Even if you didn't like her or her movies, it could be argued that this site was designed to take traffic away from another site, given the nature of the star.
I own an LCD RPTV (Sony GW III), and IMHO lamping is still a big problem for projectors, even rear projection systems.
My TV is pretty good in ambient light, but not great -- I still find myself closing the drapes closest to the TV for daytime watching. You can always jack up the lumens with brighter lights, but this leads to heat problems and lamp replacement costs. I'm already scared for the replacement bulb price for my TV, which is only good for 3 years -- supposedly its a couple of hundred dollars.
Actual projectors are pretty worthless in any real ambient light in my experience; you need semi-darkness as best.
And it's not just ambient light, it's image quality. Projection systems usually have pretty crappy black levels. I can live with mine since I'm not that much of an image zealot (no ISF calibration, etc). But you also have uniformity issues, focus, etc.
> 3. I can backup and restore a Linux/UNIX box from a centralized tape backup system MUCH easier than a Windows server with custom RAID. You haven't experienced IT to the fullest until you tried to recover an older server class Windows NT/2000 box.
Okay, so you can use tar better on Unicies. Point taken.
Gak. I wouldn't trade tar for a stable Windows backup environment.
I think the parent poster's issue isn't so much with getting data off the tapes, but with the fact that most x86 boxen with RAID cards aren't just an empty disk drive you can dump raw data once it's been formatted, unless you're using one of the "image" restore systems.
My take on this is to keep AD servers and others who are a nuisance (but not impossible) to restore on their own hardware, with extra redundant disk setups.
Ordinary "member" servers have their data on a seperate partition (seperate logical disk if I can swing it). A cooked Win2k system takes only nominally longer to restore the OS than trying to dump OS+DATA at the same time. Since it has no particularly special OS configuration qualities, restoring the OS and rejoining the domain is trivial, and the real time is spent restoring the actual data from tape.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It does kind of reinforce the notion that a merger with a company with actual datacenter experience would expand Apple's datacenter credibility and improve the product to be functional in existing datacenters.
I've always wondered why Apple doesn't include a remote desktop type application with OS X for remote admin of OS X servers, or at least a curses version of Software Update at bare minimum. I guess I'm no longer beholden to the ssh-only lifestyle (too many years supporting 2K) anymore, so a remote desktop app would work for me.
I have to believe that OS X's display interface is both highly modular and modern enough that remote display ought to be fairly trivial. It is kind of ironic that I can remote desktop to my XP box from my OS X box, but I can't do the reverse, even from another OS X box.
When Jobs took over Apple again and began work in earnest on a UNIX-based MacOS, I thought that Apple should have bought SGI. At the time (er, still) SGI was in the toilet, but still had a wealth of valuable visualization and CG technology, not to mention some "real" industrial server platforms.
The useful bits of IRIX could have been merged into what became OSX. Apple could have gained some machine-room credibility, SGI could have obtained some valuable consumer end applications. I kind of envision a software-unified product line with Apple's ease of use and SGI's CGI muscle.
The finished product could have been a networked computer system with Macs on the desktop and SGI servers in the machine room, with apps running NUMA-style on whatever CPU they needed.
I had a similar fantasy about a Sun/Apple merger as well, but instead of focusing so much on media/visualization, it became the uber-alternative to Microsoft -- great, easy to use desktops AND servers you could build a total enterprise business out of, with the PHB's approval, all with a unified OS.
This last one could be an IBM fantasy, too, since it might be easy to build "fat" binaries that would on on Power and Apple's PPC variant at the same time (CPU pedants feel free to correct me).
Most people slap me down when I post this on Slashdot, with the idea that Apple is a "consumer company" and doesn't want to compete in the business space, but why bother with Xserve and other server-type techs if that's the case? There's enough interest in Mac-only solutions that a merger with someone who has industrial computing experience could create interest outside of boutique shops that run on Mac-only setups.
Every large company has a hold off on SP2 order so their IT staff can hit reload on Slashdot for a week or so to see if any "SP2 sux0rs!!11" stories get posted. If we go 2 weeks without one, expect it to get rolled out.
Another site to check are some of the gaming forums. If it doesn't trash Doom3 and the Slashbots pretending to work don't report problems, it must be OK.
The Xerox machine (yes, it was a XEROX-brand machine) in the dupe center circa 1990 had a modem for phoning home about product issues. That they've started using (demanding?) this with internet access is entirely believable.
Remember folks, the people with the final sign off are the guys who do/don't get a new car/boat/bimbo if extra money is spent on something like a working OS or development team.
Once a card with a "later" issue code in a sequence is used, the lock recognizes that "earlier" issue codes are no longer valid.
