>>>The PC version is cheaper for at least three reasons I can think of:
PC games are cheaper, but the PC itself is not. I was able to get myself a Nintendo Gamecube for $50 in 2003 (as long as I purchased Zelda Wind Waker with it - it was a bundle deal). And I have never needed to upgrade the Gamecube since then. The Nintendo Wii is not yet in my collection but once it is, it too will be relatively cheap (~$150) and with no need to upgrade.
In contrast a PC, in order to run the games, must constantly be updated with more RAM, better graphics cards, and so on. And of course the initial cost is not cheap.... over $1000 to get a decent gaming PC. Basically 9-10 times more than what the gaming console costs.
And finally: Console games aren't really that much more expensive than PC games. In the last decade I have rarely spent more than $19 to buy my console games.
Except it was long ago decided that some kinds of "tinkering" are not allowed, under the laws of the U.S. Constitution (and other constitutions around the world). For example during the 1800s you were not allowed to tinker with some scrap metal and make a Cotton Gin out of it, because that invention was the exclusive right of Eli Whitney.
Neither are you allowed to "tinker" into existence a printing press that makes paper dollars or coins. And by extension, you are not allowed to tinker and make a machine that copies copyrighted games, or enables the use of those copies.
Perhaps you think that's not fair, but it was the system that was setup in 1789 (and existed for many years prior to that date as well). The government has the power to grant monopolies, for a limited time, to authors and inventors over their software and hardware, and to protect those monopolies from being infringed upon. If you object to this present system, petition for an amendment to strike that portion of the Constitution, and then you'll be free to tinker all that you wish.
For myself, I think Nintendo makes fantastic products, and therefore have no desire to steal them, nor do I understand why anyone would want to.
>>>Only difference is, the USA is on a smear campaign against Toyota and all import vehicles.
Yes because Toyota *deserves* to be smeared: - Engines were dying after only 20-30,000 miles, and should have been replaced under warranty, but Toyota refused. Toyota said the problem does not exist...... until the U.S. DOJ *forced* them to act.
- Same with accelerator pedals that suddenly "turn on" and refuse to stop. Toyota refused to acknowledge the problem, saying there is no problem, and several people died. AGAIN the U.S. DOJ had to *force* toyota to act.
- And so on.
Right now Toyota's actions are reminding me of American companies back in the 70s (Ford refusing to acknowledge their Pintos were exploding). Or more recently, like Microsoft towards the 40% failure rate of Xbox360s, who refuses to admit a problem exists.
"Firefox is a relic of a browser, use something like Chrome"
.
Uh huh. You remind me of my redneck pal who says anybody who drives anything other than Dodge is a fool. He bases his opinion on..... well basically nothing, and I bet you do too.
IMHO brand loyalty is silly. Look at the people who loyally stuck with Toyota..... and where it got them now. (Failing old-sludged engines, sticking accelerators that drive the cars off cliffs, and now priuses with prematurely-dying batteries.) Today's great company will eventually be tomorrow's hasbeen, and it looks like Toyota has fallen off that cliff. As GM did, Toyota sacrificed quality to churn-out more cars and become "#1".
BTW tests show Opera 10.5 is the fastest browser, not Chrome.
>>>One point, turning off the page file is never a good idea, it means that the few things that can be paged out quite happily without negative effect stay in memory, taking up room the cache could use to make the rig run faster. >>>
Then you just buy more RAM. - Or else accept that you won't be able to multitask 10 programs at once. You might only be limited to just 2-3 programs before RAM fills up. BUT you will have a more-responsive computer.
Yes, I suppose you can run an entire system where it all goes into "RAM", and you'll see it as "more responsive" simply because you never have to touch the hard drive. But turning off HDD caching is a BAD idea. It makes cache misses that much more expensive because then, instead of having even the chance of finding what you needed in RAM or in the HD's onboard cache, you have to wait for the H/D to spin up and seek to the right sector.
