XP-SP3 yielded a ~10% performance gain over SP2 on the same hardware. So while it may consume more memory, there's little reason to still be running SP2--especially since it's from 2004.
There's a reason why you can't find that--because it's not true. XP-SP3 still only requires 64MB RAM, just like SP2 did. How do I know this? I've got a Toshiba Libretto 110CT w/64MB RAM running XP Pro-SP3 just fine... (Granted, I run it in Classic mode, shut down a bunch of services, and I don't run more than 1 app on it at once--but it works).
If nothing else, there should be a boxless cable option for any TV that can tune into digital signals with a built in tuner. A special cable box should simply not be required.
Have you ever tried to manage digital cable channels on a QAM-capable digital TV? Assuming the channel is unencrypted, which sometimes they "accidentally" become encrypted, companies like Comcast & Time Warner Cable give the digital channels bizarre numbers (I've seen things like channel "103-221"). Once you get used to a numbering, they switch them around, requiring you to spend 20-30 minutes to rescan the channels (e.g. "103-221" is now "97-87"). Their goal is to make it so inconvenient and frustrating in order to get you to rent the box, so you won't have to deal with the hassle of their movements.
Cable boxes get a secondary data stream that says "make QAM channel 97-87" appear as "201" so when they play the QAM shuffle, it's transparent to those who rent the cable box...
So why is it such a bad problem for countries that make this stuff to get it back when we (Western countries, not just the US) no longer need/want it? I'm singling out China but not Africa here...
Let's be fair... I don't want anyone, especially children, being exposed to chemicals involved in e-waste. But I'm of the mindset that if you want to take our jobs away and make a product cheaper than we (Western countries) can make it, then why shouldn't you (China) get it back when we don't want it or it's no longer useful? This treaty basically states that countries that manufacture items get the benefit and profit of manufacture, while incurring little-to-none of the costs of disposal. US landfills have had to deal with e-waste since the early days of radio and TV--most of which were manufactured here...
To add, I have little sympathy for countries that can't or won't control what they import. Each country is responsible for what comes across its borders. It's not like someone's hiding 2 CRT monitors in the trunk of a car & driving them into China--we're talking about huge shipping containers full of these items. If Chinese officials are too corrupt, unwilling, or inept to stop the flow of e-waste, then they get what they deserve...
I'm curious to know if anyone has tried IE7 or IE8 on an older computer running XP that has less than 256MB RAM? Such PCs (barely) meet the requirements for XP, and since IE is "inextricably part of the OS", Microsoft is IMHO on the hook to come up with a solution for such users...
For example, I have an old Toshiba Libretto 110CT. The specs: Pentium-MMX, 233MHz, 64MB RAM, 160GB PATA HD (I upgraded for the better access rate, since it only supports PIO mode), 802.11b WiFi... Going above 64MB RAM is not an option (excluding one hack that requires soldering and could bring it up to a massive 96MB). It's a neat little toy, especially for DOS games, and works reasonably well with XP Pro, Office XP, WordPerfect 11, etc.--especially after I disable 7 unnecessary services. Firefox 3.6 is painful on it, but it runs better than earlier versions of Firefox due to improvements in Javascript. IE6 runs reasonably well--better than Firefox. So, I'm curious--is IE7 or IE8 worth a try on this thing?
I know IE7 sucks with Javascript, so should I just go to IE8? Has anyone even tried IE7/8 on a very low end PC that barely meets XP & IE specs? Even IE8 says it needs only 64MB RAM. (I still need access to Windows Update and the occasional website...)
Out of curiosity, I was looking for motherboards that still support ISA, and apparently there's still a market...
This ATX board I found, supporting C2Duo/C2Quad processors, has ISA, 4x serial, parallel, FDD, PS/2 mouse & keyboard, etc., in addition to dual gigabit Ethernet, RAID, SATA, PCI-Express x16, PCI, HD audio, DDR2, etc.
Not every SSD is treated equally. While they often have a 0.1ms access rate, writing to SSDs is often slower than HDs. The goal is to hope that you do more reads than writes. To add, the technology is just too new (questions about long-term reliability) and expensive to be deployed throughout a company. Generally speaking, on servers you'd use SSDs for databases that are heavily weighted to reads while using HDs for databases heavily weighted to writes.
Here's why this guy is being asked that... Suppose Machine A is "5% faster" than Machine B at the same price point for a common task. Let's say that task is something everyone does often and is easy to measure: booting up. So, if Machine A takes 60 seconds to boot, Machine B takes (0.95*60)=57 seconds--3 seconds faster.