Presumably they don't honor newer issue codes UNLESS the "open" code also matches. If they did honor newer issue codes even if the open code was wrong, I could just DoS room locks when I checked in by swiping my card in everyone's lock..
I always wondered that. I've examined the doors closely and haven't seen any way for them to power the locks or communicate with them. I presume communication would be necessary to invalidate the access previously granted to lost or compromised cards.
I've just assumed that the power is delivered via hinges and wires buried in the door (which would mean custom doors or some sophisticated drilling to retrofit). I suppose you could have induction powering and communication of the reader via the door jam (simplifying installs).
What were your CPU utilization numbers using the RAID card vs. OS? Often the cheap cards and OS RAID nails you with a performance penalty due to the stripe work being done by the host CPU.
The ICHR6 controller (on the new series of mainboards) is supposed to be able to do RAID-0 *and* RAID-1 on the same pair of disks; the striping is accomplished at the physical partition level.
I can only presume that it's slower than a pure RAID setup on a dedicated spindle setup, but it would give you RAID-1 reliability and RAID-0 performance without the penalty of a second disc or set set of disks.
What I've been wondering lately is why RAID-1 redundancy couldn't be incorporated into the disks themselves, as a software selectable option -- have the same data written to multiple platters within the hard disk. An error localized to a single platter wouldn't hurt anything, since the data would be available on another platter. It wouldn't do much for controller failure or other mechanical problems that affected any seek/read/write. Not knowing what the most common failures are, it's hard to know if this would be worthwhile or not.
I just got a new system (Asus P4P800E-Deluxe, P43.2 Northwood) and it has a Promise PATA controller on the motherboard. Since I finally have a modern computer, I thought I'd set up a RAID-0 set for dinking around with video.
As it turned out, the Promise controller was about 20% slower in RAID-0 than Win XP was. Highly unscientific as I'm using the system's primary IDE controller for the RAID-0 set under XP and the Promise, the drives are a gross mismatch (UDMA-2 capable 9 + UDMA-5 capable 20 gig) and my benchmarking software is from the stone age. The feeling I get from actually using the system backs up the performance I get out of it, though.
Anyway, I was surprised to see your numbers showing a significant performance increase with hardware vs. software RAID. I'd expect that with a really expensive (full-on CPU, 64M+ cache, etc) controller, but not with the usual crop of low-end ATA RAID cards.
If money was no object, I'd probably setup a RAID-0+1 setup using my mainboard's Intel-chipset based SATA connectors.
I wonder why they can't do service packs that are continuously merged into one service pack, date-revisioned, for easy download/burning/installing -- in addition to the incremental "hotfix" type updates they release.
People mostly up to date can do the hotfixes, people far behind could install ONE service pack and get current without downloading 25MB of updates *and* a service pack installation. Sometimes you can be talking 4 or more install, reboot, download, etc cycles just to get current.
Until I read your post it hadn't occured to me that it may actually be cheaper to offer a bunch of apparently generous perks (free food/pop, vidgaming, etc) and cut-rate real ones than to offer none of the in-office ones but good health, dental, etc.
For a 500 person company, free pop would amount to about $120k per year. Add in BS like pizza on Fridays and a "fun" room (2 big screen TVs, PS2/XBOX, LAN setup and a half-dozen gaming PCs) and semi-annual company parties and even if it runs to $500k, you're talking only $1000 per employee per year, and likely much less.
I guess what I'm wondering now is, have these kind of bennies that seem to make for a "neat" company *always* been a sham to cover up other bennie shortcomings, or is this some twisted new thinking?
Is there a virtual CD-R(W) like Daemon Tools is for CDs?
That would be awesome then -- you could literally burn the data to a virtual device, and rip it back from the virtual device and never waste blanks. If they can stimulate a virtual CD, it would stand to reason that a virtual CD-R wouldn't be impossible.
Isn't the source of this problem Microsoft's relentless pursuit of "new" technologies, which they back and support for about 6-12 months and then replace with new, incompatibile technologies. And roughly during each technology's stint in the spotlight, some new Windows release comes out with some major system that relies on it, and, since vendors and developers deliver apps that rely on these technologies, Windows includes the new ones as well includes the previous iteration(s) of technologies.
Ultimately you end up with a hydra that no one can master and some meaningful portion of the customer base relies on. It only gets worse when *applications* get glued into the operating system (i.e., IE, or IIS), since not only are OS technologies getting mired, now applications are too.
