Often you have to dismantle the entire laptop to get at the HSF.
Removable dust filters sure would be nice. Thanks to those my desktop is cleaner on the inside than the outside. Even after 1.5 years of neglect in a dusty room, it was spick and span when I went to work on it a couple of weeks ago.
* My [Nvidia/ATI] anecdote trumps your [Nvidia/ATI] anecdote. You are stupid for buying their products.
* [Nvidia/ATI] has terrible drivers. You are stupid for buying their products.
* [Nvidia/ATI] produced hardware with a design flaw 25 generations ago. I will never buy their hardware again.
* Based on my comprehensive study of one graphics card, here is my 100% accurate assessment of the failure rate of every graphics card [Nvidia/ATI] produces. I will never buy their hardware again.
* Here's an opinion I formed more than ten years ago. Presumably it's still relevant because technology moves so incredibly slowly. You are stupid for buying [Nvidia/ATI]'s products.
It isn't about organisation. For me it's the instantaneous access / buffering they facilitate. I could wait five seconds for every page to load as I navigate through them one at a time, or I could open them all at once and have it done in advance.
Usually I open everything I want to read in tabs, then read them all later. No need to wait if the connection is being hogged by torrents; no need for an internet connection to watch streaming videos, etc.
I can have everything I want instantly with just a tiny amount of initial effort. It's what computers are all about.
I didn't mean to imply that they aren't bad. I know they are.
I was just affirming his last paragraph. GPU drivers for Vista were unusually bad for a while after it was released. The article's statistics aren't really applicable anymore.
Knowing the physics doesn't help if you have no idea how human perception works, or why the scientific method works the way it does, etc.
If you believe your senses are completely accurate and you never test anything properly, you're going to come to some astoundingly retarded conclusions no matter how smart you are.
Perhaps that's possible, but Steward is using those SATA cables on his NAS device, so the noise would also have to propagate across his network to the audio system.
The best part is the claim that it improves the "rhythmic progression" of the songs and makes them sound like they're being played live.
Maybe this isn't apparent if you haven't made music yourself, but that's equivalent to thinking a SATA cable can refactor your code, or that it can change the style of your drawings. The level of stupidity involved here is beyond the pale.
Re:All part of their core business
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 1
Why do you believe it is the smallest meaningful unit of time?
I don't. I also don't believe the McAfee is the longest possible unit of time, in case you were wondering.;)
Re:Goal: boost need for per clock cycle performanc
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 1
McAfee came preinstalled on my netbook. It took around 5 minutes to boot. After logging in it took another minute for the desktop to become interactive. Opening a context menu took a few seconds. Starting applications usually took several seconds. Doing ANYTHING took seconds.
I don't know about you, but when I buy a new computer only to find that it's less responsive than my 1987 Amiga, I get pretty annoyed. And when I run taskmgr and see that one program is solely responsible, it kinda sours my opinion of that program.
So I uninstalled it. No more waiting for context menus, random stalling, long boots or tedious desktop loading times. It's almost as responsive as my primary desktop computer, as it should be.
In stark contrast with McAfee, installing MSE made no noticable difference to its responsiveness. I haven't used McAfee since then [last year].
Are you implying that Powered Feline Flight is not a respectable scientific publication?
Re:Goal: boost need for per clock cycle performanc
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Although it's a CPU hog, that doesn't matter much because [last I looked at it] the scanning process is single-threaded and every CPU has at least two cores nowadays.
The main performance drag is its never-ending HDD thrashing. Constant random reads are murderous for HDDs.
Of course, Intel also make SSDs, which don't suffer quite so much from that.:)
Re:All part of their core business
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 1
they plan to make it even slower
Impossible. You know how the Planck time is the smallest meaningful time unit? The McAfee is the longest.
Even more difficult is making non-shit programming tools that would allow us to do that in a reasonable amount of time. In fact it's so hard that nobody has ever done it. We're stuck with essentially the same old shit we were using 25 years ago.
As you can imagine, "Pay me ten times more to get the same program done in quadruple the time" isn't very compelling in a corporate environment.
(can't go faster, so lets just go the same speed, but in parallel).
Actually they do go faster. Clock speed doesn't mean processing speed. Modern CPUs do much more per clock cycle than their predecessors because of their greater instruction-level parallelism, shorter instruction latencies, larger caches, etc. While their cores don't generally operate at a higher frequency, they perform many times faster.
That's not even considering the additional cores and massively improved power efficiency. It's difficult to overstate just how fucking amazingly good CPUs are now.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha. The first thing that strikes me about that article is how they used a block diagram to explain the naming scheme .
Or maybe blow the dust bunnies out.
Often you have to dismantle the entire laptop to get at the HSF.
Removable dust filters sure would be nice. Thanks to those my desktop is cleaner on the inside than the outside. Even after 1.5 years of neglect in a dusty room, it was spick and span when I went to work on it a couple of weeks ago.
