You know, the last time I heard of S3 was when we bought a Toshiba desktop in 1997 that had an on-board S3 ViRGe with 8MB RAM. I didn't know they were still around.
I disagree. Gamers frequently run into the maximum RAM size barrier imposed by a 32-bit system. Video editing software benefits greatly from more RAM, as does photo editing software (though to a lesser extent).
Sure, your average technophobic secretary isn't going to take advantage of 64-bit software's benefits, but there are a lot more people out there who can than you seem to think.
I concur with sibling post - you're doing it wrong. I run all sorts of 32-bit programs on my 64-bit Gentoo installation, including various 32-bit Windows apps through WINE.
Well if we assume the processor is a 65nm Core 2 Duo, then swapping it out for a 45nm equivalent would save power.
It's not really relevant what computer exactly he is using; the point is simply that it could be made more efficient without a loss in computing power with a little effort.
I suspect you were simply being pedantic, though, so maybe I'm just troll-feeding;)
Well, that's why you just ask the scientists are are publishing. Research and publishing go hand in hand. They're the ones that'll know the most.
If they're publishing, then one of two things are possible:
1) They're interested in sharing what they've learned with other scientists. 2) They have an agenda, and they're publishing things that push said agenda.
Only in case 1 does your assertion hold true. If case 2 is true for any scientist, it corrupts the accuracy of the survey. Since I assert that humans are selfish and often have agendas, I conclude that case 2 must be true for at least one scientist, even if his agenda is simply "get more grant money".
This is especially problematic for surveys with voluntary responses; the response itself could be part of the agenda-pushing.
Note that I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you may be relying too heavily on the validity of the survey.
I don't get help requests from users who are using Firefox. Perhaps my userbase is atypical, but my anecdotal evidence is just as valid as yours.
You imply that I made some claim about Firefox being superior to IE in terms of rendering pages (which I didn't), or that my users were complaining about pages rendering wrong - in fact, my users are complaining about broken webpages, not ugly webpages. Rendering issues are irrelevant, and I've never had a single user complain to me about a rendering issue in any browser.
You're also inferring some act of evangelism on my part; I didn't make company policy, I just install Firefox and set it as the default according to the policy. I don't force users to use Firefox. I don't yell at them for using IE. I don't try to do obscure executable renaming tricks to try to hide from them the fact that they're not using IE. I simply tell them "try it in Firefox" if they're having issues with a site in IE, and the only reason I can get away with it is that company policy - which, again, I did not make, says that employees are to use Firefox.
I don't understand how "This is my experience" automatically makes it a fake review just because it doesn't coincide with your experience. If you learn only one thing today, let it be this:
When reading anecdotal experiences, everything carries an implicit "YMMV".
In any case, Firefox is mostly irrelevant to (though an example of) my point. My point was that many users - even software developers - prefer MS products, and they'll use MS over other things even if they have to override defaults to do so, even if company policy says otherwise, and even if everyone they know tells them there is a better alternative. Familiarity often trumps "alternate X is better in every way", and this is more true the older your users are, at least in my experience.
Especially confusing since stations have been shouting "FEBRUARY 17" from the rooftops for several months now.
The same kind of people who aren't ready for it by now won't be ready for it by June. I have a sneaking suspicion that the delay is much more for the benefit of stations that aren't ready, rather than consumers.
I install Firefox and set it as the default browser on every new machine we get at my place of employment, and yet every few weeks I'll get an e-mail from someone having issues with a webpage - and it turns out they're using IE.
Some users, particularly older people, are scared of non-Microsoft software, even if said users are software developers themselves. No amount of "Company policy is that you should only use Firefox" convinces them otherwise.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find it stunning at all;)
At work I chose the following names for servers (anonymized, of course):
"files" - the file server "companyweb" - internal web server "companysvn" (only reachable at svn.company.com) - Subversion server
There are a trio of machines named "[product]robot" which do nothing but robot tests for the named product.
The network printer is named "companyprinter".
The desktop machines have random names, since we don't ever need to care which is which unless we already know which user is having issues. We have desktops with names like "enormous" and "kickboxer", several named after their user ("lisa", "tom", "jsmith"), and a whole slew of desktops named after various types of trees ("palm", "mahogany", "russianolive").
