Recent content by DanNeely

While 1.8" HDDs had a decent run for a few years in early ipods, I don't think the 1" HHD form factor ever went beyond the prototype stage. The amount of NAND you could stuff into a CF form factor made it DOA and not having any significant influence beyond possibly constraining the size of the...

My first were 128 and 240 both for $200-250ish, after that I splurged $500+ on a 1TB one I'm still using. Whenever I get around to replacing this system (honestly past due at this point) it'll probably be a 4TB pcie5 drive. Probably overkill the way the 1TB one has been for most of it's life...

MSN Xbox Live Surface And probably time for at least one more half-baked branding to be born and die before it actually comes out.

Is that a horizontal Slocket? Everything old really is new again. 🤣

Updating the specs for higher tiers to align with what are premium specs today isn't a bad thing. I dislike them setting different refresh rates for laptop and desktop displays though, that's just going to add confusion. I do wish they'd added a basic tier at the bottom to capture variable...

Nothing new there. Creative XP drivers were so bad that MS moved the audio system out of the kernel in Vista to eliminate one of the biggest BSOD sources their telemetry was seeing. It was subsequently moved back in for power consumption (less user-kernel switch overhead I assume) as laptop...

No. Intel got into trouble trying to jam more than 2 years of upgrades into their every 2 year process update. Doing smaller upgrades once a year or so is how TSMC got where it is.

There's also VIA and a few other manufacturers that make x486/pentium class chips for embedded purposes. There the issue is that Intel owns a ton of IP on the base x86 instruction set and vector extensions (MMX, SSE, AVX), and AMD has the same on the 64 bit extensions to it. The old stuff was...

Apparently slightly off mark. More recent articles I've read are that Intel will continue making it's GPU tiles on TSMC for those generations of CPU. As long as they're using the same architecture for discrete and IGPs, fabbing them all on the same process makes sense.

Samsung perhaps, IBM sold its fabs to Global Foundries back when GloFo was still trying to keep up with cutting edge process nodes.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no-you-cant-make-an-open-source-hdmi-2-1-driver/ Display port just keeps looking better every day.

BS! You want a 24/7 construction project in US it's simple you hire 4 shifts. 3x 12s one week, 4x 12s the next.

There's a huge number of semi conductor companies that have dropped out of the leading edge rat-race over the decades and are still in business selling older nodes to companies who have no need/use for advanced processes. You can buy simple chips fabbed on >100nm processes today.

The potential exploits from HT attacks are more serious in server environments though. I'm wondering if it's about thermals. We can jam so many cores onto a chip that if all are at maximum speed/load the power and temperature levels go through the roof. Running more discrete cores might allow...

Intel's been decomposing x86 into RISCy micro-ops for execution since the 90s in order to be able to pipeline them. They could have exposed them as an alternate "core-x86" instruction set anytime in the last 30ish years if they wanted to.