KDE's Control Panel->Sound & Multimedia->Sound System
The Hardware Tab, and (as I've got only a single active card) I think it may let you select it from the drop down menu, however, if it does not, "Override Device Location" should allow you to specify it.
There are a lot of people who don't like arts. It has some problems, but it's a useful tool. IMHO, because it will take over the sound output, doesn't make it arts fault that too many sound devices don't allow multiple sound streams, and artsdsp actually solves the underlying problem. Though most dismiss arts rather than learn about it. (IMHO, dmix is useless.)
The answer: Setup KDE's arts to output to your headset, then: artsdsp -m teamspeak artsdsp -m ut2004
Which will give both teamspeak and ut2004 emulated memory-mapped (mostly what people mean when they say hardware controlled) sound output. It does consume a small bit of CPU, but today sound mixing is not that big a deal.
I also believe that the above could probably be done by other software mixers, possibly esd, but I don't know how to set them up off the top of my head.
Cheaper tickets than you stated, at $8, Food is still expensive, but still more reasonable than any other 1st run theatre around. They apparently changed the policy from 21+years after 8pm to 17+years. Nice seats with lots of leg room (several feet, if someone kicks the back of your chair, they were either 7 and a half feet tall, or deliberately trying to.).
True, about it being ahead when Apple chose it. I was just referring to the fact that near the end of it's life at Apple, it was being beaten by most contemporary CPUs. m68ks are probably one of the most successful chip lines in history. Just not anymore as Minicomputer CPUs. (At the time Apple chose them they probably were the fastest that fit in with the cost.)
Apple is not that spectacular in terms of choosing chips for performance, from their past history. M68k: good chip, but it was suffering from old age when they moved to PowerPC. (They could have moved to x86, arm, or other processor at that time.) Now, they announce they are moving to Intel, and suddenly Intel has some super-duper chip up their sleeve? I don't think so.
The article starts from that basis and works up to Intel has some super-killer CPU.
Despite the amount of hype surrounding dual-core, unless you massively change software (likely to happen eventually) to support SMP, things go slower on dual-cores than single core processors, if the dual-cores are clocked lower (Intel's current chips). What the article proposes is to duplicate the mistakes Intel has made with Itanium. (It was announced a decade ago. (If not, near enough to count.))
Itanium 1 stripped out all the branch prediction, and similar things, relying on the compilers to do it. The result was that it got soundly thrashed by other 64-bit archs.
So why does Itanium 2 not suck nearly as bad? HP's engineers mostly went back and put all that stuff back IN, because compilers, and code translators are still (with a very very few exceptions, I can think of 2 (one, FX!32, mentioned in the article)) very slow. Even FX!32's speed wasn't due to the speed of translation, it was due to the huge (at the time) performance of the underlying alphas. Sure, it may have been faster than the fastest x86 hardware implementation, but it was still quite slow compared to the native speed of the chip it was on.
So the article speculates that Intel is indeed going to repeat the mistakes of the past, mistakes that *only* came to market because a) Intel has money b)Intel has pride (oh and c)got others to wipe themselves out... except IBM.) I would think Intel would learn from it's mistakes. Right now they should notice that a)processors can't be fabbed right now to work at ~4GB reliably and they are really hot. b)Going the opposite route of improving IPC almost entirely (IA-64s are not low-powered, nor cheap). Instead they should work on the in-between, which they (again due to Intel having tons of money) have in the form of the Pentium M.
I did imply it, as I've noticed that there's a trend in the courts to errode the idea that something you buy is yours. (Look at the current Xbox modchip litigation as a close parallel.)
It's also the perception. Microsoft you may note hasn't gone after the Xbox-Linux project for one major reason: There's no cheating, or anything that really can be played up. However, modchips even using a different bios, 'enable cheating' and piracy. Easily played up to others. Not so easily with the Xbox-Linux people.
Microsoft is legally able to do this. However, as with all known technical system protections, given enough time and effort, someone will break it.
I'm suspecting that after it's broken, either by Xbox-Linux people or by someone else, a company will create a peripheral that uses it. Then I suspect there will be a demand to stop based on the DMCA or similar. A nice long court fight, with either the status quo, or more money for Microsoft via the erosion of the idea that you actually own property. (and continuing with the idea that you can do what you want with your property. They do have court decisions about modchips in their favor.)
