Hey Gizmodo, when you guys finally get a chance to review this thing, could you see how well it handles remote desktop? I'd love to run a beefy windows server and have this thing remote desktop to run the more beefy software (games and stuff) on my big screen. #eeekeyboard2010
I said this before, and I'll say it again: whose bright idea was it to put the POWER key right next to the delete key?! That's just frustration waiting to happen.... #eeekeyboard2010
Any idea if this thing has HDMI-CEC? Capacitive Touch Screen + Consumer Electronic Control + Wireless HDMI = most awesome tv-remote ever. #eeekeyboard2010
@Sir Gibler: It is quite annoying, just imagine how much faster iTunes would run in 64-bit. That is, until Apple loads it down with even more crap most people don't use. #windows7
Both the windows and OSX versions of iTunes run a LOT of debug foiling code that has to actively run in the background. It also keeps a lot of checks in place that run alongside these. The purpose of this is to keep people from reverse engineering a lot of what iTunes does and leads to slowdown on both systems.
I've ported code between Windows and OSX both ways many times. It's not exactly a complicated proposition. iTunes is slow because Apple is doing things that make it slow. #windows7
@Thee Sea: Alright well thanks for that I wasn't aware of it.
My biggest annoyance with iTunes in windows is all the bloat it installs (extra services and quicktime). I have installed it without all that stuff and it is a bit better but still slow, but I don't have much to complain about the OS X version. #windows7
@Peregrinvs: Like hell. My mouse cannot get any better.
Unless I find a mouse that can make nachos and pizza and get me a soda/whiskey/both, while I still use it to frag nOObs. Is that part of USB 3.0, or will I have to wait for 4.0? #usb30
@whiteknight89 still plays DiabloII: Then just give me your soul so I can convince Intel to give me a chipset with DDR5 ram and a couple of those fancy PCIE 2.0 SSDs.
I don't know... I don't think I would sacrifice a PCI-E slot just for a couple of USB 3 ports. Most motherboards are likely to have a surplus of SATA ports in which case it would be easier to just install some SATA to eSATA converters. The existing SATA standard already nets you 3Gbps which isn't too much slower than USB 3.0's 4.8Gbps.
@B-low: True, but you can't beat the plug-and-play convenience. Which would you rather trust granny to plug in: a USB device or an eSATA device? #usb30
@B-low: @B-low: I have to disagree a little here. 3Gbps vs 4.8Gbps is a transfer speed difference of more than 60%. That's pretty significant, I think.
I still agree generally...it's tough to sacrifice a PCI-E slot when you'll have lots of extra SATA ports. #usb30
@Counterglow: If you're already transferring at 3gbps, it's hard to imagine having a file large enough for the 4.8 gbps to make a big difference. Well, on a domestic computer, at least. I guess it's the difference between a 30 second transfer, and a 20 second transfer. But that's still not much. #usb30
@Pope John Peeps II: Most of the time you're probably going to be transferring data from an internal drive with an interface speed of 3.0Gbps to an external USB drive. So you're still capped at 3.0Gbps regardless of the fact the USB interface speed is 4.8Gbps.
Plus, I imagine there is some overhead anyway translating from SATA to USB 3.0.
SATA and eSATA are just two different physical interfaces. They both use SATA commands.
@Counterglow: Shouldn't we first determine how much of that 4.8 Gbps is available in the real world?
High speed USB 2.0 is rated at 480 Mbps = 60 MB/s...but in the real world, you're lucky to be able to get half of that. As I understand it, the real-world limit is due to overhead, extra processing, etc. in the spec. I've never seen any device that can actually transfer even 45 MB/s over USB 2.0.
Do we know if the 4.8 Gbps is going to actually be achievable? #usb30
@Counterglow: Seeing as only the most elite RAM-based "hard drive" devices can even think of touching 3Gbps currently, forget it. 4.8 isn't gonna happen for you. #usb30
@Sneaky0: Right now nothing that I'm aware of. Some NAS setups in RAID are well capable of write speeds in excess of 500MBps or over 4Gbps but I think at those thresholds you begin to see bottle necks all over the place. I'm not sure if many CPUs can handle data transfer at that rate. #usb30
@B-low: That's what I meant. Without a raid setup or similar, reaching those speeds are nearly impossible. Also the average users don't even know what a raid is. It's great having a connection that's capable of those speeds, but until manufacturers start making fast disks at consumer prices. These connections are somewhat useless in the real world. #usb30
@taniquetil: It's not just that cutback; there's also the drop from triple-channel to dual channel memory, among other things. A 2.6GHz i5 is only $90 less than a comprable Bloomfield i7, MB prices run @ about the same difference. Factor in the third channel of memory, and you're talking about $250 difference between an i5 and an i7 system, but the i5 will be nearing the maxxed out point, while the i7 still has headroom for improvements. If you want to go cheap and only build once, go with the i5 and an x2 type vid card. If you plan on adding on later, go with the i7. #usb
I understand the differences in performance/upgradeability between P55 and X58, but how much real performance impact does running SLI at X16/X16 have over X8/X8 or X16/X8? I've heard it's not terribly huge.