At home I only have a few machines; the desktop-turned-server is named "taim" after Mazrim Taim of Wheel of Time fame (which is also where my nickname comes from). My laptop is named "heron6400", though it was named "inspiron6400" before the latest reformat (it's a Dell Inspiron 6400). My old laptop (now defunct) was named "inspiron8200", and my wife's laptop is named "inspiron1150". (Isn't my creativity inspiring?)
I wasn't saying I disagreed with the decision, I was only clarifying which parts were open source and which parts weren't.
I have noticed, however, that the Windows driver allows a larger range of settings than the Linux driver (unless I'm woefully uneducated about how to change the settings in Linux). For example, I can boost the transmit power in the Windows driver getting me better signal strength on some networks, but I can't do the same (or, I'm unaware of how to do so) for the Linux driver, meaning I get wireless access in some places at school in Windows but not in Linux. It's actually quite frustrating, seeing as how I'm trying to get used to working completely in Linux for my upcoming full-time job.
By "crappy" I wasn't necessarily referring to the quality of the code - in fact I've never looked at the code - I was simply referring to the much smaller feature set as compared to the 3d-capable nVidia driver.
Intel's wireless 3945ABG Linux drivers are pretty good. The firmward microcode is released under a closed-source license, but the drivers themselves are open source (and in fact are part of the Linux kernel). That may be offensive to some OSS purists, but I'd rather have good, open-source drivers with closed firmware than non-functional open-source drivers.
It's the same with my opinion about nvidia's drivers. Sure, they're closed-source. But I'd rather nVidia give us working 3d drivers than be stuck with the crappy open-source 2d-only nv driver. It'd be nice if they were open-source, but I'm not going to refuse to use them out of some misguided idealism.
Put another way, if I'm dying of thirst, and a known thief offers me stolen water, I'm going to drink it - it's not like the water is tainted. Maybe that makes me an accessory to a crime (or, in software terms, maybe it encourages closed drivers) but it's better than dying of thirst (or, better than having no 3d drivers at all). nVidia has no real motivation to give us open-source 3d drivers in the first place, so refusing to use their closed driver won't make them change their minds.
Even if the driver is open source, the chipset documentation might not be. As others have mentioned, it's hard to know how to write a good driver working with nothing more than a bad driver. You need good documentation.
I found Assassin's Creed to be pretty immersive. I also have to second the Metroid Prime experience as being quite well done (I own MP and MP: Echoes, but I don't own a system to play them on...).
Ubuntu will run on any relatively mainstream system. Dell's machines, in particular, are quite Ubuntu-friendly. Drivers were an issue three years ago, but not so much now.
As for "run their software", that's why it's valid to make OSS for Windows. Some people are locked into Windows for one reason or another - "We have to use Joe's Address Mangler 3.0 for Windows" - so the solution is to provide OSS programs to fill as many needs as possible.
The sooner we can make OSS "their software", the sooner they'll convert to Linux.
It seems your definition of "open source" is different than mine. You see, last I checked, GPL'ed source code qualifies as "open source". I - and most of the OSS world - would consider the ability to get the source code and modify it to your heart's desire - and distribute those changes - a pretty good indication of the "free-ness" of the software.
Also, I fail to see how writing an open source.NET runtime makes the Mono team Microsoft's lapdogs... or do you call Apache's developers Microsoft's lapdogs now, too, since MS is funding some Apache development? Or perhaps you think that anything Microsoft has developed is not truly free, regardless of the license it's distrubted under?
The sort of rabid anti-Microsoft sentiment you're showing here is precisely the attitude that makes people avoid Linux, and open source software in general. I suggest toning it down - a lot - if you're really interested in converting the masses to an open platform.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, the last time I heard of S3 was when we bought a Toshiba desktop in 1997 that had an on-board S3 ViRGe with 8MB RAM. I didn't know they were still around.
They did license SLI to Intel - could it be that they quietly licensed (an old version of) x86 in return?
Last I heard, nVidia was pulling out of the chipset market - that's why they licensed SLI to Intel for the X58 chipset.
Feel free to correct me, I have nothing to go on but vague memories.