It'll end up like SCO. Endlessly debated, (Label A) then a court will rule, it'll be debated more, goto Label A.
Then they've obviously not actually considered 'grandma or grandpa' because attempting to teach older people (in fact, including my grandmother) indicates, that double-clicking is one of the hardest things for many of them (often having arthritis) to get a handle on.
Better than have one button you have to click multiple times, (difficult for some even with very relaxed timing, because often they move the mouse some, which can throw off the click) is to have a dedicated button which acts like a double click, or better yet, dispense with double clicking entirely, as it requires a repeated movement, which will often cause those with arthritis to have pain.
A window manager simply manages where X11 windows are displayed.
The simplest window manager is probably twm. (In that it's nearly the minimum, even if it doesn't do it the now conventional way.) If you want to see what it does, login to a box with a session setting of 'failsafe' (Available on most linux boxes.) Then run 'twm &' (ampersand to put it in the background, so you have a command line free) then type in any favored application's name.
Now, other window managers add upon the simple positioning of twm, toolbars with more useful things, close, maximize, etc. Then you have things like virtual desktops. (Implemented in any GNOME-compatible window manager, such as metacity, KDE's kwin, icewm, fvwm, and most others on X11.) And some options to allow windows to say things like I don't want a border, or request a size. (Run kicker in twm to see the annoyance of borders on apps which should have them.) This all belongs to the window manager.
Now, given that most people don't like just a plain screen, you add a panel. KDE's is Kicker, I think GNOME's is gpanel. This gives you the panel at the bottom, a windows like toolbar. It's not limited to that, I personally have 4 panels per screen, each at the center which auto hides. Something that both GNOME and KDE can do.
Now, add in something to control the appearance. In GNOME's case it used to be a browser, recently replaced. KDE having kdesktop. Both containing the icons on the desktop, and background, etc.
GTK, Qt, FLTK, Motif, etc. are all toolkits, and manage what is drawn into the windows. Essentially you say: Please draw X widget here, and they provide the appropriate messages to the X server. You don't have to use them, as you can call xlib directly, or alternatively OpenGL. However, that's not recommended at all.
X11 works by passing messages to the sever: lots and lots of messages. It's handled in a way that it doesn't matter where the client is provided it's authorized. Thus providing the easy way for display across a network. Windows and Mac OS X use message passing as well, but in a local only method. It might be possible to abstract them similarly, but I personally doubt it will happen. X11 isn't really any slower than Windows or Mac OS X, contrary to what many people wishing to ditch X11 say. Drivers are generally better optimized on Windows (Manuf's drivers) or Mac OS X (very very few cards supported). Windows and Mac OS do not have a distinct window manager, or desktop from the OS, and I don't remember exactly how those are managed internally.
KDE and GNOME are called Desktop Environments, because they provide all the above, as well as other useful programs. KDE pretty much providing anything you'd want to use from one place, GNOME more leveraging already existing GTK programs. However, for the most part you can use programs that only come from the DE. (Example, at the moment, I have all KDE apps open except firefox. and I've got browser, IM, and anything else you'd expect to find.)
There exist a few alternatives, Qt/Embedded (What the Zaurus uses from Sharp) or Opie (opie being a fork of Qt/E, periodically semi-synced see openzaurus.org), GTK's embedded (name escapes me, see openzaurus.org), DirectFB (GTK was/is being ported to it), and svgalib (requires root permission, links is one that support svgalib output). While most of the examples are embedded, X11 is not necessarily heavy. Keith Packard had a server for ipaq which was 600K, kdrive being the name. The Agenda, a nice little linux handheld used X11 on a 66MHz processor.
Hope this helps to give you the brief overview, as well as a starting point for where to look further. More or less all the current systems are fairly similar, the differnce being how they seperate out the different layers, or in a DE/OS's case mash them together.
It is not a capsule in any way that could be construed as a separate space-worthy, or landable capsule. It's kinda separate in the same sense that the interior of your car is sparate from the engine and cargo (trunk) compartments of your car, or the shuttle.