Suddenly you're having to deliver Windows with so many backwards compatible technologies, it's a miracle it runs at all. I kind of wish I could profile my home XP box to see what libs I never even touch and then uninstall them.
they continue maximizing their return on investment for a computer system originally purchased well over thirty years ago
No, they maximized the return on their investment, probably years ago. Maximizing implies getting unfulfilled value out of their system. Unless their PDP is doing more today than it was yesterday, it's probably already achieved its maximal value.
A newer system could probably do more than their current system does now, the question is whether they have the business skills to expand the business to get maximum value out of their new system.
Can I become a CEO if I take a lot of acid and forget everything I know or do you just have to do a lot of coke?
I think coke and booze are the CEO drugs. Booze for ineptness and embarassment, coke for energy, irrationality and serotonin deficient tyranny.
If they took acid, they'd look around the office and go "What does it all mean? How can we come here day to day if it doesn't mean anything?" Meaning and philosophical harmony are the enemies of CEOs.
My bad, I was thinking of the 3400, not the 3200. When I did my research, the A64-3400 and the P4-3.2 were dead even on benchmarks, with a slight advantage in gaming for the 3400 and in multimedia for the P4-3.2.
Pricewatch has the Northwood P4 3.2 at US$252, the A64-3200 at $204 and the A64-3400 at $286, which is about $100 cheaper than when I looked closely about 2 months ago.
So you're right about the 3200, I'm right (but less so) about the 3400.
I'll just learn to keep my mouth shut about prices when my info isn't up to date. Mea Culpa.
Does it matter what the internal temp of the system or CPU is as long as its within normal operating parameters?
I have a P4-3.2 and at Web browsing levels its at 29C, and when rendering in TMPGEnc its around 40. BFD. Motherboard temp goes up around 4 degrees C.
I hear people talk about this like it matters. Maybe if you were calculating cooling on a room with hundreds of systems, but for Joe Jackoff and his home PC, who cares?
I priced out A64 3200+ when I bought my system; I read through a bunch of web sites and tallied the A64/P43.2 benchmarks and it was roughly a dead heat; slight gaming benchmark for A64, slight multimedia advantage P43.2.
P4 3.2 was way cheaper, though -- there was a premium to be paid for the A64 system.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you didn't like her or her movies, it could be argued that this site was designed to take traffic away from another site, given the nature of the star.
I own an LCD RPTV (Sony GW III), and IMHO lamping is still a big problem for projectors, even rear projection systems.
My TV is pretty good in ambient light, but not great -- I still find myself closing the drapes closest to the TV for daytime watching. You can always jack up the lumens with brighter lights, but this leads to heat problems and lamp replacement costs. I'm already scared for the replacement bulb price for my TV, which is only good for 3 years -- supposedly its a couple of hundred dollars.
Actual projectors are pretty worthless in any real ambient light in my experience; you need semi-darkness as best.
And it's not just ambient light, it's image quality. Projection systems usually have pretty crappy black levels. I can live with mine since I'm not that much of an image zealot (no ISF calibration, etc). But you also have uniformity issues, focus, etc.
> 3. I can backup and restore a Linux/UNIX box from a centralized tape backup system MUCH easier than a Windows server with custom RAID. You haven't experienced IT to the fullest until you tried to recover an older server class Windows NT/2000 box.
Okay, so you can use tar better on Unicies. Point taken.
Gak. I wouldn't trade tar for a stable Windows backup environment.
I think the parent poster's issue isn't so much with getting data off the tapes, but with the fact that most x86 boxen with RAID cards aren't just an empty disk drive you can dump raw data once it's been formatted, unless you're using one of the "image" restore systems.
My take on this is to keep AD servers and others who are a nuisance (but not impossible) to restore on their own hardware, with extra redundant disk setups.
Ordinary "member" servers have their data on a seperate partition (seperate logical disk if I can swing it). A cooked Win2k system takes only nominally longer to restore the OS than trying to dump OS+DATA at the same time. Since it has no particularly special OS configuration qualities, restoring the OS and rejoining the domain is trivial, and the real time is spent restoring the actual data from tape.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It does kind of reinforce the notion that a merger with a company with actual datacenter experience would expand Apple's datacenter credibility and improve the product to be functional in existing datacenters.
I've always wondered why Apple doesn't include a remote desktop type application with OS X for remote admin of OS X servers, or at least a curses version of Software Update at bare minimum. I guess I'm no longer beholden to the ssh-only lifestyle (too many years supporting 2K) anymore, so a remote desktop app would work for me.
I have to believe that OS X's display interface is both highly modular and modern enough that remote display ought to be fairly trivial. It is kind of ironic that I can remote desktop to my XP box from my OS X box, but I can't do the reverse, even from another OS X box.