I find this counter-intuitive. Let's say for example that you click on a folder icon, a window opens, and now all the "pictures" for the various icons must be loaded before the window can be displayed. This process will go a LOT faster (instant) if the pictures/icons are stored in RAM, rather than on a slow disk (several seconds).
You are saying it would be slower to load from RAM, and I don't see how that can be.
As technology advances you can usually find more RAM squeezed on a single "stick" of RAM.
For example my old Windows 98 laptop had only 32 megabytes plus 64 megabyte expansion when purchased new. At the time it was the max available, but now ~10 years later people have squeezed 512 megabytes per stick. So my ancient laptop now has enough room to run Windows XP (nice and fast), Ubuntu Linux, or even Windows 7 (slow but it works).
>>>You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison, and you don't mention what software is running on either of your machines...
Nothing exotic. The Windows OS plus Firefox browser. My P4-XP-512MB machine runs faster than my brother's AMD X2-WIN7-3GB machine. XP is more responsive. .
>>>I've found Vista and Win7 to generally work better, giving decent enough hardware.
Well my Vista install was running Microsoft's minimum recommendation (512 megabytes) and ran like a snail through molasses. When I later upgraded it to 2 gig it did run better, but still nowhere as fast as my old 0.5 gig XP machine, which is why I eventually went back to XP.
My overall impression is that Vista is like a Beetle with a lot of chrome/pinstriping/et cetera. Looks good. Runs like crap.
What if the programs don't "play nice" and refuse to release their RAM when it's needed? (i.e. Internet Explorer is storing a bunch of images you downloaded two days ago, and refuses to erase them from cache.) Wouldn't that force the OS to do HDD thrashing?
I understand that's not supposed to happen, but neither was Vista supposed to be a flop. I no longer trust MS to implement this stuff correctly.
>>>The only system where it makes sense to disable swap space is a system with no HDD at all.
Or a system where, when you click on an icon, it opens the windows *instantly* not 1-2 seconds later (because it's retrieving data off the HDD). If you don't know what I'm talking about I respectfully suggest going to here and trying this OS on a bootable CD. You'll be amazed. http://puppylinux.com/
A computer that uses no hard drive caching, and runs completely in RAM, is faaaaaast. Of course with Windows, that means you'd need somewhere around 20 gigabytes of memory. Windows won't work otherwise.
>>>Do you really think the OS is trying it's hardest to make your computer go slower?
Apparently you've forgotten the dark days of Windows 95 or 98, where you would click on an icon, and have to wait 1-2 minutes for the OS to finish thrashing your HDD, due to not having enough RAM to run properly. (Or more recently: Vista or WIN7 on a 256 megabyte machine.)
I do energy analysis for systems, and "active RAM" does in fact use more energy than idle RAM. Not a huge difference but enough to add-up over multiple banks and affect the size of a power supply (for worst case). Active RAM has the same periodic refresh cycle of idle RAM, but also the constant reading/writing of data over the system bus, which means about twice the energy used.
Therefore I concur with the grandparent poster's statement.
Or people that take the time to explain WHY my post was wrong. Which part is wrong? Where I said my brothers Win7 machine runs slower than my XP machine? That's not something you can demonstrate, because you have not seen his machine or my machine.
What else was wrong? The part where I said Puppy Linux runs like a speed demon, because it sits wholly-and-completely in RAM? Perhaps I did make an error there, but I don't think so. Puppy IS fast.
Maybe the part about HDD caching slowing things down?
I could be wrong there, since I'm not an expert but I remember the dark, dark days when my computer when spend 2-3 minutes just to redraw a Word document. Why? Because it was using the HDD like memory, instead of using the actual memory. It seems to me that this problem, while minimized, has never completely gone away.
Anyway telling me "you're wrong" doesn't enlighten either me, or the other readers. Please elucidate.
If the RAM is filled with a lot of crap, such that the OS must keep loading of the HDD to get information, that slooooows system performance not speed it up.
I know my brother's Windows/Vista 7 system with ~3000 megabytes still seems slower than my XP system with 500 meg. Considering he has the new dual-processor technology (AMD X2) where have an old single-core P4, it should be the opposite. I'm still trying to figure out why his new PC is slower.