The thing to which you refer is the Challenger explosion, where when the craft exploded, it came apart in fairly large chunks. One happened to be the nose. Several of the astronauts survived for some period of time after the explosion. They however died, upon 200mph impact with the water.
The shuttle has no backup to coming down the standard way from orbit. It is (theoretically) possible to land the shuttle on abort at an airport/air base, while still in the atmosphere, or via a non-orbital trajectory.
The only spacecraft which has been planned to have a human-occupied escape capsule is the ISS. (Several of the Russian stations had earth return modules for material on the stations) This has undergone several changes in plan and is now a Soyuz capsule.
I use Konqueror, and have javascript popups set to 'smart'. What this means is that popups work, IF DIRECTLY IN RESPONSE TO A MOUSE CLICK. Something I'd like to see firefox implement.
Now, why would one want that? Take for example Yahoo mail (being the first that comes to mind) where a portion of their UI uses popups. Completely blocking popups eliminates lots of legitimate items.
Excluding clicking that link (cleverly done that way, by the site just to get around most popup blocking), I've not seen a popup in years that wasn't legitimate, on any machine where I have Konqueror set to "Smart". There are a very few (3 in the last year) sites where Legitimate popups don't work.
What it and similar popup blockers require a site operator to do is get a user to click on something. Possible, but a heck of a lot tougher than something like onLoad, or any of the other 'features' that software advertised. (On the list, I see 2 possible ones that could get by, both having the requisite click.)
Now, this is perfect protection for someone like me, but, as the email worm oubreaks have shown, there are a lot of people who will stupidly react when dealing with computers. However, until window.open (and similar) is not in use legitimately, it'll continue to be a problem. However, it will come down to getting people to click, compared with tricky javascript.
Incorrect.
SLI can and does run on some Intel chipsets, at the minimum. This was the original place SLI worked, before ever working on an Nvidia chipset (at least outside Nvidia.)
(The article is prior to the actual introduction, but that was one of the boards which worked.)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gef orce6-sli_3.html
The original Celerons did not have L2 cache. They did have L1 cache. They also performed horribly. (A couple of people I knew who had them compared them unfavorably with 486s.)
And the overclocked ones were primarily the celeron 300As. (Of which a lot were rated as p2-450s, but rather than sell that way (flooding the market) they were modified a bit and sold as Celeron 300As, so the overclocking (50%) was great, and the only time I've seen that equaled is on my Athlon 64 (1.8GHz->2.7GHz) which requires an slight increase in voltage, which the celeron 300As almost never required.)
The original FXs were 940s, However, the newer ones have been 939 (they might also have a 940, but I don't believe so.)
Also, it's not just one pin removed, the actual layout is different between 939 and 940. (940 also supports smp, that being the main difference.)
The big difference between 754 and 939/940 is that 939/940 support dual-channel memory. This is important, because if they didn't, while the athlon 64 is relatively non-memory bandwidth hungry (as compared to the p4), performance would suffer with two cores on single channel memory.
I'm sorry, but the only 2 groups of programs that runs poorly are copy-protected games, or poorly written programs that attempt to write where they aren't supposed to. (And with permissions to write to their own directory or more likely a subfolder, most will run.)
It might *gasp* take some work on the Admin's part.
So either 2/3 of your programs are games, very poorly written programs, or you simply can't be bothered to adjust permissions. I'd like an actual list, if you would be so kind, as it is you have one example.
The reason for this is not Gnome being up to snuff, but that distros will customize Gnome. Gentoo relies on what the project itself provides, and Gnome doesn't provide things very well out of the box. Thus Gnome on Gentoo requires a lot of user-tweaking. KDE provides a much more higher baseline, thus, distros don't need to do as much customization. (Additionally, while Gnome seems to require tailoring, Red Hat's (relatively minor, once actually looked at) changes to KDE created a large outcry.)
So, basically it boils down to KDE being a more centralized, and consistant base, with usually a few custom (config) apps added in. However, Gnome isn't, so there's a lot more parallel effort to get it to the state KDE is in. (You've got to pull in a IM client, media player and lots of other apps which are part of KDE's base (meaning by that the common packages (kdegames, kdepim, kdemultimedia, etc), not just 'kdebase').