I disagree. Gamers frequently run into the maximum RAM size barrier imposed by a 32-bit system. Video editing software benefits greatly from more RAM, as does photo editing software (though to a lesser extent).
Sure, your average technophobic secretary isn't going to take advantage of 64-bit software's benefits, but there are a lot more people out there who can than you seem to think.
I concur with sibling post - you're doing it wrong. I run all sorts of 32-bit programs on my 64-bit Gentoo installation, including various 32-bit Windows apps through WINE.
Well if we assume the processor is a 65nm Core 2 Duo, then swapping it out for a 45nm equivalent would save power.
It's not really relevant what computer exactly he is using; the point is simply that it could be made more efficient without a loss in computing power with a little effort.
I suspect you were simply being pedantic, though, so maybe I'm just troll-feeding ;)
You do have a choice. Install your own solar panels and put a wind turbine on your roof. Set up your own gas generator in the backyard shed.
Oh wait. You choose not to do that, because it's more expensive than your local power utility.
Don't run your Tesla coil when you aren't at home.
But I log in to it remotely :(
CF bulbs give my wife severe headaches. I'll pay for incandescents gladly, if it prevents headaches.
Well... technically, if you think about it, nature did--by making humans.
Well, that's why you just ask the scientists are are publishing. Research and publishing go hand in hand. They're the ones that'll know the most.
If they're publishing, then one of two things are possible:
1) They're interested in sharing what they've learned with other scientists.
2) They have an agenda, and they're publishing things that push said agenda.
Only in case 1 does your assertion hold true. If case 2 is true for any scientist, it corrupts the accuracy of the survey. Since I assert that humans are selfish and often have agendas, I conclude that case 2 must be true for at least one scientist, even if his agenda is simply "get more grant money".
This is especially problematic for surveys with voluntary responses; the response itself could be part of the agenda-pushing.
Note that I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you may be relying too heavily on the validity of the survey.
Seconded - I want more info :)
A cruve ball, eh.
I don't get help requests from users who are using Firefox. Perhaps my userbase is atypical, but my anecdotal evidence is just as valid as yours.
You imply that I made some claim about Firefox being superior to IE in terms of rendering pages (which I didn't), or that my users were complaining about pages rendering wrong - in fact, my users are complaining about broken webpages, not ugly webpages. Rendering issues are irrelevant, and I've never had a single user complain to me about a rendering issue in any browser.
You're also inferring some act of evangelism on my part; I didn't make company policy, I just install Firefox and set it as the default according to the policy. I don't force users to use Firefox. I don't yell at them for using IE. I don't try to do obscure executable renaming tricks to try to hide from them the fact that they're not using IE. I simply tell them "try it in Firefox" if they're having issues with a site in IE, and the only reason I can get away with it is that company policy - which, again, I did not make, says that employees are to use Firefox.
I don't understand how "This is my experience" automatically makes it a fake review just because it doesn't coincide with your experience. If you learn only one thing today, let it be this:
When reading anecdotal experiences, everything carries an implicit "YMMV".
In any case, Firefox is mostly irrelevant to (though an example of) my point. My point was that many users - even software developers - prefer MS products, and they'll use MS over other things even if they have to override defaults to do so, even if company policy says otherwise, and even if everyone they know tells them there is a better alternative. Familiarity often trumps "alternate X is better in every way", and this is more true the older your users are, at least in my experience.
Before I forget - YMMV.
Especially confusing since stations have been shouting "FEBRUARY 17" from the rooftops for several months now.
The same kind of people who aren't ready for it by now won't be ready for it by June. I have a sneaking suspicion that the delay is much more for the benefit of stations that aren't ready, rather than consumers.
I install Firefox and set it as the default browser on every new machine we get at my place of employment, and yet every few weeks I'll get an e-mail from someone having issues with a webpage - and it turns out they're using IE.
Some users, particularly older people, are scared of non-Microsoft software, even if said users are software developers themselves. No amount of "Company policy is that you should only use Firefox" convinces them otherwise.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find it stunning at all ;)
At work I chose the following names for servers (anonymized, of course):
"files" - the file server
"companyweb" - internal web server
"companysvn" (only reachable at svn.company.com) - Subversion server
There are a trio of machines named "[product]robot" which do nothing but robot tests for the named product.