Someday I'd like to have a system where I have enough RAM to turn-off HDD caching completely.
I know when I run Puppy Linux, which fits entirely within ~30 megabytes of RAM, the system is the most responsive OS I've ever seen. No HDD caching means no slowdown or pregnant pauses.
I can understand C64_love's frustration. When some mods purposely damage your reputation/karma, you lose your ability to post for 1-2 days time. You feel that you are being muzzled like a Chinese citizen instead of a free person.
NOBODY should set out to destroy another slashdotter like that.
Especially since the U.S. hatched this idiotic plan to FINE me for not having health insurance. That's the kind of policy I would expect to be coming out of China, or Cuba, or the former Soviet Union, not the land of the free.
And then there's all the other abuses, like detaining a young man because he was carrying $4000 cash & threatening to turn him over to the Drug Enfrocement Agency. Or arresting Professor Gates *while he was in his own home*. Or pulling over my car, and making me stand around for an hour, because I refused to let them look inside my trunk w/o a warrant. Or beating a Pastor to a pulp because he too refused to consent to a warrantless search. Or jailing people for protesting against Bush. Or..., Or... Or...
I no longer trust the U.S. government farther than I can pick it up & throw it.
The wiretaps can be used to monitor and make enemies disappear. To search homes without warrant. To arrest people without jury trial. And so on. All the necessary tools/laws are in place for a future president, someone like Mao or Robespierre or Pol Pot, to use the U.S. government for his own ends. If you believe that can't happen, then go study the history of the Roman Republic.
The leased services still exist over Fiber, and actually enable Verizon to sell MORE leases not less. Nice try though to paint Verizon as an evil corporation out to screw everybody.
It's a common misconception that the U.S. is "falling behind" but the statistics don't sustain it. When you compare continent-sized federations (like the U.S.) to other continent-sized federations, we are doing just fine:
Russian Federation 8.3 Mbit/s US 7.0 EU 6.6 Canada 5.7 Australia 5.1 China 3.0 Brazil 2.1 Mexico 1.1 Mbit/s
And if you prefer to look on a state-by-state basis of the EU, US, and Canada then you get: 1 Sweden 13 Mbit/s 2 Delaware, Romania,Netherlands,Bulgaria 12 3 Washington,Rhode Island 11 4 Massachusetts 10 5 New Jersey,Virginia,New Hampshire,New York 9 6 British Columbia,Colorado,Connecticut,Arizona, Slovakia 8 Mbit/s
Yeah I don't understand why Youtube (especially on VEVO) keeps pushing the size of vids higher?
I used to be able to youtube on my laptop's dialup modem (after a short buffer time). But not anymore. I'm just looking for entertainment, not HD quality.
Your story is why government needs to mandate DSL be connected to any home-owner that asks for it. The DSLAM is there. The wrires a re there. All that's missing is the final sale to you as a customer.
Japan's internet is almost nothing but DSL, and they have the world's second-fastest connections. Let's copy Japan's example.
Laws can be rewritten, and rights-of-way revoked, so Comcast has to share the *government's* underground steel pipe with Cox, Cablevision, T-W, et cetera.
Disagree. Microsoft or Comcast may be evil, but they can't force me into jail, suck dollars out of my paycheck, or draft me to go die in 'Nam or Iraq like government can.
I prefer capitalism where I can tell Microsoft or Comcast to "fuck off" and not buy their products. That option doesn't exist with government (which apparently will fine me $1000 for not having healthcare insurance).
Slashdot Mirror
>>>The PC version is cheaper for at least three reasons I can think of:
PC games are cheaper, but the PC itself is not. I was able to get myself a Nintendo Gamecube for $50 in 2003 (as long as I purchased Zelda Wind Waker with it - it was a bundle deal). And I have never needed to upgrade the Gamecube since then. The Nintendo Wii is not yet in my collection but once it is, it too will be relatively cheap (~$150) and with no need to upgrade.
