ConQuest
The official specs, pricing, and common consensus is out. AMD is dead... at LEAST for the next year, but likely MUCH longer.
Read some of the MANY "Review Round-Ups" from around the web [just skip to the CONCLUSION pages and you'll see that Intel's dominance is now unanimous], often showing that Intel's new MID-RANGE processors EASILY outperform, use less power, produce less heat, and cost WAY less than AMDeads HIGH-END offerings here:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319
Core 2 server chips aka "Woodcrest" [AMD Opteron killers] started shipping nearly 3 weeks ago. Core 2 desktop chips aka "Conroe" [AMD FX killers] will ship on the 27th of this month. Core 2 mobile chips aka "Merom" will be out within 2 months at MOST.
This is dedicated to the AMD fanboys... SUCKAZ!!! =P
My personal saying:
"I'm not responsible for other people's lack of foresight, much less their ignorance." - ConQuest
I've been telling EVERYONE that his would happen since March. Now listen, watch, learn, and get SPANKED by reality!
AMD is D.E.A.D.
winBlows, you're next. Mac OS X is the killer in that slaughter. ;)
nVidea, you're done too. ATI's R600 will wipe the floor with you're n80 at the end of this year/beginning of '07.
Apple Macintosh + Intel + ATI + VDJ 4 for Mac = the PERFECT VDJ solution!!!
Read some of the MANY "Review Round-Ups" from around the web [just skip to the CONCLUSION pages and you'll see that Intel's dominance is now unanimous], often showing that Intel's new MID-RANGE processors EASILY outperform, use less power, produce less heat, and cost WAY less than AMDeads HIGH-END offerings here:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319
Core 2 server chips aka "Woodcrest" [AMD Opteron killers] started shipping nearly 3 weeks ago. Core 2 desktop chips aka "Conroe" [AMD FX killers] will ship on the 27th of this month. Core 2 mobile chips aka "Merom" will be out within 2 months at MOST.
This is dedicated to the AMD fanboys... SUCKAZ!!! =P
My personal saying:
"I'm not responsible for other people's lack of foresight, much less their ignorance." - ConQuest
I've been telling EVERYONE that his would happen since March. Now listen, watch, learn, and get SPANKED by reality!
AMD is D.E.A.D.
winBlows, you're next. Mac OS X is the killer in that slaughter. ;)
nVidea, you're done too. ATI's R600 will wipe the floor with you're n80 at the end of this year/beginning of '07.
Apple Macintosh + Intel + ATI + VDJ 4 for Mac = the PERFECT VDJ solution!!!
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 1:03 pm
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
CASE SETTLED: JUSTICE TO BREAK UP APPLE
FOR TURNING MICROSOFT INTO MONOPOLY
Alternative OS Maker Used Anti-Competitive Practices Against Itself
Redmond, Wash. — Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department Friday announced a settlement in their landmark anti-trust case that calls for the break up of Apple Computer, as both sides agreed Apple's history of "self-inflicted, anti-competitive" management practices is primarily to blame for turning Microsoft into an illegal monopoly.
"We had already won the case, so we were thinking in terms of penalties, and when you do that, it is imperative that you punish those most responsible," said Assistant U.S. Attorney General Charles James. "Well, we couldn't ignore that since its inception, Apple had numerous opportunities to dominate the operating system market, but instead, management incompetence and arrogance resulted in decisions that gave us the Microsoft we know today."
"We believe it's time for Apple to pay for that market manipulation," he added.
In a press conference supporting the settlement, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates tearfully recalled "disturbing, half-blocked memories" of a young Microsoft's life.
"We never wanted to become a monopoly, but (Apple) pretty much forced us into it," said an obviously bitter Gates. "Everybody knew they had the best computer. Everybody knew they had the best operating system. But what did they do? Time and time again, they let us win."
"I didn't recognize it at first. I thought they were genuinely trying," he added. "But when they came out with the Newton, I should have known they were purposely steering us toward market domination. I feel... used."
Attorneys general from 18 states, which had originally sought aggressive penalties against Microsoft, said they were satisfied with the agreement, and noted that Microsoft likely would have won on appeal by claiming entrapment.
"We could have punished Microsoft, but that wouldn't have solved the problem. Apple would still be around to do it all over again," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. "No, you can either penalize the monster, or you can penalize Dr. Frankenstein. We choose the latter."
Under the agreement, Apple must pay for all of Microsoft's legal fees, and will be allowed to continue making one only one product. Reached at Apple's headquarters, CEO Steve Jobs said he had not decided what product that would be, but was leaning toward the new iPod MP3 music player, "because we've invested heavily in it, and it's probably not going to sell."
