- Bing can search Tweets. Why would you want to?
- Ballmer re-announced Bing at the D7 conference. Ha.
- The geneticists cannot predict mental illness.
- Satellite phonecos want to make hybrid phones. Will still be too pricey.
- iPhones are overheating.
- RIAA beats Usenet in court.
- More Steve Jobs back at work stories.
- HP doing a 12-core workstation.
- Firefox 3.5 very fast they say. We’ll see.
Right click here and select ‘Save Link As…’ to download the mp3 file.
As a developer, these cores are a good thing, for business processing.
I love maxing out the SAN box and have the hardware guys scratching their heads when I complain it’s slow. I prefer DAS with SSD’s, but no, higher ups complain about budget dollars.
Another example is running VMWare, the free version allows 2 computers of 2 cores each.
Dunno about “251% Faster than the previous Firefox version,” but it’s quick enough for all of us until someone else introduces a “must have” Web widget that sucks away all the speed. It’s happened before…
What’s the deal with multiple cores? I have two cores and they seem to split the tasks fairly equally. (I have a cpu monitor.) It’s a slower CPU in MHZ than my old one but runs MUCH faster. I don’t see why the CPU can’t split the tasks itself.
251% faster then what? On my system a bit faster then IE8, I use both.
On my Win7 system IE8 is the fastest to load. Firefox does have a lot more plug-ins.
3.5.0 is faster than 3.0.11 but not 251% faster.
I agree with hhopper. It’s faster. I still want all of my plug-ins back though. BB Code is still missing among some others. The tiny url plug in I downloaded (different plug-in than the old one) seems better than the old. The new mouse gestures plug-in, also by a different name now, so different software, seems fine.
I don’t know about the percentage, but it runs exceptionally on my Netbook!
#3
The problem with multiple cores is that, no matter how good an OS is at load balancing, a lot of computer usage is in large, single threaded applications. There is no way to “split” a single thread between two cores. A thread has to run sequentially; you could move it between processors, but it still was to run in order. So there is no advantage to trying to “split” a single thread.
Most applications are single-threaded. Since a single thread is limited to the power of one core, most programs have the same limit. Applications that specifically require tons of processing power (and can perform tasks in parallel) tend to be the first to become multi-threaded. For instance, Blender is an open source 3D modeling/animation program. I think the program runs most stuff as a single thread. However, when rendering, you can tell it to use as many threads as you like.
Just installed it FF3.5 today, it is faster, so it’s worth the download.
#8 – ahtnos
A friend of mine sent me this link. Their product will allow programmers to optimize their old code to run more efficiently on multi-core systems.
2# Agreed. It is faster, which is nice. But then again, the add ons which is one of the things I like about FF tends to start slowing things way down. lol
FF is really quick! I like it.
Most things that would benefit from multi-threading already do… Even discount cut rate video editors, and 3d rendering programs.
3.5
On my Vista Laptop it loads slower than it did before. Once loaded it is faster.
Go figure.
It’s significantly faster — but watch out on bookmarks. When I restarted it actually pulled the bookmarks from an old profile (2006) as my default.
Scared the living shit out of me, since I have a LOT of updated bookmarks and I keep a lot un-organized since I can search them now.
However, lucky for them they have that bookmark backup feature and I restored from last night. Buyer beware.
Its faster but it screwed the drag and drop on an Ajax based security appliance gui I need to use frequently. Got me to install Chrome , though
with my dual sli 7800 gtxs i’m going into epileptic shock
well, almost.. the (for now) incompatibilities with some of the old apps will be a fun game to watch.
Who came up with Firefox 3.5 being 25XXX times faster? I have downloaded it and I dont even see any friggin speed which Firefox talks about. I would rather stick with Google Chrome for speed and simplicity and IE8 for common web standards web browsing.
Exactly, Zorkor. I’ve tried using Firefox 3.5 and can’t see the difference. I think I’ll stick with Chrome. I like it’s simplicity too.
http://boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/recent_scenes_from_the_iss.html
Cool, Firefox 3.5 loads a page with large images way faster, like 251x faster. No more pauses when you scroll.
DUH, Firefox 3.5 kills many add-ons, like TinyURL.