apparently, giving it the ax.

Tony