srbempire

Both DirecTV and Dish Network are very similar with great products and top notch customer service but there are several notable differences that should be mentioned. First is the pricing structure. Dish network is set up to be a little cheaper to enter while DirecTV is designed to offer more choice. Direct TV has been around longer while boasting a larger user base than Dish Network. DirecTV does also offer some exclusive programming that dish network can not offer such as the NFL Sunday Ticket package, TV One, Fine Living, Fox Reality, and PBS Kids. The NFL Sunday Ticket Package offers a great view of just about every NFL football game in the season, however, Dish network does a good job at hitting the more common channels for a decent price. Cable On one side you have cable. This is the standard choice for many because it is what they know. Cable was around for a long time in mainstream television and therefore you go with what you know. Cable now offers many more channels than it once did. You can get high definition systems as well as such products that can record shows for you. Cable programming is versatile, taking in many of the various needs the consumers have. But, the price of cable is something that throws many off. To get the good stuff, youll have to pay for it. Direct TV On the other side, you have Direct TV. While the equipment to use Direct TV may be more expensive, it is often offered at discounted price or even offered for free when you subscribe to the right options. Direct TV offers a lower price then. And, it does offer more channels as well. Does that mean that they are going to be ones that interest you? We still think youll find that with 135 channels, there is still nothing good on at times. You also can get into digital options as well as high definition quality. The Bottom Line The bottom line comes down to the fact that you can get more from Direct TV than you can from standard cable and it will likely cost you less. Is it the right option for you? Check out the pricing plans that are available to make that final decision on Direct TV. For more information please see http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Analog, digital, and HDTV Notice from BuffaloHELP: Copied source https://gen.xyz/ Last caution note.

Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, differs from Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, primarily in its support for high-performance servers and its ability to cluster servers for greater load handling. These capabilities provide reliability that helps ensure systems remain available even if problems arise.At a high level, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, provides support for:? Eight-way symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) To increase server performance and capacity, you can add processors, an approach to increasing your network capacity is known as scaling up. The enhanced support for SMP allows you to add processors that work together?that is, multiprocessor servers. Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, supports up to eight processors in a single system or partition. ? Eight-node clustering Server clusters up to eight nodes are available only in Windows 2003, Enterprise Edition, and Windows 2003, Datacenter Edition. ? Up to 32 gigabytes (GB) of RAM By adding memory, a computer can work with more information at once. Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, includes enhanced memory capabilities that let you increase the memory available for server processing to as much as 32 GB of RAM

The balance of power in the handheld game market experienced a significant upset two years ago when Sony used their press conference at E3 2003 to announce the development of the Playstation Portable. At the time, Nintendo held utter dominance of the portable game market with over 90% market share thanks to the Gameboy, and now, the Nintendo DS. Just by the very announcement, though, Sony kicked the gaming media into overdrive. In the hallway outside of Sony?s studios, where the press conference was held, you could hear comments like, ?It?s going to be great,? and, ?Way better than the DS,? from the gathered journalists. This was before anyone had seen pictures of the unit, product designs, or even a suggested retail price; the game industry was ready to buy it on Sony?s say-so alone. Now that the Nintendo DS has released in the U.S., the PSP in Japan, and a with a late March 2005 PSP launch date for those of us over here in the States, a lot more is known about both systems than was known then. While it?s still difficult to do a full-blown comparison prior to having an English version of the PSP in hand, there is enough info to make some pretty solid early comparisons between the two. Gone are the days when you could mention Nintendo and assume you?d covered the significant players in the handheld market; now it?s Sony and Nintendo, and you can?t consider buying either system without knowing both. A Brief Overview of the Two Systems:Nintendo DS: Known as the Nintendo Dual-Screen, the DS is a handheld game device with two screens, a stylus pen, and the ability to play both Nintendo DS and Gameboy Advance games. Equipped with wireless technology, a touch sensitive screen, and a microphone, the DS has many characteristics similar to a specialized PDA, but with awesome gaming ability. It was released in the U.S. in November of 2004. Sony Playstation Portable (PSP): The Playstation Portable is Sony?s answer to Nintendo?s handheld market dominance. With a large wide-screen display, more powerful innards than the DS, and a media type capable of storing 1.8 gigabytes of data, the PSP is well positioned to change how we think of portable gaming.

The screens on the DS and the PSP are equally cool, in my opinion. The PSP is certainly going to have more wow power with its wide-screen gaming, but the DS is going to be capable of more in the long run. This is a good example of the difference between Nintendo and Sony?s approach to the market; Sony offers the current home console experience on the go, while Nintendo offers a different approach all together. PSP: The PSP has a 4.3-inch screen, which is gigantic in terms of handheld systems. The screen uses a letterbox resolution of 480 x 272, and has 24-bit color, meaning that it?s capable of displaying millions of colors with a quality that is unparalleled in terms of portable game units. DS: The DS has two separate screens that run simultaneously depending on the game you?re playing. While both screens are smaller than the PSP?s single display, they can be used in tandem to provide varying information, such as a map on one and your playable character on the other. Additionally, the bottom screen on the DS is touch-sensitive, so in addition to being a display device, it can be an interface. The included stylus pen allows for a great deal of variety in approach to game design and control.