When Jobs took over Apple again and began work in earnest on a UNIX-based MacOS, I thought that Apple should have bought SGI. At the time (er, still) SGI was in the toilet, but still had a wealth of valuable visualization and CG technology, not to mention some "real" industrial server platforms.
The useful bits of IRIX could have been merged into what became OSX. Apple could have gained some machine-room credibility, SGI could have obtained some valuable consumer end applications. I kind of envision a software-unified product line with Apple's ease of use and SGI's CGI muscle.
The finished product could have been a networked computer system with Macs on the desktop and SGI servers in the machine room, with apps running NUMA-style on whatever CPU they needed.
I had a similar fantasy about a Sun/Apple merger as well, but instead of focusing so much on media/visualization, it became the uber-alternative to Microsoft -- great, easy to use desktops AND servers you could build a total enterprise business out of, with the PHB's approval, all with a unified OS.
This last one could be an IBM fantasy, too, since it might be easy to build "fat" binaries that would on on Power and Apple's PPC variant at the same time (CPU pedants feel free to correct me).
Most people slap me down when I post this on Slashdot, with the idea that Apple is a "consumer company" and doesn't want to compete in the business space, but why bother with Xserve and other server-type techs if that's the case? There's enough interest in Mac-only solutions that a merger with someone who has industrial computing experience could create interest outside of boutique shops that run on Mac-only setups.
Every large company has a hold off on SP2 order so their IT staff can hit reload on Slashdot for a week or so to see if any "SP2 sux0rs!!11" stories get posted. If we go 2 weeks without one, expect it to get rolled out.
Another site to check are some of the gaming forums. If it doesn't trash Doom3 and the Slashbots pretending to work don't report problems, it must be OK.
The Xerox machine (yes, it was a XEROX-brand machine) in the dupe center circa 1990 had a modem for phoning home about product issues. That they've started using (demanding?) this with internet access is entirely believable.
Remember folks, the people with the final sign off are the guys who do/don't get a new car/boat/bimbo if extra money is spent on something like a working OS or development team.
Once a card with a "later" issue code in a sequence is used, the lock recognizes that "earlier" issue codes are no longer valid.
Presumably they don't honor newer issue codes UNLESS the "open" code also matches. If they did honor newer issue codes even if the open code was wrong, I could just DoS room locks when I checked in by swiping my card in everyone's lock..
I always wondered that. I've examined the doors closely and haven't seen any way for them to power the locks or communicate with them. I presume communication would be necessary to invalidate the access previously granted to lost or compromised cards.
I've just assumed that the power is delivered via hinges and wires buried in the door (which would mean custom doors or some sophisticated drilling to retrofit). I suppose you could have induction powering and communication of the reader via the door jam (simplifying installs).
What were your CPU utilization numbers using the RAID card vs. OS? Often the cheap cards and OS RAID nails you with a performance penalty due to the stripe work being done by the host CPU.
The ICHR6 controller (on the new series of mainboards) is supposed to be able to do RAID-0 *and* RAID-1 on the same pair of disks; the striping is accomplished at the physical partition level.
I can only presume that it's slower than a pure RAID setup on a dedicated spindle setup, but it would give you RAID-1 reliability and RAID-0 performance without the penalty of a second disc or set set of disks.
What I've been wondering lately is why RAID-1 redundancy couldn't be incorporated into the disks themselves, as a software selectable option -- have the same data written to multiple platters within the hard disk. An error localized to a single platter wouldn't hurt anything, since the data would be available on another platter. It wouldn't do much for controller failure or other mechanical problems that affected any seek/read/write. Not knowing what the most common failures are, it's hard to know if this would be worthwhile or not.
I just got a new system (Asus P4P800E-Deluxe, P43.2 Northwood) and it has a Promise PATA controller on the motherboard. Since I finally have a modern computer, I thought I'd set up a RAID-0 set for dinking around with video.
As it turned out, the Promise controller was about 20% slower in RAID-0 than Win XP was. Highly unscientific as I'm using the system's primary IDE controller for the RAID-0 set under XP and the Promise, the drives are a gross mismatch (UDMA-2 capable 9 + UDMA-5 capable 20 gig) and my benchmarking software is from the stone age. The feeling I get from actually using the system backs up the performance I get out of it, though.
Anyway, I was surprised to see your numbers showing a significant performance increase with hardware vs. software RAID. I'd expect that with a really expensive (full-on CPU, 64M+ cache, etc) controller, but not with the usual crop of low-end ATA RAID cards.
If money was no object, I'd probably setup a RAID-0+1 setup using my mainboard's Intel-chipset based SATA connectors.
I wonder why they can't do service packs that are continuously merged into one service pack, date-revisioned, for easy download/burning/installing -- in addition to the incremental "hotfix" type updates they release.