I happen to feel that KDE's way is better, but that's my personal opinion.
And if it wasn't IRC, it'd be something else (email, http, IM, etc etc etc). Basically any protocol that can be proxied, or connetced to by multiple programs.
Konqueror has Allow or Deny, combined with scope of this cookie, all cookies from domain, and all cookies. This pops up upon recieving a cookie.
The above means that after a short amount of time (However long it takes you to visit all the sites you'd actually use cookies on) all cookies you'd want are white-listed, and everything else blacklisted. I'd like to see Firefox adopt something as easy to use as that, but unfortuantely, advanced features seem to get hidden. Also gives you a bit of a guide to what sites are sleasy, quite quickly.
Oh, but you forget that people who write these things are smarter than that, and know that most firewalls work like this, thus:
c) Client is infected via IE, or e-mail. Client initiates connection to $RANDOM_IRC_NETWORK channel #zombie-control. Zombie operator then passes commands.
Nicely bypassing your firewall all the time.
The reason they usually lack graphics power is not really electrical power, which is a function of transistor count, mostly. The main factor is memory bandwidth. Last card I had with DDR400 equivalent memory was a Geforce3 Ti-200 (with 128-bit path). That matches the memory bandwidth on my Athlon 64, in dual channel mode. Memory bandwidth is the really big difference between cards. Unless they are something like the Geforce FX series which at least on low and middle was rather pathetic, and slower than previous cards, they were supposedly replacing.
As for texture cache, that's one of the big things about AGP, (and now ATI & Nvidia's reinvention, TurboCache, and Hypersomething) is that you can use main memory (what an integrated video works out of) for texture cache (and other things). Though it is much much better to keep things in local memory, given the relative speeds (say 1000MHZx128bit(dedicated) vs 400MHzx128bit(shared with processor)) as well as latency. (figures taken from a 6600GT and DDR400 dual channel main memory)
Then you've obviously not looked much at retail boxes: Sony's, eMachines, and most of the others don't have AGP slots, on the low or middle part of the market.
And how the heck have you missed this, practically every integrated video chipset since i810 (that has it, i810 didn't have to have integrated video) has not had an AGP port. That was one of the remarkable things about nvidia's last integrated graphics. Almost all the boards did have an AGP slot. (I don't know of one that didn't, and I heard Nvidia mandated an AGP port.) It's a major issue, why else do you think that PCI video cards would be available as they are? (and marked up as much as they are?) I can certainly tell you that those who want multiple video cards in one system are not the reason at all. (Please note, that I am referring to PCI and not PCI express.)
Juk (KDE' itunes-like player) also has MusicBrainz integration. ("Guess Tag Information... from Internet")
In my experiments, it works decently well.
Of course, This is for a slightly different thing than the phone, as this generates a signature, that only works for files on your computer. How often are people playing music they don't have tagged, or at least guessable better by name/directory? Once per song, and that's only for those ripped without the aid of cddb.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE's Control Panel->Sound & Multimedia->Sound System
The Hardware Tab, and (as I've got only a single active card) I think it may let you select it from the drop down menu, however, if it does not, "Override Device Location" should allow you to specify it.
There are a lot of people who don't like arts. It has some problems, but it's a useful tool. IMHO, because it will take over the sound output, doesn't make it arts fault that too many sound devices don't allow multiple sound streams, and artsdsp actually solves the underlying problem. Though most dismiss arts rather than learn about it. (IMHO, dmix is useless.)
The answer:
Setup KDE's arts to output to your headset, then:
artsdsp -m teamspeak
artsdsp -m ut2004
Which will give both teamspeak and ut2004 emulated memory-mapped (mostly what people mean when they say hardware controlled) sound output. It does consume a small bit of CPU, but today sound mixing is not that big a deal.
I also believe that the above could probably be done by other software mixers, possibly esd, but I don't know how to set them up off the top of my head.
Hope this helps.
Well, We've got one in town that's similar to what you want: http://www.warrentheaters.com/otmain.asp
Cheaper tickets than you stated, at $8, Food is still expensive, but still more reasonable than any other 1st run theatre around. They apparently changed the policy from 21+years after 8pm to 17+years. Nice seats with lots of leg room (several feet, if someone kicks the back of your chair, they were either 7 and a half feet tall, or deliberately trying to.).