Whatever my next build is will probably have Socket 1366 and go with i9 if the price isn't outrageous. #usb
@taniquetil: From everything I've seen graphics-wise, the CPU is the current bottleneck on current enthusiast setups, not the GPU. So with current setups, yes, there isn't much difference performance-wise. But once, as you say, the i9s roll and move the bottleneck out of the CPU, it'll have more of an impact. Especially if software makes more efficient use of all those cores... #usb
Whats the point? you can have all the USB3 ports in the world and still have to wait ages for it to penetrate the gadget market. Other than USB hard drives and camcorders, where's the benefit? USB 2.0 is already overkill for most devices like cellphones and web-cams etc, so why all the hubbub over a new spec? #usb
@J2M3: USB2 for simple things like the modern point and shoot is still painful as the transfers take forever and god forbid you want to preview the pictures before you copy them over...
USB2 is not overkill and if you think so I would assume you're still running a P3, because I mean what's the point? It does the same stuff modern computers do, just slower. #usb
11/05/09
11/05/09
I said this before, and I'll say it again: whose bright idea was it to put the POWER key right next to the delete key?! That's just frustration waiting to happen.... #eeekeyboard2010
11/05/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
.. #windows7
10/31/09
10/31/09
Which pisses me off even more.
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
Both the windows and OSX versions of iTunes run a LOT of debug foiling code that has to actively run in the background. It also keeps a lot of checks in place that run alongside these. The purpose of this is to keep people from reverse engineering a lot of what iTunes does and leads to slowdown on both systems.
I've ported code between Windows and OSX both ways many times. It's not exactly a complicated proposition. iTunes is slow because Apple is doing things that make it slow. #windows7
10/31/09
My biggest annoyance with iTunes in windows is all the bloat it installs (extra services and quicktime). I have installed it without all that stuff and it is a bit better but still slow, but I don't have much to complain about the OS X version. #windows7
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
But maybe I'm misreading. Last night was a loooooong night. #usb30
11/01/09
Also, when you swap up to a better mouse, I get your old one. ;] #usb30
11/02/09
Unless I find a mouse that can make nachos and pizza and get me a soda/whiskey/both, while I still use it to frag nOObs. Is that part of USB 3.0, or will I have to wait for 4.0? #usb30
11/02/09
=D You've gotta be worth somethin', right? #usb30
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
I still agree generally...it's tough to sacrifice a PCI-E slot when you'll have lots of extra SATA ports. #usb30
10/31/09
10/31/09
Plus, I imagine there is some overhead anyway translating from SATA to USB 3.0.
SATA and eSATA are just two different physical interfaces. They both use SATA commands.
10/31/09
High speed USB 2.0 is rated at 480 Mbps = 60 MB/s...but in the real world, you're lucky to be able to get half of that. As I understand it, the real-world limit is due to overhead, extra processing, etc. in the spec. I've never seen any device that can actually transfer even 45 MB/s over USB 2.0.
Do we know if the 4.8 Gbps is going to actually be achievable? #usb30
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
[www.pcper.com] #usb30
10/29/09
10/29/09
And....are there even any 3.0 devices out yet?
Thinking this is way early adopter shit here. #usb
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
How much does it matter that the speed drops to x8/x8 in SLI/Crossfire with P55/Socket1156?
I know that for X58/Socket1366 running x16/x8/x8 didn't offer that much more performance over true x16/x16/x16 or x16/x16/x8. #usb
10/29/09
10/29/09
I understand the differences in performance/upgradeability between P55 and X58, but how much real performance impact does running SLI at X16/X16 have over X8/X8 or X16/X8? I've heard it's not terribly huge.
Whatever my next build is will probably have Socket 1366 and go with i9 if the price isn't outrageous. #usb
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
USB2 is not overkill and if you think so I would assume you're still running a P3, because I mean what's the point? It does the same stuff modern computers do, just slower. #usb