Slashdot Mirror

https://www.overclock3d.net/ne...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

10 years of appeals and brib^^^lobbying

It seemed strange to read this /. story given I'd read the following earlier in the day: https://www.overclock3d.net/ne...

Maybe MS have convinced* AMD to make this decision?

* - With a nice, fat cheque

Only if they convinced Intel too. Because Kaby Lake isn't supported either.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/...

http://www.overclock3d.net/art...

I said it before Intel did it, jackass. I'm not a fanboy, BTW. I'll buy Intel when it makes sense. I just prefer AMD after about two decades of experience buying products of both companies.

The 486 had a DRAM controller on its die? I'm going to have to ask for a citation. I think you're thinking of either the on-die L1 cache or the MMU (memory management unit), neither of which is a system main memory controller. Here's a citation to the counter: List of Intel Chipsets at Wikipedia. See how the chipset determines the memory specs up until the Core i Series, including the 80486? Here's another: List of Intel Chipsets at World IQ. Here's another: Intel CPU and Chipset History at Overclock 3D courtesy of a forum post there by "PV5150".

An MMU has nothing to do with controlling the actual SIPPs, SIMMs, or DIMMs. It's a multiprocessing ("multiprocessing" doesn't mean "multi-core") feature that allows the processor to enforce memory address range protection so that program A doesn't stomp on program B's memory range. That's a separate concern from getting data into and out of the processor from main memory.

Why don't you go get a copy of something like Upgrading and Repairing PCs and inform yourself? Here's the ISBN.nu link for the 18th edition in case you're a bargain shopper: 18th edition. I have the fifth edition myself. I might get an updated version for the handy reference tables in the back featuring things like POST codes and error codes for SCSI controllers.

BTW, have you ever actually built a PC older than, say, a Pentium 4? Or owned one?

Hehe. :)

Actually, you may be disappointed if you buy SSDs for the boot speed. HDD manufacturers have done a remarkable job optimizing that. And in the case of an OS like Vista, the benefit from an SSD's low latency is dwarfed by the benefit from an HDD's raw read speed. Those 640GB Caviar drives are apparently one of the fastest booting HDDs/SSDs. (unless you go incredibly high end)

SSDs have been proven enormously helpful for games, though; especially games where you can't possibly store all the textures in memory, such as... Crysis.

I think your post is either terribly misinformed, or you are overstating yourself. I have no idea how can say a 320GB platter drive (and there are 500GB ones now too...) could possibly hope to outperform all but 'incredibly high end' drives. Look at the OCZ Vertex, or G.Skill Falcon (or the supertalent drives etc based on the same controller). The smaller sizes are around the price of a velciraptor (admittedly smaller though, but still large enough for vista + some apps), and they blow the velciraptor out of the water. Don't just take my word for it: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews.php?/storage/ocz_vertex_120gb_sata2_ssd/7 And that crap about it being enormously helpful? Sure it definitely is desirable, but not even that benchmark you posted is fair for crysis (as they admit in the article...). For the vast majority of the time, SSDs only improve load time (note your floppy RAID array does not count).

1000W, what freaking system draws 1000W and only has 32GB?!?!?

My Desktop PC and its PSU, you insensitive clod!

Honestly though, how is sharing a copy of a game you own a problem? You lend people books don't you? Or movies? What about movie/video game rental stores like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video? In short, explain how its a problem or there isn't one.

Are these serious questions? The answers are blatantly obvious. I'm no DRM fanboy, that's for sure - but are you seriously trying to compare sharing a copy of a game with loaning a book or DVD to a friend? In the first case, you now have TWO copies of said game (which is copyright infringement) and now you BOTH can enjoy the game AT THE SAME TIME. In your second and third cases, your friend can enjoy the content or you can, but not both (unless you both watch it together). I mean seriously... duh.

DRM scheme has been an failure

Unfortunately, your links are wrong. DRM is generally not meant to prevent piracy, it's meant to prevent 0 Day piracy and as long as it can between release and when the price drops from it's release price. That is the point of DRM, and in that it has had varying degrees of success.

Now, I am not saying that DRM is right or good or even necessary. In fact, I think DRM should be limited to the bare minimum of CD-KEY and/or the discs not being copyable by Joe-Average trying to make a quick copy for his friends. Anything beyond that is pretty pointless and just hassles paying customers.

No one really likes DRM however there is little effort on the Anti-DRM Camp to come up with a solution that fixes the companies problem, of illegal piracy, or sharing a copy with your friends.

Game companies already had a solution for the "problem" of people sharing a copy they own. Blizzard's "Spwaned Copies" were freaking amazing. Honestly though, how is sharing a copy of a game you own a problem? You lend people books don't you? Or movies? What about movie/video game rental stores like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video? In short, explain how its a problem or there isn't one.

Also, why do the people that are against DRM get saddled with finding a "solution" to piracy? Every single DRM scheme has been an failure and damaging to the consumer to the point that some people feel morally obliged not to buy the games anymore from those companies. Better still, these DRM schemes do nothing but encourage you to pirate the game since the pirated version doesn't have the DRM!

DRM is not working. This is very fucking obvious. Until they figure out something else to try, they should go back to only having the CD-KEY (which doesn't stop people from pirating in any way whatsoever, but makes it easier in multiplayer games to ban disruptive players. EA already is under a Class Action lawsuit due to the DRM in Spore before it moved to Steam. How many more game companies are going to have to be attacked legally by their own fans to get them to stop ripping us off?

Oh and before you bitch I have a link to Steam in with the failures, remember that the Steam DRM does get cracked on occasion. They just patch and ban accounts. Will not stop players from doing it for single player or LAN games (and it takes no real effort) but as a DRM system it still fails at its task. On the plus side at least its largely bearable.

Looks like it can match up to the X48...but ouch look at the price!!

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews.php?/cpu_mainboard/asus_striker_ii_extreme_790i_ddr3_motherboard/1