In the anti-trust case, Microsoft had been charged with using unfair tactics to crush competition and restrict choice by manipulating computer manufacturers and consumers into using Microsoft's operating systems and browsers. None of this would have happened, Constitutional scholars agreed, if Apple hadn't made "so many amazingly bad business moves" over the years.
This anti-competitive, pro-Microsoft-monopoly behavior began in the 1980s, when, unlike Microsoft, Apple refused to license its operating system to other computer makers to build clones. In an even more disastrous decision, Apple licensed its software to Microsoft so it could develop applications for the Macintosh operating system. Not long thereafter, Microsoft came out with its first Windows product, which looked "remarkably like" Apple's.
"'Hey Bill, here's the source code to our operating system. But no cheating!'" quipped Blumenthal. "I think we should shut down Apple on that move alone."
As the years went by, Apple management's reaction to its steady decline was to insist that its products would win because they were better, and to continually charge more for them until, by 1994, it decided it would allow clones to be built after all. This was followed by the decision that it would not allow clones to be built after all, then by a decision that it would allow it, then it wouldn't, and finally, no one cared.
( hehe... funny variation ... its of course not true, but a pice of sartire - from SatireWire..)
FOR TURNING MICROSOFT INTO MONOPOLY
Alternative OS Maker Used Anti-Competitive Practices Against Itself
Redmond, Wash. — Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department Friday announced a settlement in their landmark anti-trust case that calls for the break up of Apple Computer, as both sides agreed Apple's history of "self-inflicted, anti-competitive" management practices is primarily to blame for turning Microsoft into an illegal monopoly.
"We had already won the case, so we were thinking in terms of penalties, and when you do that, it is imperative that you punish those most responsible," said Assistant U.S. Attorney General Charles James. "Well, we couldn't ignore that since its inception, Apple had numerous opportunities to dominate the operating system market, but instead, management incompetence and arrogance resulted in decisions that gave us the Microsoft we know today."
"We believe it's time for Apple to pay for that market manipulation," he added.
In a press conference supporting the settlement, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates tearfully recalled "disturbing, half-blocked memories" of a young Microsoft's life.
"We never wanted to become a monopoly, but (Apple) pretty much forced us into it," said an obviously bitter Gates. "Everybody knew they had the best computer. Everybody knew they had the best operating system. But what did they do? Time and time again, they let us win."
"I didn't recognize it at first. I thought they were genuinely trying," he added. "But when they came out with the Newton, I should have known they were purposely steering us toward market domination. I feel... used."
Attorneys general from 18 states, which had originally sought aggressive penalties against Microsoft, said they were satisfied with the agreement, and noted that Microsoft likely would have won on appeal by claiming entrapment.
"We could have punished Microsoft, but that wouldn't have solved the problem. Apple would still be around to do it all over again," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. "No, you can either penalize the monster, or you can penalize Dr. Frankenstein. We choose the latter."
Under the agreement, Apple must pay for all of Microsoft's legal fees, and will be allowed to continue making one only one product. Reached at Apple's headquarters, CEO Steve Jobs said he had not decided what product that would be, but was leaning toward the new iPod MP3 music player, "because we've invested heavily in it, and it's probably not going to sell."
In the anti-trust case, Microsoft had been charged with using unfair tactics to crush competition and restrict choice by manipulating computer manufacturers and consumers into using Microsoft's operating systems and browsers. None of this would have happened, Constitutional scholars agreed, if Apple hadn't made "so many amazingly bad business moves" over the years.
This anti-competitive, pro-Microsoft-monopoly behavior began in the 1980s, when, unlike Microsoft, Apple refused to license its operating system to other computer makers to build clones. In an even more disastrous decision, Apple licensed its software to Microsoft so it could develop applications for the Macintosh operating system. Not long thereafter, Microsoft came out with its first Windows product, which looked "remarkably like" Apple's.
"'Hey Bill, here's the source code to our operating system. But no cheating!'" quipped Blumenthal. "I think we should shut down Apple on that move alone."
As the years went by, Apple management's reaction to its steady decline was to insist that its products would win because they were better, and to continually charge more for them until, by 1994, it decided it would allow clones to be built after all. This was followed by the decision that it would not allow clones to be built after all, then by a decision that it would allow it, then it wouldn't, and finally, no one cared.
( hehe... funny variation ... its of course not true, but a pice of sartire - from SatireWire..)
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 1:38 pm
Andrew87
Things do look pretty bleak for AMD but they're big boys, they'll pull themselves together and produce something, I don't understand why you keep taking sides with one manufacturer though, apple, sony (who have just been sued again, you call microsoft criminals yet you'd eat sony's sh!t), ati - you do understand that competition is good, right?