In contrast a PC, in order to run the games, must constantly be updated with more RAM, better graphics cards, and so on. And of course the initial cost is not cheap.... over $1000 to get a decent gaming PC. Basically 9-10 times more than what the gaming console costs.
And finally: Console games aren't really that much more expensive than PC games.
In the last decade I have rarely spent more than $19 to buy my console games.
>>>my right to tinker
Except it was long ago decided that some kinds of "tinkering" are not allowed, under the laws of the U.S. Constitution (and other constitutions around the world). For example during the 1800s you were not allowed to tinker with some scrap metal and make a Cotton Gin out of it, because that invention was the exclusive right of Eli Whitney.
Neither are you allowed to "tinker" into existence a printing press that makes paper dollars or coins. And by extension, you are not allowed to tinker and make a machine that copies copyrighted games, or enables the use of those copies.
Perhaps you think that's not fair, but it was the system that was setup in 1789 (and existed for many years prior to that date as well). The government has the power to grant monopolies, for a limited time, to authors and inventors over their software and hardware, and to protect those monopolies from being infringed upon. If you object to this present system, petition for an amendment to strike that portion of the Constitution, and then you'll be free to tinker all that you wish.
For myself, I think Nintendo makes fantastic products, and therefore have no desire to steal them, nor do I understand why anyone would want to.
No. After all you need someplace to load programs (like MS Word) from, or a place to store the documents. That's what the HDD is for.
>>>Only difference is, the USA is on a smear campaign against Toyota and all import vehicles.
Yes because Toyota *deserves* to be smeared:
- Engines were dying after only 20-30,000 miles, and should have been replaced under warranty, but Toyota refused. Toyota said the problem does not exist...... until the U.S. DOJ *forced* them to act.
- Same with accelerator pedals that suddenly "turn on" and refuse to stop. Toyota refused to acknowledge the problem, saying there is no problem, and several people died. AGAIN the U.S. DOJ had to *force* toyota to act.
- And so on.
Right now Toyota's actions are reminding me of American companies back in the 70s (Ford refusing to acknowledge their Pintos were exploding). Or more recently, like Microsoft towards the 40% failure rate of Xbox360s, who refuses to admit a problem exists.
>>>then everything will stop working. That's why a page file is a good idea
They won't stop working. Windows or Linux will give you the option to turn-off some of those processes, so you can only run ~40 instead of 80.
BTW don't you 81 is a little excessive? I've only got 4 running right now (because I want the machine to run fast, now slow).
"Firefox is a relic of a browser, use something like Chrome"
.
Uh huh. You remind me of my redneck pal who says anybody who drives anything other than Dodge is a fool. He bases his opinion on..... well basically nothing, and I bet you do too.
IMHO brand loyalty is silly. Look at the people who loyally stuck with Toyota..... and where it got them now. (Failing old-sludged engines, sticking accelerators that drive the cars off cliffs, and now priuses with prematurely-dying batteries.) Today's great company will eventually be tomorrow's hasbeen, and it looks like Toyota has fallen off that cliff. As GM did, Toyota sacrificed quality to churn-out more cars and become "#1".
BTW tests show Opera 10.5 is the fastest browser, not Chrome.
>>>One point, turning off the page file is never a good idea, it means that the few things that can be paged out quite happily without negative effect stay in memory, taking up room the cache could use to make the rig run faster.
>>>
Then you just buy more RAM. - Or else accept that you won't be able to multitask 10 programs at once. You might only be limited to just 2-3 programs before RAM fills up. BUT you will have a more-responsive computer.
Yes, I suppose you can run an entire system where it all goes into "RAM", and you'll see it as "more responsive" simply because you never have to touch the hard drive. But turning off HDD caching is a BAD idea. It makes cache misses that much more expensive because then, instead of having even the chance of finding what you needed in RAM or in the HD's onboard cache, you have to wait for the H/D to spin up and seek to the right sector.