Were they also mice? ;)
Nitpick: Intel 8088 not an 8086.
Apple is not that spectacular in terms of choosing chips for performance, from their past history. M68k: good chip, but it was suffering from old age when they moved to PowerPC. (They could have moved to x86, arm, or other processor at that time.) Now, they announce they are moving to Intel, and suddenly Intel has some super-duper chip up their sleeve? I don't think so.
The article starts from that basis and works up to Intel has some super-killer CPU.
Despite the amount of hype surrounding dual-core, unless you massively change software (likely to happen eventually) to support SMP, things go slower on dual-cores than single core processors, if the dual-cores are clocked lower (Intel's current chips). What the article proposes is to duplicate the mistakes Intel has made with Itanium. (It was announced a decade ago. (If not, near enough to count.))
Itanium 1 stripped out all the branch prediction, and similar things, relying on the compilers to do it. The result was that it got soundly thrashed by other 64-bit archs.
So why does Itanium 2 not suck nearly as bad? HP's engineers mostly went back and put all that stuff back IN, because compilers, and code translators are still (with a very very few exceptions, I can think of 2 (one, FX!32, mentioned in the article)) very slow. Even FX!32's speed wasn't due to the speed of translation, it was due to the huge (at the time) performance of the underlying alphas. Sure, it may have been faster than the fastest x86 hardware implementation, but it was still quite slow compared to the native speed of the chip it was on.
So the article speculates that Intel is indeed going to repeat the mistakes of the past, mistakes that *only* came to market because a) Intel has money b)Intel has pride (oh and c)got others to wipe themselves out... except IBM.) I would think Intel would learn from it's mistakes. Right now they should notice that a)processors can't be fabbed right now to work at ~4GB reliably and they are really hot. b)Going the opposite route of improving IPC almost entirely (IA-64s are not low-powered, nor cheap). Instead they should work on the in-between, which they (again due to Intel having tons of money) have in the form of the Pentium M.
I did imply it, as I've noticed that there's a trend in the courts to errode the idea that something you buy is yours. (Look at the current Xbox modchip litigation as a close parallel.)
It's also the perception. Microsoft you may note hasn't gone after the Xbox-Linux project for one major reason: There's no cheating, or anything that really can be played up. However, modchips even using a different bios, 'enable cheating' and piracy. Easily played up to others. Not so easily with the Xbox-Linux people.
I'm suspecting that after it's broken, either by Xbox-Linux people or by someone else, a company will create a peripheral that uses it. Then I suspect there will be a demand to stop based on the DMCA or similar. A nice long court fight, with either the status quo, or more money for Microsoft via the erosion of the idea that you actually own property. (and continuing with the idea that you can do what you want with your property. They do have court decisions about modchips in their favor.)
It'll end up like SCO. Endlessly debated, (Label A) then a court will rule, it'll be debated more, goto Label A.
Better than have one button you have to click multiple times, (difficult for some even with very relaxed timing, because often they move the mouse some, which can throw off the click) is to have a dedicated button which acts like a double click, or better yet, dispense with double clicking entirely, as it requires a repeated movement, which will often cause those with arthritis to have pain.
The simplest window manager is probably twm. (In that it's nearly the minimum, even if it doesn't do it the now conventional way.) If you want to see what it does, login to a box with a session setting of 'failsafe' (Available on most linux boxes.) Then run 'twm &' (ampersand to put it in the background, so you have a command line free) then type in any favored application's name.
Now, other window managers add upon the simple positioning of twm, toolbars with more useful things, close, maximize, etc. Then you have things like virtual desktops. (Implemented in any GNOME-compatible window manager, such as metacity, KDE's kwin, icewm, fvwm, and most others on X11.) And some options to allow windows to say things like I don't want a border, or request a size. (Run kicker in twm to see the annoyance of borders on apps which should have them.) This all belongs to the window manager.