Technically, the PSP dominates the DS in terms of horsepower. With far superior hardware under the hood, the PSP is capable of pushing out graphics that fall somewhere between the PS and the PS2. This means that the PSP has about the same graphical advantages over the DS that the original Playstation used to dominate the Nintendo 64 when it was released back in 1994. However, other hardware differences make this a different story than that of the Playstation and Nintendo?s doomed N64. Whereas the PSP is basically a portable version of the current PS2 home console, the Nintendo DS includes a number of features that have never been seen in a handheld gaming unit. The PSP?s strength lies in its graphic ability, and the DS?s strength lies in its additional features and creativity Brief Overview of the Two Systems:Nintendo DS: Known as the Nintendo Dual-Screen, the DS is a handheld game device with two screens, a stylus pen, and the ability to play both Nintendo DS and Gameboy Advance games. Equipped with wireless technology, a touch sensitive screen, and a microphone, the DS has many characteristics similar to a specialized PDA, but with awesome gaming ability. It was released in the U.S. in November of 2004. Sony Playstation Portable (PSP): The Playstation Portable is Sony?s answer to Nintendo?s handheld market dominance. With a large wide-screen display, more powerful innards than the DS, and a media type capable of storing 1.8 gigabytes of data, the PSP is well positioned to change how we think of portable gaming.

one more thing....reason for the gap in speed rating....pipelines.p4 uses 20 i belive being able to spread the speed spectrum over 20 units, while amd uses a 10 or 12 pipeline doing more work per cycle, and having less chance of a pipeline loss due to less units in the pipeline.in the most recent test the amd won 6 out of 7 tests vs. the new p4 hyperthreading and the g4 and g5....hell amd was not only the cheaper of all the systems but it was the best and the only comparo it lost in was less than a 5% difference between the p4 and amd 64amd new king of personal chips....and with the new 64 bit architexture, the possibilities are extreme

What you get for your money with AMD beats Intel hands down. Intel simply seems to have gotten a reputation as the leaders in processor manufacture. I use an AMD athlon XP and have never had any problems with the heat whatsoever. The AMD athlon XP 3000 has a clock speed of around 2.1 GHz. Using a decent mobo (I'd recomend MSI for overclocking) you can easily achieve 2.5 GHz or perhaps more in clock speed without cooling problems. The more expensive P4 3.0GHz CPUs are easily beaten performance wise by the AMD. Clock speed isn't everything!!Intel simply seems to a trusted household name, I suspect more experienced computer users who are more researched lean towards AMD.

What you get for your money with AMD beats Intel hands down. Intel simply seems to have gotten a reputation as the leaders in processor manufacture. I use an AMD athlon XP and have never had any problems with the heat whatsoever. The AMD athlon XP 3000 has a clock speed of around 2.1 GHz. Using a decent mobo (I'd recomend MSI for overclocking) you can easily achieve 2.5 GHz or perhaps more in clock speed without cooling problems. The more expensive P4 3.0GHz CPUs are easily beaten performance wise by the AMD. Clock speed isn't everything!!Intel simply seems to a trusted household name, I suspect more experienced computer users who are more researched lean towards AMD.

I've heard that the P4's architechure makes it slower than the Athlon, even though it has higher clock speeds. Evidently the Athlon can do more instructions per cycle or something like that...is there any thruth to this rumor?

The Athlon does more per clock cycle, which is why the AMD 1.67 GHz is comparable to the P4 2.2 GHz, but the P4 Northwood has double the cache (512K instead of 256K), which should lead to better performance. The P4 also has SSE2, which is an additional set of instructions for multimedia, which AMD won't be getting, unless Intel says so. I personally am a fan of the AthlonXPs, since I don't have infinite cash, so if money is an object, get one of those and pair it with an nForce motherboard. =)

The variation comes from differences in the CPU architecture. The AMD can perform many common tasks using fewer cycles. If Intel and AMD chips were both running at equal clock speeds, I'm pretty sure AMD would out perform the Intel. This is why AMD went to the new naming convention to dispell the belief that a higher clock speed = higher performance.Another example is with the Apple computers, they have a much lower clock speed than x86 processors for the same performance. It is not that Apple computers are slower, or behind in technology, it is that they are using a different architecture.You can think of it like an electrical model. Power = Voltage * Amperes, where amps=clock speed, and volts=work accomplished/amp. The focus has been on the clock speed because the work being done has generally been the same between Intel and it's clones (AMD, Cyrix...). However, recently, AMD has been changing it's architecture so that more work is being done. Just like how you can't judge how powerful a battery can be purely based on it's voltage, you can't judge how powerful a cpu is based on it's Clock speed.

The AMD chips seem to beat the Pentium4's right now in terms of pricing for a particular performance. I myself bought an Athlon XP 1800+ for this reason. However, one must notice that the P4 has SSE2 optimizations and the AMD does not. There are no applications that currently make use of these optimizations. People predict that the P4 will do much better when SSE2-enabled apps come out. Also, the P4 architecture has a lot of room in terms of scalability - over 10 Ghz. AMD doesn't have too long before have to come out with a new architecture

Appears that Apple survived because they had a niche in schools, desktop publishing, and graphic design that the crude GUI of DOS/Windows OS could not cope with. Apple is still in the lead today in those areas, but to a lesser extent. Windows is still not up to par yet with the Mac in these areas today, but Windows have cleaned up their act considerably since the 1980's. Besides Apple (unlike Microsoft) seems to be such an innovative computer company (one hears). It is the iPod in 2005. Things like the RISC chip, Newton, iMac, G5, OS X, etc. help Apple to survive. And in 2006 Apple going over to Intel?

I have never heard of that before.