People mostly up to date can do the hotfixes, people far behind could install ONE service pack and get current without downloading 25MB of updates *and* a service pack installation. Sometimes you can be talking 4 or more install, reboot, download, etc cycles just to get current.
Until I read your post it hadn't occured to me that it may actually be cheaper to offer a bunch of apparently generous perks (free food/pop, vidgaming, etc) and cut-rate real ones than to offer none of the in-office ones but good health, dental, etc.
For a 500 person company, free pop would amount to about $120k per year. Add in BS like pizza on Fridays and a "fun" room (2 big screen TVs, PS2/XBOX, LAN setup and a half-dozen gaming PCs) and semi-annual company parties and even if it runs to $500k, you're talking only $1000 per employee per year, and likely much less.
I guess what I'm wondering now is, have these kind of bennies that seem to make for a "neat" company *always* been a sham to cover up other bennie shortcomings, or is this some twisted new thinking?
Any surprise?
Is there a virtual CD-R(W) like Daemon Tools is for CDs?
That would be awesome then -- you could literally burn the data to a virtual device, and rip it back from the virtual device and never waste blanks. If they can stimulate a virtual CD, it would stand to reason that a virtual CD-R wouldn't be impossible.
Isn't the source of this problem Microsoft's relentless pursuit of "new" technologies, which they back and support for about 6-12 months and then replace with new, incompatibile technologies. And roughly during each technology's stint in the spotlight, some new Windows release comes out with some major system that relies on it, and, since vendors and developers deliver apps that rely on these technologies, Windows includes the new ones as well includes the previous iteration(s) of technologies.
Ultimately you end up with a hydra that no one can master and some meaningful portion of the customer base relies on. It only gets worse when *applications* get glued into the operating system (i.e., IE, or IIS), since not only are OS technologies getting mired, now applications are too.
Suddenly you're having to deliver Windows with so many backwards compatible technologies, it's a miracle it runs at all. I kind of wish I could profile my home XP box to see what libs I never even touch and then uninstall them.
It's somewhat semantic, but maximizing your use of some technology means that the technology is doing all possible jobs for which it is capable.
Using it longer doesn't really count in that regard.
As far as what a newer system could do -- perhaps more elaborate sheet metal folds? Bigger shapes? More complex shapes?
The different between patriot and traitor is one letter...
Acutallly, which millionaire do you want to elect? It's so hard to choose.
No, the point of the legal system is to justify the will of the rich and legitimize its implementation at the barrel of a gun.
they continue maximizing their return on investment for a computer system originally purchased well over thirty years ago
No, they maximized the return on their investment, probably years ago. Maximizing implies getting unfulfilled value out of their system. Unless their PDP is doing more today than it was yesterday, it's probably already achieved its maximal value.
A newer system could probably do more than their current system does now, the question is whether they have the business skills to expand the business to get maximum value out of their new system.
Can I become a CEO if I take a lot of acid and forget everything I know or do you just have to do a lot of coke?
I think coke and booze are the CEO drugs. Booze for ineptness and embarassment, coke for energy, irrationality and serotonin deficient tyranny.
If they took acid, they'd look around the office and go "What does it all mean? How can we come here day to day if it doesn't mean anything?" Meaning and philosophical harmony are the enemies of CEOs.
Let's hope they don't get into meth.
My bad, I was thinking of the 3400, not the 3200. When I did my research, the A64-3400 and the P4-3.2 were dead even on benchmarks, with a slight advantage in gaming for the 3400 and in multimedia for the P4-3.2.
Pricewatch has the Northwood P4 3.2 at US$252, the A64-3200 at $204 and the A64-3400 at $286, which is about $100 cheaper than when I looked closely about 2 months ago.
So you're right about the 3200, I'm right (but less so) about the 3400.
I'll just learn to keep my mouth shut about prices when my info isn't up to date. Mea Culpa.
Does it matter what the internal temp of the system or CPU is as long as its within normal operating parameters?
I have a P4-3.2 and at Web browsing levels its at 29C, and when rendering in TMPGEnc its around 40. BFD. Motherboard temp goes up around 4 degrees C.
I hear people talk about this like it matters. Maybe if you were calculating cooling on a room with hundreds of systems, but for Joe Jackoff and his home PC, who cares?
I priced out A64 3200+ when I bought my system; I read through a bunch of web sites and tallied the A64/P43.2 benchmarks and it was roughly a dead heat; slight gaming benchmark for A64, slight multimedia advantage P43.2.
P4 3.2 was way cheaper, though -- there was a premium to be paid for the A64 system.