I find this counter-intuitive. Let's say for example that you click on a folder icon, a window opens, and now all the "pictures" for the various icons must be loaded before the window can be displayed. This process will go a LOT faster (instant) if the pictures/icons are stored in RAM, rather than on a slow disk (several seconds).
You are saying it would be slower to load from RAM, and I don't see how that can be.
As technology advances you can usually find more RAM squeezed on a single "stick" of RAM.
For example my old Windows 98 laptop had only 32 megabytes plus 64 megabyte expansion when purchased new. At the time it was the max available, but now ~10 years later people have squeezed 512 megabytes per stick. So my ancient laptop now has enough room to run Windows XP (nice and fast), Ubuntu Linux, or even Windows 7 (slow but it works).
>>>You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison, and you don't mention what software is running on either of your machines...
Nothing exotic. The Windows OS plus Firefox browser. My P4-XP-512MB machine runs faster than my brother's AMD X2-WIN7-3GB machine. XP is more responsive.
.
>>>I've found Vista and Win7 to generally work better, giving decent enough hardware.
Well my Vista install was running Microsoft's minimum recommendation (512 megabytes) and ran like a snail through molasses. When I later upgraded it to 2 gig it did run better, but still nowhere as fast as my old 0.5 gig XP machine, which is why I eventually went back to XP.
My overall impression is that Vista is like a Beetle with a lot of chrome/pinstriping/et cetera. Looks good. Runs like crap.
What if the programs don't "play nice" and refuse to release their RAM when it's needed? (i.e. Internet Explorer is storing a bunch of images you downloaded two days ago, and refuses to erase them from cache.) Wouldn't that force the OS to do HDD thrashing?
I understand that's not supposed to happen, but neither was Vista supposed to be a flop. I no longer trust MS to implement this stuff correctly.
>>>The only system where it makes sense to disable swap space is a system with no HDD at all.
Or a system where, when you click on an icon, it opens the windows *instantly* not 1-2 seconds later (because it's retrieving data off the HDD). If you don't know what I'm talking about I respectfully suggest going to here and trying this OS on a bootable CD. You'll be amazed. http://puppylinux.com/
A computer that uses no hard drive caching, and runs completely in RAM, is faaaaaast. Of course with Windows, that means you'd need somewhere around 20 gigabytes of memory. Windows won't work otherwise.
>>>Do you really think the OS is trying it's hardest to make your computer go slower?
Apparently you've forgotten the dark days of Windows 95 or 98, where you would click on an icon, and have to wait 1-2 minutes for the OS to finish thrashing your HDD, due to not having enough RAM to run properly. (Or more recently: Vista or WIN7 on a 256 megabyte machine.)
I do energy analysis for systems, and "active RAM" does in fact use more energy than idle RAM. Not a huge difference but enough to add-up over multiple banks and affect the size of a power supply (for worst case). Active RAM has the same periodic refresh cycle of idle RAM, but also the constant reading/writing of data over the system bus, which means about twice the energy used.
Therefore I concur with the grandparent poster's statement.
Or people that take the time to explain WHY my post was wrong. Which part is wrong? Where I said my brothers Win7 machine runs slower than my XP machine? That's not something you can demonstrate, because you have not seen his machine or my machine.
What else was wrong? The part where I said Puppy Linux runs like a speed demon, because it sits wholly-and-completely in RAM? Perhaps I did make an error there, but I don't think so. Puppy IS fast.
Maybe the part about HDD caching slowing things down?
I could be wrong there, since I'm not an expert but I remember the dark, dark days when my computer when spend 2-3 minutes just to redraw a Word document. Why? Because it was using the HDD like memory, instead of using the actual memory. It seems to me that this problem, while minimized, has never completely gone away.
Anyway telling me "you're wrong" doesn't enlighten either me, or the other readers. Please elucidate.
If the RAM is filled with a lot of crap, such that the OS must keep loading of the HDD to get information, that slooooows system performance not speed it up.
I know my brother's Windows/Vista 7 system with ~3000 megabytes still seems slower than my XP system with 500 meg. Considering he has the new dual-processor technology (AMD X2) where have an old single-core P4, it should be the opposite. I'm still trying to figure out why his new PC is slower.
