Slashdot Mirror
Toms Hardware Reviews 65 CPU's, Past & Present
An anonymous reader writes "Toms Hardware has an interesting review of 65 processors ranging from 100 MHz to 3066 MHz. They spent more than 300 hours benchmarking and recording the scores. Worth a quick glance, especially for the Unreal Tournament 2003 scores on the 100 MHz pentium!" CT: Yeah yeah. It's a dupe. Funny that not a single reader emailed me in almost 2 hours to tell me.
actually, this is easily the only type of dupe I can understand and accept. If they're close together, it means that two editors were working on the same story almost at the same time, which is understandable, but when they're hours or days appart it can only mean that slashdot editors don't read slashdot...
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
There was an 1.5 hour delay between the articles. Taco had plenty of time to check.
And they should all know exactly what the other editors have posted anyway, it's not like there's hundreds or thousands of stories getting posted every hour. Maybe 2 dozen a day. If they can't keep up with that, they don't need to be editors.
Besides, the only one who really seems to have a problem with it is Taco. Everyone else has managed to avoid excessive duping. They probably refresh the main page once in a while...
The dupes that are months apart are one thing - sure, something might slip through the crack[pipe]s, but same-day dupes, and only two articles apart? Incompetence.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
I don't get it. Why did they leave out the Pentium Pro?
Yeah, but it IS a double post.
code it up and submit a patch
Granted. I don't see how any word processor can justifiably require a 1.6Ghz processor and 512Mb of RAM. In fact, I think Office 97 on a Pentium Pro 200 was perfectly usable in it's day and is just as usable now, but that's not the whole story. There's a whole plethora of applications which are now commonplace, which weren't even considered feasible ten (?) years ago. I can remember a piece of DOS software on my old 286 which displayed JPEG images. That was it. It took noticeable time just to decode the file, and then sample it down to 320x200 to display on a normal VGA monitor. Nowadays, we don't even consider the decoding process when viewing JPGs.
:)
There's other similar applications - DivX movies, strong encryption, even MP3 audio - which we now take for granted 'cos we've got so much horsepower to play with that processing overhead is no longer an issue. Now we're getting into the realm of PVRs, digital camcorders, encoding real-time video straight into DivX - applications which appeal to ordinary home users, and which require some *serious* megahertz. The games industry provides a convenient milestone - anyone can tell that Quake III looks better than the original Wolfenstein 3D, but more importantly, they can see that they're fundamentally the same thing. It's a lot harder to compare modern video editing software with that of ten years ago, because ten years ago the only people editing movies on their home PCs were masochistic millionaires.
Rather than focusing on all those wasted MHz driving more and more bloated word-processors, consider some of the things we just *couldn't* do with slower hardware, and wonder what we're going to be taking for granted ten years from now.
CT: Yeah yeah. It's a dupe. Funny that not a single reader emailed me in almost 2 hours to tell me.
Funny that - perhaps people get the idea that you won't look at their mails, seeing as you can't even be bothered to read your own goddamn website...
I can't believe you actually get paid to do this...
OK, slashdot has the most sophisticated moderation system I've ever seen with hundreds of users contributing to the moderation of articles every day, just to make sure we only have to read the comments that are worth reading.
:)
Only slashdot admins then go and post the entire article twice within minutes - thus undoing the work of hundreds of moderators.
I wish there was a way to moderate the *parent* article down:
-1 Flamebait
-1 Redundant
etc...
All this moderation, but they can't spare ONE person to say if the article is a dupe or not. Notice how slashdot is the *ONLY* news site that has this dupe problem... This is mainly caused because a lot of the articles aren't news - they're from months ago, so the editors need to have a good memory.
Nick...
Come off it. I don't see where you get off bitching because nobody told you that you posted a dupe of a story two stories down. I mean, had you taken a cursory glance at your own site you probably would have seen this story.
You know, if you didn't want us to pay for this, I wouldn't even care. But I cannot believe that you are bitching at paying customers because of your lack of editing. What gives? As I've said before this site has editorial practices slightly worse than that of your average grade school newspaper. I think it's really insulting that you would expect anyone to pay for this.
Let me up the ante here. You editors are pretty tech-savvy, right? I just used Mozilla's oft-praised tabbed browsing feature to open another tab and look up the post I linked above. Now, when you are approving submissions, how hard would it be to have a second tab open to make sure you aren't posting a dupe. I mean, look, you guys approve at most 20 stories a day. Between the four or five (estimate) active editors, that's.. well.. not a lot. It wouldn't be hard to simply say "when I'm ready to approve a story I'll make sure there aren't any dupes." This kind of work wouldn't take long at all, and combined with a little editing would go a long way towards getting some new subscribers. I, for one, pledge to subscribe when the editorial quality of this site improves. That means, basically, that every other story can't have glaring grammatical or spelling errors, and that dupes are practically nonexistant.
I realize that everybody makes mistakes, myself included, but the number of mistakes from people who are professionals (and you are professionals if you do this for a living -- you do) is just too much to be tolerated -- or at least paid for.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
I love that it's implied it is in some way the readers' fault for not telling him "in 2 hours."