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 1:44 pm
TexZK
I'm using a dual PIC16C84 with RC module as CPU for my new computer. Read my blog if you don't believe it ;-D
I was kidding. I've got a AMD Athlon X2 4200+. You cal tell a company is better than another, but it's useless. The last year AMD was the best. Next year will be golden for Intel. The year after will be again for AMD, the next year for Intel, and so on. Just buy the best item at that moment. As I understood, you always want the best item on the market. Why don't you look at the 12GHz 46bit single-core CPU which powered a Sun Solaris computer in the first 2000s? And Sun Solaris isn't M$ Windows.
You're too FANATIC. Why don't you open your eyes to the REAL world? People don't care if a CPU is better that another: they only look at the price. And Intel CPUs are very very very good, but cost too much at the same power. And I think you don't need the best CPU, unless you're going to play videogames (like me). And a month after, you'll see your CPU isn't still the best.
I was kidding. I've got a AMD Athlon X2 4200+. You cal tell a company is better than another, but it's useless. The last year AMD was the best. Next year will be golden for Intel. The year after will be again for AMD, the next year for Intel, and so on. Just buy the best item at that moment. As I understood, you always want the best item on the market. Why don't you look at the 12GHz 46bit single-core CPU which powered a Sun Solaris computer in the first 2000s? And Sun Solaris isn't M$ Windows.
You're too FANATIC. Why don't you open your eyes to the REAL world? People don't care if a CPU is better that another: they only look at the price. And Intel CPUs are very very very good, but cost too much at the same power. And I think you don't need the best CPU, unless you're going to play videogames (like me). And a month after, you'll see your CPU isn't still the best.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 2:17 pm
Andrew87
You're right, most consumers do want the best at the time. ConQuest is in the minority, he wants whatever technology Apple are using.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 2:19 pm
stevomay
The one thing i hate in life is ignorant people who wont let something sit as it is, they have to push the button as far as possible to prove a point. I think i speak for all the "realists" in this forum when I say, conquest. Get a life kid.
And before you ask, yes i do own an AMD. but for what i paid for it, it works far better than any of my Intels. So dont even go there buddy.
And before you ask, yes i do own an AMD. but for what i paid for it, it works far better than any of my Intels. So dont even go there buddy.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 2:33 pm
asymptote
As long as we post in reply this guy has a meaning in life. :-)
I know this is a general forum, but these threads would be more appropriate on a computer forum. There's very little content of much relevance to DJing.
I know this is a general forum, but these threads would be more appropriate on a computer forum. There's very little content of much relevance to DJing.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 4:27 pm
phillydj
Nowadays Cpu's do bear importance to Dj'ing...Intel can have it's golden year. I'm more than sure AMD will pop right back into things, as far as a Dj Cpu I'll stand by AMD they've been far better than my Intel systems and there higher price cpu.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 5:46 pm
phillydj
Even as admitting AMD is my choice I'll have to say that the E6700 does beat AMD's Fx-62 Cpu in every part that we as Dj's would need it too, and it is also one of the first High end Intel's that are resonably priced, but do we really need to keep updateing our cpu everytime one stronger comes out? If it aint broke don't fix it (at least not until the price drops a whole lot on both).
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 6:16 pm
djderricke
AMEN! I've been dealing with my lowly 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 Hyperthreaded rig for the past two years now and it has served me well. This new crop of chips has pushed me to want to finally upgrade because they will actually improve my productivity. (I also do a lot of graphic rendering and music production with Reason 3.0) But I will not be tempted to upgrade everytime a new set of CPUs come out, Intel or AMD.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 6:35 pm
Homeboy
asymptote wrote :
As long as we post in reply this guy has a meaning in life. :-)
I know this is a general forum, but these threads would be more appropriate on a computer forum. There's very little content of much relevance to DJing.
I know this is a general forum, but these threads would be more appropriate on a computer forum. There's very little content of much relevance to DJing.
Anything about Virtual DJ or AtomixMP3, or not about them*... this a general discussion.
Please be polite and speak with respect. All warez messages, or messages that contains insults will be deleted.
This topic definately can be spoken about here in the general forum under the above terms. But you have broken the no insult rule. So you are more likely to be in the wrong for posting than the topic poster.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 6:37 pm
Andrew87
ConQuest has insulted us all before and hijacked various threads, he's the real rule breaker, how is calling members mentally retarded and idiots not worse than asymptote's humourous post?
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 6:46 pm
asymptote
Thanks for the support. Andrew87. If there was an insult in my post I apologise for not having seen it.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 6:55 pm
phillydj
You can have a look for your self in this thread, If you feel like reading it all.
and I never recieved an apology.
http://www.virtualdj.com/forums/52222/General_Discussion/Think_Different.html?page=3&highlight=think%20different
ConQuest wrote :
For real though, philly, you're so silly. But it's all good. I've always wanted to take out some time and help the mentally disabled, and now I have.