Someday I'd like to have a system where I have enough RAM to turn-off HDD caching completely.
I know when I run Puppy Linux, which fits entirely within ~30 megabytes of RAM, the system is the most responsive OS I've ever seen. No HDD caching means no slowdown or pregnant pauses.
I can understand C64_love's frustration. When some mods purposely damage your reputation/karma, you lose your ability to post for 1-2 days time. You feel that you are being muzzled like a Chinese citizen instead of a free person.
NOBODY should set out to destroy another slashdotter like that.
He had police break into his home w/o permission.
He had every right to be angry, and his comments ARE protected by the first amendment.
=]=
I disagree.
Especially since the U.S. hatched this idiotic plan to FINE me for not having health insurance. That's the kind of policy I would expect to be coming out of China, or Cuba, or the former Soviet Union, not the land of the free.
And then there's all the other abuses, like detaining a young man because he was carrying $4000 cash & threatening to turn him over to the Drug Enfrocement Agency. Or arresting Professor Gates *while he was in his own home*. Or pulling over my car, and making me stand around for an hour, because I refused to let them look inside my trunk w/o a warrant. Or beating a Pastor to a pulp because he too refused to consent to a warrantless search. Or jailing people for protesting against Bush. Or..., Or... Or...
I no longer trust the U.S. government farther than I can pick it up & throw it.
The wiretaps can be used to monitor and make enemies disappear. To search homes without warrant. To arrest people without jury trial. And so on. All the necessary tools/laws are in place for a future president, someone like Mao or Robespierre or Pol Pot, to use the U.S. government for his own ends. If you believe that can't happen, then go study the history of the Roman Republic.
The leased services still exist over Fiber, and actually enable Verizon to sell MORE leases not less. Nice try though to paint Verizon as an evil corporation out to screw everybody.
Yes Verizon FiOS is a good deal. $49.95 a month is the lowest rate (15 Mbit/s) which costs the same as Comcast charges me, but three times faster.
And for only $35 more you can get BOTH TV and phone. So figure $20 for the phone and $15 for the cable TV.
Again, that beats cable.
It's a common misconception that the U.S. is "falling behind" but the statistics don't sustain it. When you compare continent-sized federations (like the U.S.) to other continent-sized federations, we are doing just fine:
Russian Federation 8.3 Mbit/s
US 7.0
EU 6.6
Canada 5.7
Australia 5.1
China 3.0
Brazil 2.1
Mexico 1.1 Mbit/s
And if you prefer to look on a state-by-state basis of the EU, US, and Canada then you get:
1 Sweden 13 Mbit/s
2 Delaware, Romania,Netherlands,Bulgaria 12
3 Washington,Rhode Island 11
4 Massachusetts 10
5 New Jersey,Virginia,New Hampshire,New York 9
6 British Columbia,Colorado,Connecticut,Arizona, Slovakia 8 Mbit/s
Yeah I don't understand why Youtube (especially on VEVO) keeps pushing the size of vids higher?
I used to be able to youtube on my laptop's dialup modem (after a short buffer time). But not anymore. I'm just looking for entertainment, not HD quality.
Your story is why government needs to mandate DSL be connected to any home-owner that asks for it. The DSLAM is there. The wrires a re there. All that's missing is the final sale to you as a customer.
Japan's internet is almost nothing but DSL, and they have the world's second-fastest connections. Let's copy Japan's example.
Laws can be rewritten, and rights-of-way revoked, so Comcast has to share the *government's* underground steel pipe with Cox, Cablevision, T-W, et cetera.
Disagree. Microsoft or Comcast may be evil, but they can't force me into jail, suck dollars out of my paycheck, or draft me to go die in 'Nam or Iraq like government can.
I prefer capitalism where I can tell Microsoft or Comcast to "fuck off" and not buy their products. That option doesn't exist with government (which apparently will fine me $1000 for not having healthcare insurance).