So, here's how the C-level execs think... Say you have 1000 employees, each saving 3 seconds/day in bootup time. 1000 employees * 3 seconds/day = 3000 man-seconds/day. 3000 man-seconds/day * (approx) 225 work days/year = 675,000 man-seconds/year = 187.5 man-hours/year saved! Just think of how much more productive we are due to that 5%!
Of course, that assumes that all your employees are robots and use every second of time productively. To add, by the time the OP gets all the machines, runs the benchmarks, and creates the pretty PowerPoint slides for the C-level execs, this little experiment probably cost the company a lot more than 187.5 hours... (Although you could probably shoehorn a 3-4-year NPV calculation showing a savings for this project...)
I'm confused... Can XP not access the entire drive or does it have problems booting off of it?
I have a Toshiba Libretto 110CT with a 160GB PATA drive with XP-SP3. I knew that the BIOS couldn't see above the 8GB barrier, but in researching how to resolve this, I found out that XP-SP1+ (or W2K-SP3+) can access the whole drive... The trick is to set the boot partition no larger than what the BIOS can read--2GB, 8GB, 32GB, etc. After it boots, NT uses its LBA-aware disk management driver, ignoring the BIOS. So I set it up with an 8GB primary partition and the rest as a secondary partition & it works fine...
Your dates are slightly off... I paid $345 for a 340MB HD in Dec. 1993 at Micro Center. (Wow! A "buck a meg!") By Aug. 1995, I paid $240 for a 1.2GB HD at Best Buy. What really pissed me off was that the 486DX2/66 I bought a year earlier couldn't go past the ~500MB limit and I had to use Ontrack Disk Manager. Unfortunately, it didn't work right with DOS games, Win 3.1x 32-bit File Access, etc., so I returned it...
Think about it... Panasonic makes multiple models of plasma TVs. Within a product line (i.e. models that end in "8" vs. "80" vs. "800"), the ONLY difference is what's enabled in the firmware, the $5 embedded speakers, and maybe the plasma panel--the chipset is identical. As consumers, we put up with that and accept that the "8" model is $1000 cheaper than the "800" model...
It didn't help that Microsoft didn't offer IE7 to Windows 2000 users. Sure, all W2K support ends in June, but not offering it artificially kept organizations on IE6...
Why would it have been important? If you were running a mixed W2K-XP shop in the 2006-2009 era, 2006 being the first year of availability for IE7, you kept IE6 unless you wanted to spend big bucks to support two browser versions internally. W2K was still in wide corporate use in 2006-2007--IE7 and Office 2007 were the first major apps that wouldn't run on W2K...
Personally, I think that not offering IE7 on W2K was a huge mistake... It would be the equivalent of Microsoft not offering IE8 on XP.
Backwards-compatiabiliy [sic] makes me sad.
===============
Why on earth would we want to run our 32-bit apps written last year when they could be compiled as 64-bit?
HINT: There's a lot of old code out there that 1) works as it should, 2) the company that wrote it no longer exists and the source-code is gone.
What's more, the only coal plants that can be augmented by solar are those in sunny areas with enough nearby land to accommodate the mirror arrays.
Why couldn't a small array be put on the roof of a landlocked coal plant? Granted, the smokestack would cause relatively small shadows in parts of the array as the sun moves across the sky, but as long as the array is large enough to work with (say) 10% failure, then wouldn't a small array still be useful?
I'm assuming by fraction you mean somewhere between.9 and 1.1. Yes, if you had some ancient, assed-out Multia running at 166MHz you weren't going to be happy compared to a then-smoking 450MHz P3. However, at the same time Intel was stuck around 450MHz, Digital was cranking their processors to much higher clock speeds.
Except the example you use is of a more powerful server or workstation-class behemoth trying to run x86 desktop/notebook class software. That's doable and probably quite useful. But here, we're talking about an underpowered ARM netbook trying to run x86 desktop/notebook class software. The user experience will suck. So why not just go with an x86 netbook and run everything natively?
Give my Blackberry enough RAM and it could probably run MS-Office--but it would suck...
Slashdot Mirror
Such people are called "Wii Wiis".
Try again...
XP-SP3 yielded a ~10% performance gain over SP2 on the same hardware. So while it may consume more memory, there's little reason to still be running SP2--especially since it's from 2004.