The network printer is named "companyprinter".
The desktop machines have random names, since we don't ever need to care which is which unless we already know which user is having issues. We have desktops with names like "enormous" and "kickboxer", several named after their user ("lisa", "tom", "jsmith"), and a whole slew of desktops named after various types of trees ("palm", "mahogany", "russianolive").
At home I only have a few machines; the desktop-turned-server is named "taim" after Mazrim Taim of Wheel of Time fame (which is also where my nickname comes from). My laptop is named "heron6400", though it was named "inspiron6400" before the latest reformat (it's a Dell Inspiron 6400). My old laptop (now defunct) was named "inspiron8200", and my wife's laptop is named "inspiron1150". (Isn't my creativity inspiring?)
I wasn't saying I disagreed with the decision, I was only clarifying which parts were open source and which parts weren't.
I have noticed, however, that the Windows driver allows a larger range of settings than the Linux driver (unless I'm woefully uneducated about how to change the settings in Linux). For example, I can boost the transmit power in the Windows driver getting me better signal strength on some networks, but I can't do the same (or, I'm unaware of how to do so) for the Linux driver, meaning I get wireless access in some places at school in Windows but not in Linux. It's actually quite frustrating, seeing as how I'm trying to get used to working completely in Linux for my upcoming full-time job.
By "crappy" I wasn't necessarily referring to the quality of the code - in fact I've never looked at the code - I was simply referring to the much smaller feature set as compared to the 3d-capable nVidia driver.
Intel's wireless 3945ABG Linux drivers are pretty good. The firmward microcode is released under a closed-source license, but the drivers themselves are open source (and in fact are part of the Linux kernel). That may be offensive to some OSS purists, but I'd rather have good, open-source drivers with closed firmware than non-functional open-source drivers.
It's the same with my opinion about nvidia's drivers. Sure, they're closed-source. But I'd rather nVidia give us working 3d drivers than be stuck with the crappy open-source 2d-only nv driver. It'd be nice if they were open-source, but I'm not going to refuse to use them out of some misguided idealism.
Put another way, if I'm dying of thirst, and a known thief offers me stolen water, I'm going to drink it - it's not like the water is tainted. Maybe that makes me an accessory to a crime (or, in software terms, maybe it encourages closed drivers) but it's better than dying of thirst (or, better than having no 3d drivers at all). nVidia has no real motivation to give us open-source 3d drivers in the first place, so refusing to use their closed driver won't make them change their minds.
Even if the driver is open source, the chipset documentation might not be. As others have mentioned, it's hard to know how to write a good driver working with nothing more than a bad driver. You need good documentation.
I found Assassin's Creed to be pretty immersive. I also have to second the Metroid Prime experience as being quite well done (I own MP and MP: Echoes, but I don't own a system to play them on...).
Ubuntu will run on any relatively mainstream system. Dell's machines, in particular, are quite Ubuntu-friendly. Drivers were an issue three years ago, but not so much now.
As for "run their software", that's why it's valid to make OSS for Windows. Some people are locked into Windows for one reason or another - "We have to use Joe's Address Mangler 3.0 for Windows" - so the solution is to provide OSS programs to fill as many needs as possible.
The sooner we can make OSS "their software", the sooner they'll convert to Linux.
It seems your definition of "open source" is different than mine. You see, last I checked, GPL'ed source code qualifies as "open source". I - and most of the OSS world - would consider the ability to get the source code and modify it to your heart's desire - and distribute those changes - a pretty good indication of the "free-ness" of the software.
Also, I fail to see how writing an open source .NET runtime makes the Mono team Microsoft's lapdogs... or do you call Apache's developers Microsoft's lapdogs now, too, since MS is funding some Apache development? Or perhaps you think that anything Microsoft has developed is not truly free, regardless of the license it's distrubted under?
The sort of rabid anti-Microsoft sentiment you're showing here is precisely the attitude that makes people avoid Linux, and open source software in general. I suggest toning it down - a lot - if you're really interested in converting the masses to an open platform.
Would you prefer that I closed the source to my .NET-based OSS project?