Um, yeah... that's why they came up with the name!<br><br><br>Click here to visit me.

This is from their FAQ:<br><br>What does the name "Slashdot" mean?<br> "Slashdot" is a sort of obnoxious parody of a URL. When I originally registered the domain, I wanted to make the URL silly, and unpronounceable. Try reading out the full URL to http://slashdot.org and you'll see what I mean. Of course my cocky little joke has turned around and bit me in the butt because now I am called upon constantly to tell people my URL or email address. I can't tell you how many people respond confused "So do I spell out the 'dot' or is that just a period?" <br><br>Answered by: CmdrTaco <br><br>What is the "Slashdot Effect?"<br> When Slashdot links a site, often a lot of readers will hit the link to read the story or see the purty pictures. This can easily throw thousands of hits at the site in minutes. Most of the time, large professional websites have no problem with this, but often a site we link will be a smaller site, used to getting only a few thousand hits a day. When all those Slashdot readers start crashing the party, it can saturate the site completely, causing the site to buckle under the strain. When this happens, the site is said to be "Slashdotted." <br><br>Recently, the terms "Slashdot Effect" and "Slashdotted" have been used more generally to refer to any short-term traffic jam at a website. <br><br>We could conceivably cache pages, but that's a whole different ball of wax. <br><br>Answered by: CmdrTaco <br><br>So, the term "slashdotting" orginated at the Slashdot website, but they don't mention anything about getting "slashdotted" themsleves. Its probably happened at some point with all those impatient geeks milling around.

The latest...<br><br>MacBidouille claims that the first 970 PowerPC machines are assembled, stacked and ready to be shipped to resellers. According to the article, the boxes are also sealed with a tamper proof seal with warnings not to open before June 23rd.<br><br> There have been conflicting rumors regarding the availability of 970 machines. This rumor would indicate immediate availability at/after WWDC's Keynote. <br><br>I'll tell ya, if this 'MacBidouille' is wrong they are going to be tar and feathered by angry mac rumor fanatics. <br>What? Who, me? Oh no, I'm talking about those other, crazy mac rumor fanatics. <br><br>

So what's the speed going to look like if, in fact, this rumor is true?<br><br>Are we talking over 2ghz?<br><br>[color:red]DaddyMac's MP3 to AAC conversion: left to go...</font color=red>

Under a month, Trog. Patience <br><br><br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"

I doubt it. Most rumors are for 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 GHz, but I think even a 1.4 970 single easily beats up a 1.4 dual G4 and a Pentium 4 at 3GHz. So you could imagine what they'd be like as dual configurations but... again, rumors!<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Under a month, Trog. Patience<p><hr></blockquote><p>aaaaAAAAARRGG! *head explodes*<br><br>

<em>but I think even a 1.4 970 single easily beats up a 1.4 dual G4 and a Pentium 4 at 3GHz.</em><br><br>While I don't agree at all with this, it's certainly in the realm of possibility for certain tasks, and those result will be anxiously awaited. I like that the rumor site put a specific date out there so that we can either trust or discount their sources in the future depending on whether they were right or not.<br><br>neye<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>think even a 1.4 970 single easily beats up a 1.4 dual G4 and a Pentium 4 at 3GHz.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Only in your dreams, and the marketing literature at IBM... but in the real world this simply won't be true (the Pentium 4 3ghz part). I'm sure it will be faster than a dual G4, but that isn't really that hard to do.<br><br><br>Click here to visit me.

Ok, I obviously worded that incorrectly and I'm gettin' some flame here (rightly so). I'm clearly over zealous about this whole issue, and not for any really good reason. Plus, there is no hard data out there to back this up anyway but for the sake of gossiping...<br><br>I'll "bet" that a single 970 cpu clocked at 1.4 would be faster than a dual G4 at 1.4. I don't see how anyone could not agree with that. Presently, dual processing increases the performance of a G4 tower by something like 30-50% right?? Its definitely not double anyway, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that updated motherboards with 970s will at least double the performance of the current G4s at the same clockspeed. Heck, the gigantic improvement in bus speed alone is going to make a huge differnce.<br><br>But, when comparing to pentium, the type of benchmarks always makes a difference and comparing a 1.4 GHz 970 to a Pentium 3GHz might not be a fair comparison anyway. Most likely the 1.4 will be the low-end model, while currently, a 3 GHz Pentium is still high end.<br><br>So, to rephrase, I "bet" a high-end Powermac (perhaps dual 1.8Ghz 970?) will smoke a 3 GHz Pentium Windows box. Certainly the pentium won't stay at 3 GHz, but neither will the 970 stay at 1.8, supposedly its already being tested at 2.5GHz. Therefore what I should have said was... high-end powermac vs. high-end Wintel.<br><br>Is that still a pipe dream? <br><br>