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windows-xp-sp3-yields-performance-gains.html
There's a reason why you can't find that--because it's not true. XP-SP3 still only requires 64MB RAM, just like SP2 did. How do I know this? I've got a Toshiba Libretto 110CT w/64MB RAM running XP Pro-SP3 just fine... (Granted, I run it in Classic mode, shut down a bunch of services, and I don't run more than 1 app on it at once--but it works).
Have you ever tried to manage digital cable channels on a QAM-capable digital TV? Assuming the channel is unencrypted, which sometimes they "accidentally" become encrypted, companies like Comcast & Time Warner Cable give the digital channels bizarre numbers (I've seen things like channel "103-221"). Once you get used to a numbering, they switch them around, requiring you to spend 20-30 minutes to rescan the channels (e.g. "103-221" is now "97-87"). Their goal is to make it so inconvenient and frustrating in order to get you to rent the box, so you won't have to deal with the hassle of their movements.
Cable boxes get a secondary data stream that says "make QAM channel 97-87" appear as "201" so when they play the QAM shuffle , it's transparent to those who rent the cable box...
So why is it such a bad problem for countries that make this stuff to get it back when we (Western countries, not just the US) no longer need/want it? I'm singling out China but not Africa here...
Let's be fair... I don't want anyone, especially children, being exposed to chemicals involved in e-waste. But I'm of the mindset that if you want to take our jobs away and make a product cheaper than we (Western countries) can make it, then why shouldn't you (China) get it back when we don't want it or it's no longer useful? This treaty basically states that countries that manufacture items get the benefit and profit of manufacture, while incurring little-to-none of the costs of disposal. US landfills have had to deal with e-waste since the early days of radio and TV--most of which were manufactured here...
To add, I have little sympathy for countries that can't or won't control what they import. Each country is responsible for what comes across its borders. It's not like someone's hiding 2 CRT monitors in the trunk of a car & driving them into China--we're talking about huge shipping containers full of these items. If Chinese officials are too corrupt, unwilling, or inept to stop the flow of e-waste, then they get what they deserve...
[End of rant...]
I'm curious to know if anyone has tried IE7 or IE8 on an older computer running XP that has less than 256MB RAM? Such PCs (barely) meet the requirements for XP, and since IE is "inextricably part of the OS", Microsoft is IMHO on the hook to come up with a solution for such users...
For example, I have an old Toshiba Libretto 110CT. The specs: Pentium-MMX, 233MHz, 64MB RAM, 160GB PATA HD (I upgraded for the better access rate, since it only supports PIO mode), 802.11b WiFi... Going above 64MB RAM is not an option (excluding one hack that requires soldering and could bring it up to a massive 96MB). It's a neat little toy, especially for DOS games, and works reasonably well with XP Pro, Office XP, WordPerfect 11, etc.--especially after I disable 7 unnecessary services. Firefox 3.6 is painful on it, but it runs better than earlier versions of Firefox due to improvements in Javascript. IE6 runs reasonably well--better than Firefox. So, I'm curious--is IE7 or IE8 worth a try on this thing?
I know IE7 sucks with Javascript, so should I just go to IE8? Has anyone even tried IE7/8 on a very low end PC that barely meets XP & IE specs? Even IE8 says it needs only 64MB RAM. (I still need access to Windows Update and the occasional website...)
Out of curiosity, I was looking for motherboards that still support ISA, and apparently there's still a market...
This ATX board I found, supporting C2Duo/C2Quad processors, has ISA, 4x serial, parallel, FDD, PS/2 mouse & keyboard, etc., in addition to dual gigabit Ethernet, RAID, SATA, PCI-Express x16, PCI, HD audio, DDR2, etc.
http://www.adek.com/PDF/MB-P4BWA.pdf
Consequently, all Steve Jobs has to do is fart and CNN will announce the release of hot new gas from Apple.
(Seriously CNN... The iPad coverage is overkill. Even CNN's own user comments complain about the company's coverage...)
I'd consider an iPhone--if I wouldn't have to sell my soul to AT&T.
Gotta love AT&T. Years ago, they mailed me a phone bill for 3 cents.
Not every SSD is treated equally. While they often have a 0.1ms access rate, writing to SSDs is often slower than HDs. The goal is to hope that you do more reads than writes. To add, the technology is just too new (questions about long-term reliability) and expensive to be deployed throughout a company. Generally speaking, on servers you'd use SSDs for databases that are heavily weighted to reads while using HDs for databases heavily weighted to writes.
