Opera 10 sneak peek

@cesjr - You must consider me one of the "winjihadist"...well, you are wrong...but I'm not a member of the "iCabal", either. I like technology...it don't matter to me. Like I said above...I was able to do a side by side with an iPhone and a Samsung Omnia. Guess which one I am going to buy? The one that was less sluggish and met my needs better...and it has wifi, thanks, Verizon!!! Plus it has an FM radio...hmm I think I'll use that at the gym to tune in the TV's while I'm on the elliptical(See, Doc, I'm still taking your advice). --tayme

@cesjr - Before you accuse the Verizon store where I was of providing a shabby iPhone for the side by side...you should know that the iPhone belongs to my nephew...not the Verizon store. So, I'll get a snappier phone, on a more reliable and fast network, with a spot for a micro SD card...soon to be up to 32GB...plus the 8GB on board. Lets see, that's 40GB...how much space does the biggest iPhone have again??? --tayme

"why buy an all-in-one PC? Wouldn't a laptop be better? I mean, it's not like these things are cheap." I don't see the purpose in getting an all-in-one PC, now with Mini-ITX form factor making it possible to get desktop quad-core performance in an extremely small desktop system, so the space argument isn't valid anymore. The performance in today's desktop PC's is far greater than what you get with any MoDT all-in-one computer or notebook system. If you're getting a desktop, it doesn't make sense to get an all-in-one when the performance, component value/cost, and modularity of todays Mini-ITX SFF PC's is far greater. I mean, if you look at most all-in-one's, the only way to get a quad-core is by way of an expensive Core 2 Extreme mobile chip. That's ludicrous. If you want portability, buy a laptop. Short of that, you get a better computer with a modular desktop than with an all-in-one.

Why make an all in one? Space, less crap on the desktop, looks. Apple, HP, Dell and Sony all make them. HP has a touch screen version. Honestly with today's software who needs a QuadCore? So few apps will really use more than one core. Sure the OS will spread it around but that will only work so far. You have 1.8ghz dual core Intel CPU's that blow away 3 year old 3.2ghz hyper threaded P4's, using less than half the power. Unless you are ripping DVD's 24/7 or running a busy VMware Workstation box with 4 or more VM's, a dual core mobile CPU rips through browser pages and spell checking Word.

Now. Onto the misinformation part of the post rather than the sour grapes: "Honestly with today's software who needs a QuadCore? So few apps will really use more than one core. Sure the OS will spread it around but that will only work so far. " Who needs quad core? Pretty much everybody. Right now, runing just Outlook, IE and some background apps, I'm running 489 user threads and that's not including threads run by the OS itself. Now, if I happen to run on a quad system, those threads get split between the 4 cores so each one gets about 122 threads each. If I start running an old, crufty, single threaded high performance app that hogs the processor, one core will get that app and the other 3 will split those 489 and I've still got 163 threads shared on each of the other 3. If I add another old, crufty, single threaded high performance app, now I've got 1 app on core 1, 1 app on core 2 and cores 3 and 4 are splitting the workload of all the other threads. Now, as an exercise for the reader, how does this compare with how things would work if my 489 threads plus two old, crufty single threaded apps were running on a single core? Would things be even better if those old, crufty, single threaded apps were better written? Absolutely. Do I get huge benefits even if they're not? Absolutely. Who needs quad core? Everybody with a modern OS that knows what a thread is (and threads have been around since IBM and Microsoft released OS|2 1.0 in 1987 so most do by now)

And to answer some questions that may show up during the night... Windows Vista, depending on version, can support 1 or 2 physical sockets. Each socket with a Core i7 has 8 threads of execution (looks like 8 processor cores and is sometimes called an 8 logical processor chip) A system with two Core i7 processors running Vista has 16 logical processors (looks like it has 16 processors) The current Windows kernel happily works with up to 32 logical processors so a 16 logical processor system isn't even making it breathe hard. Windows 7's kernel (and Windows Server 2008 R2's) has an improved scheduler that supports up to 256 logical processor systems (which would be 16 of the current 8 logical processor Core i7 chips) - of course, nobody's making those yet but they almost certainly will during Windows 7's lifetime

Another neat thing with multi core is that you can render video, whilst still using your machine at seemingly full speed - Since most video encoding currently only uses one core.

Well cesjr, you just proved Godwin's Law. Sorry, you just lost credibility, at least any that you had left. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law And for what it's worth, Paul has never discussed BlackBerry all that much from what I can see, at least here on the SuperSite. And since we are also talking about burgers, White Manna for the win! http://offthebroiler.wordpress.com/2006/07/25/nj-dining-white-manna/