Now hurry up or you'll miss your short, little yellow bus... don't forget your helmet.
and I never recieved an apology.
http://www.virtualdj.com/forums/52222/General_Discussion/Think_Different.html?page=3&highlight=think%20different
ConQuest wrote :
For real though, philly, you're so silly. But it's all good. I've always wanted to take out some time and help the mentally disabled, and now I have.
Now hurry up or you'll miss your short, little yellow bus... don't forget your helmet.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 7:01 pm
phillydj
Yeah i know but you don't see me crying I don't see what u did as being anywhere near that, then again I'm kinda slow so maybe I just don't know any better lol..now let's all be adults and get back to the topic in hand
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 7:16 pm
Homeboy
Yeap enough said. I didnt take anything into account only that this is the general forum and he may speak about anything. If he has upset you and you are here to do the same as he did... Who is really wrong? Back to the topic at hand my friends :D
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 9:01 pm
ConQuest
Andrew87 wrote :
Things do look pretty bleak for AMD but they're big boys, they'll pull themselves together and produce something, I don't understand why you keep taking sides with one manufacturer though, apple, sony (who have just been sued again, you call microsoft criminals yet you'd eat sony's sh!t), ati - you do understand that competition is good, right?
Like I said, I posted this for all the blind AMD fanboys [the nVidea vs. ATI remark was thrown in because I'm finding that nVidea fanboys are almost as unknowledgeable as AMD fanboys... GeForce 7950 can suck a big one, ATI R600 will outperform nVidia's next generation "n80" with less heat and at a lower price] who were all over these boards with antiquated knowledge, saying things like "everyone knows AMD chips are faster/cheaper/run cooler/are better for gaming/ are better overall, blah, blah, blah". No, everyone knew that because it was true for the past 2 years, I'm not denying that. I despised Intel from the late 90's until about a year ago [because of their misinformed, propandist "higher frequency = better processor" stance, which we in the Mac community officially referred to as the "Megahertz Myth" and had called it that since 2001.
Were we, the Mac community and Apple right? Of course we were. That is why you now see Intel's new Core chips running at lower frequencies and producing MUCH better results, and that started with Intel's Centrino chips back in late 2004. Intel finally got it; WORK SMARTER, NOT HARDER. Just like Apple told the entire chip indusrty to do for years and why PowerPC processors are superior to x86 processors [that's why ALL 3 major gaming consoles kicked x86 out in favor of PowerPC... go ahead google "PowerPC XBOX, PowerPC Nintendo Wii, PowerPC PS3".
If PowerPC processors reduce size and heat limitations, who is the only computer manufacturer that can easily switch back to PowerPC because it already has it's OS written in PowerPC code, but more likely, just go ahead an offer BOTH? Let me help you, the name starts with A, and ends with PPLE.
I was GLAD that AMD had kicked Intels' butt, even though I didn't really care. Apple didn't switch over to using x86 chips in their Macs until January of this year because of PowerPC chips' size and heat restrictions that currently don't make them a viable solution for small enclosures like Apple's 1" thick notebooks. But they're obviously better, since ALL 3 major console manufacturers are using them instead of x86 chips. Luckily the enclosures for those consoles don't need to be 1" thick and weigh less than 6.5 pounds at the most, like the 17" MacBook Pro.
WHAT REALLY UPSETS ME IN GENERAL, IS BLIND IGNORANCE. Don't feed me "AMD is better", simply based on the fact that it was. Don't feed me "windows is better because it has more marketshare". Bigger isn't better, better is better. PERIOD.
Now that we [Apple] use x86 chips, I started getting interested in this whole AMD vs. Intel thing, and was really looking for FACTS. What I got from AMD fanboys was FICTION, based on yester-years hype. Then, when I would ask about benchmarks and specifications that proved that Intel's new Core/Core 2 chips were better than AMD in EVERY WAY, they're response was simply "AMD is still better". THAT is BLIND IGNORANCE.
Competition is great. We need AMD to get off of it's a$$ and bring something to the table again in order to keep Intel on it's toes. If they [Intel and AMD] compete, we [the end-users] win.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 9:51 pm
DJ Cyder
Conquest,
you should get a publisher...
you should get a publisher...
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 9:53 pm
Andrew87
^ what he said lol
When discussion exits the music realm and enters other areas on these forums it's usually pretty casual, do you really expect us to read all that?
When discussion exits the music realm and enters other areas on these forums it's usually pretty casual, do you really expect us to read all that?
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 10:01 pm
asymptote
I only read slow, so haven't got through the first post yet.
Posté Sat 15 Jul 06 @ 10:06 pm