Here's why this guy is being asked that... Suppose Machine A is "5% faster" than Machine B at the same price point for a common task. Let's say that task is something everyone does often and is easy to measure: booting up. So, if Machine A takes 60 seconds to boot, Machine B takes (0.95*60)=57 seconds--3 seconds faster.
So, here's how the C-level execs think... Say you have 1000 employees, each saving 3 seconds/day in bootup time. 1000 employees * 3 seconds/day = 3000 man-seconds/day. 3000 man-seconds/day * (approx) 225 work days/year = 675,000 man-seconds/year = 187.5 man-hours/year saved! Just think of how much more productive we are due to that 5%!
Of course, that assumes that all your employees are robots and use every second of time productively. To add, by the time the OP gets all the machines, runs the benchmarks, and creates the pretty PowerPoint slides for the C-level execs, this little experiment probably cost the company a lot more than 187.5 hours... (Although you could probably shoehorn a 3-4-year NPV calculation showing a savings for this project...)
I'm confused... Can XP not access the entire drive or does it have problems booting off of it?
I have a Toshiba Libretto 110CT with a 160GB PATA drive with XP-SP3. I knew that the BIOS couldn't see above the 8GB barrier, but in researching how to resolve this, I found out that XP-SP1+ (or W2K-SP3+) can access the whole drive... The trick is to set the boot partition no larger than what the BIOS can read--2GB, 8GB, 32GB, etc. After it boots, NT uses its LBA-aware disk management driver, ignoring the BIOS. So I set it up with an 8GB primary partition and the rest as a secondary partition & it works fine...
Your dates are slightly off... I paid $345 for a 340MB HD in Dec. 1993 at Micro Center. (Wow! A "buck a meg!") By Aug. 1995, I paid $240 for a 1.2GB HD at Best Buy. What really pissed me off was that the 486DX2/66 I bought a year earlier couldn't go past the ~500MB limit and I had to use Ontrack Disk Manager. Unfortunately, it didn't work right with DOS games, Win 3.1x 32-bit File Access, etc., so I returned it...
Under the logic of the 9th Circuit, if you legally import a classic Jaguar from Europe, you have to get permission from Tata Motors to resell it!
Think about it... Panasonic makes multiple models of plasma TVs. Within a product line (i.e. models that end in "8" vs. "80" vs. "800"), the ONLY difference is what's enabled in the firmware, the $5 embedded speakers, and maybe the plasma panel--the chipset is identical. As consumers, we put up with that and accept that the "8" model is $1000 cheaper than the "800" model...
[sarcasm] That's totally impossible when using OSX. [/sarcasm]
The more I read about the iPad's failings, the more I'd love to do this to a (free) one...
"We never even turned it on!"
It didn't help that Microsoft didn't offer IE7 to Windows 2000 users. Sure, all W2K support ends in June, but not offering it artificially kept organizations on IE6...
Why would it have been important? If you were running a mixed W2K-XP shop in the 2006-2009 era, 2006 being the first year of availability for IE7, you kept IE6 unless you wanted to spend big bucks to support two browser versions internally. W2K was still in wide corporate use in 2006-2007--IE7 and Office 2007 were the first major apps that wouldn't run on W2K...
Personally, I think that not offering IE7 on W2K was a huge mistake... It would be the equivalent of Microsoft not offering IE8 on XP.
But don't worry, once you shit, you'll be exFAT.
32-bit lives?
Backwards-compatiabiliy [sic] makes me sad.
===============
Why on earth would we want to run our 32-bit apps written last year when they could be compiled as 64-bit?
HINT: There's a lot of old code out there that 1) works as it should, 2) the company that wrote it no longer exists and the source-code is gone.
Public: Shou£dn't you be ta£king in our £anguage?
Why couldn't a small array be put on the roof of a landlocked coal plant? Granted, the smokestack would cause relatively small shadows in parts of the array as the sun moves across the sky, but as long as the array is large enough to work with (say) 10% failure, then wouldn't a small array still be useful?
Simple question... Is PAE a reincarnation of LIM EMS, built into the CPU? (After all, the "I" in "LIM" stands for "Intel").
Except the example you use is of a more powerful server or workstation-class behemoth trying to run x86 desktop/notebook class software. That's doable and probably quite useful. But here, we're talking about an underpowered ARM netbook trying to run x86 desktop/notebook class software. The user experience will suck. So why not just go with an x86 netbook and run everything natively?
Give my Blackberry enough RAM and it could probably run MS-Office--but it would suck...