Yup. You can download everything from Bungie's site.
According to my calculator, that is DIVBYZERO times more than their competitors!
* My [Nvidia/ATI] anecdote trumps your [Nvidia/ATI] anecdote. You are stupid for buying their products.
* [Nvidia/ATI] has terrible drivers. You are stupid for buying their products.
* [Nvidia/ATI] produced hardware with a design flaw 25 generations ago. I will never buy their hardware again.
* Based on my comprehensive study of one graphics card, here is my 100% accurate assessment of the failure rate of every graphics card [Nvidia/ATI] produces. I will never buy their hardware again.
* Here's an opinion I formed more than ten years ago. Presumably it's still relevant because technology moves so incredibly slowly. You are stupid for buying [Nvidia/ATI]'s products.
Ha! I'd love to come last if it meant selling 60 million handhelds.
It isn't about organisation. For me it's the instantaneous access / buffering they facilitate. I could wait five seconds for every page to load as I navigate through them one at a time, or I could open them all at once and have it done in advance.
Usually I open everything I want to read in tabs, then read them all later. No need to wait if the connection is being hogged by torrents; no need for an internet connection to watch streaming videos, etc.
I can have everything I want instantly with just a tiny amount of initial effort. It's what computers are all about.
I got tired of the 50-to-60-hour work weeks.
The worst part is, it actually hurts productivity after a while. It only makes sense to do it for the very last couple of weeks of a project.
I didn't mean to imply that they aren't bad. I know they are.
I was just affirming his last paragraph. GPU drivers for Vista were unusually bad for a while after it was released. The article's statistics aren't really applicable anymore.
The debacle with Vista was a unique situation. It's not representative of the general trend.
Knowing the physics doesn't help if you have no idea how human perception works, or why the scientific method works the way it does, etc.
If you believe your senses are completely accurate and you never test anything properly, you're going to come to some astoundingly retarded conclusions no matter how smart you are.
A man's got to know his limitations.
Perhaps that's possible, but Steward is using those SATA cables on his NAS device, so the noise would also have to propagate across his network to the audio system.
The best part is the claim that it improves the "rhythmic progression" of the songs and makes them sound like they're being played live.
Maybe this isn't apparent if you haven't made music yourself, but that's equivalent to thinking a SATA cable can refactor your code, or that it can change the style of your drawings. The level of stupidity involved here is beyond the pale.
Why do you believe it is the smallest meaningful unit of time?
I don't. I also don't believe the McAfee is the longest possible unit of time, in case you were wondering. ;)
So what?
Well, let me recount my experience with it.
McAfee came preinstalled on my netbook. It took around 5 minutes to boot. After logging in it took another minute for the desktop to become interactive. Opening a context menu took a few seconds. Starting applications usually took several seconds. Doing ANYTHING took seconds.
I don't know about you, but when I buy a new computer only to find that it's less responsive than my 1987 Amiga, I get pretty annoyed. And when I run taskmgr and see that one program is solely responsible, it kinda sours my opinion of that program.
So I uninstalled it. No more waiting for context menus, random stalling, long boots or tedious desktop loading times. It's almost as responsive as my primary desktop computer, as it should be.
In stark contrast with McAfee, installing MSE made no noticable difference to its responsiveness. I haven't used McAfee since then [last year].
Are you implying that Powered Feline Flight is not a respectable scientific publication?
Although it's a CPU hog, that doesn't matter much because [last I looked at it] the scanning process is single-threaded and every CPU has at least two cores nowadays.
:)
The main performance drag is its never-ending HDD thrashing. Constant random reads are murderous for HDDs.
Of course, Intel also make SSDs, which don't suffer quite so much from that.
they plan to make it even slower
Impossible. You know how the Planck time is the smallest meaningful time unit? The McAfee is the longest.
Live is free on Windows too (though not so used besides a few titles).
Thank god.
Apparently the chucklefucks don't even read them, so feel free.
No, it proves that geeks aren't running Geek Squad.
They design the chips, plus a reference board and cooler for them. They don't manufacture anything.
Duh!
It's kinda difficult!
Even more difficult is making non-shit programming tools that would allow us to do that in a reasonable amount of time. In fact it's so hard that nobody has ever done it. We're stuck with essentially the same old shit we were using 25 years ago.
As you can imagine, "Pay me ten times more to get the same program done in quadruple the time" isn't very compelling in a corporate environment.
(can't go faster, so lets just go the same speed, but in parallel).
Actually they do go faster. Clock speed doesn't mean processing speed. Modern CPUs do much more per clock cycle than their predecessors because of their greater instruction-level parallelism, shorter instruction latencies, larger caches, etc. While their cores don't generally operate at a higher frequency, they perform many times faster.
That's not even considering the additional cores and massively improved power efficiency. It's difficult to overstate just how fucking amazingly good CPUs are now.