Now, given that most people don't like just a plain screen, you add a panel. KDE's is Kicker, I think GNOME's is gpanel. This gives you the panel at the bottom, a windows like toolbar. It's not limited to that, I personally have 4 panels per screen, each at the center which auto hides. Something that both GNOME and KDE can do.
Now, add in something to control the appearance. In GNOME's case it used to be a browser, recently replaced. KDE having kdesktop. Both containing the icons on the desktop, and background, etc.
GTK, Qt, FLTK, Motif, etc. are all toolkits, and manage what is drawn into the windows. Essentially you say: Please draw X widget here, and they provide the appropriate messages to the X server. You don't have to use them, as you can call xlib directly, or alternatively OpenGL. However, that's not recommended at all.
X11 works by passing messages to the sever: lots and lots of messages. It's handled in a way that it doesn't matter where the client is provided it's authorized. Thus providing the easy way for display across a network. Windows and Mac OS X use message passing as well, but in a local only method. It might be possible to abstract them similarly, but I personally doubt it will happen. X11 isn't really any slower than Windows or Mac OS X, contrary to what many people wishing to ditch X11 say. Drivers are generally better optimized on Windows (Manuf's drivers) or Mac OS X (very very few cards supported). Windows and Mac OS do not have a distinct window manager, or desktop from the OS, and I don't remember exactly how those are managed internally.
KDE and GNOME are called Desktop Environments, because they provide all the above, as well as other useful programs. KDE pretty much providing anything you'd want to use from one place, GNOME more leveraging already existing GTK programs. However, for the most part you can use programs that only come from the DE. (Example, at the moment, I have all KDE apps open except firefox. and I've got browser, IM, and anything else you'd expect to find.)
There exist a few alternatives, Qt/Embedded (What the Zaurus uses from Sharp) or Opie (opie being a fork of Qt/E, periodically semi-synced see openzaurus.org), GTK's embedded (name escapes me, see openzaurus.org), DirectFB (GTK was/is being ported to it), and svgalib (requires root permission, links is one that support svgalib output). While most of the examples are embedded, X11 is not necessarily heavy. Keith Packard had a server for ipaq which was 600K, kdrive being the name. The Agenda, a nice little linux handheld used X11 on a 66MHz processor.
Hope this helps to give you the brief overview, as well as a starting point for where to look further. More or less all the current systems are fairly similar, the differnce being how they seperate out the different layers, or in a DE/OS's case mash them together.
The thing to which you refer is the Challenger explosion, where when the craft exploded, it came apart in fairly large chunks. One happened to be the nose. Several of the astronauts survived for some period of time after the explosion. They however died, upon 200mph impact with the water.
The shuttle has no backup to coming down the standard way from orbit. It is (theoretically) possible to land the shuttle on abort at an airport/air base, while still in the atmosphere, or via a non-orbital trajectory.
The only spacecraft which has been planned to have a human-occupied escape capsule is the ISS. (Several of the Russian stations had earth return modules for material on the stations) This has undergone several changes in plan and is now a Soyuz capsule.
No, it's not unblockable.
I use Konqueror, and have javascript popups set to 'smart'. What this means is that popups work, IF DIRECTLY IN RESPONSE TO A MOUSE CLICK. Something I'd like to see firefox implement.
Now, why would one want that? Take for example Yahoo mail (being the first that comes to mind) where a portion of their UI uses popups. Completely blocking popups eliminates lots of legitimate items.
Excluding clicking that link (cleverly done that way, by the site just to get around most popup blocking), I've not seen a popup in years that wasn't legitimate, on any machine where I have Konqueror set to "Smart". There are a very few (3 in the last year) sites where Legitimate popups don't work.
What it and similar popup blockers require a site operator to do is get a user to click on something. Possible, but a heck of a lot tougher than something like onLoad, or any of the other 'features' that software advertised. (On the list, I see 2 possible ones that could get by, both having the requisite click.)
Now, this is perfect protection for someone like me, but, as the email worm oubreaks have shown, there are a lot of people who will stupidly react when dealing with computers. However, until window.open (and similar) is not in use legitimately, it'll continue to be a problem. However, it will come down to getting people to click, compared with tricky javascript.
$1999 for a VIDEO CARD?! And that's the default that's only 70% of the fast card's performance?
I knew macs were expensive but...
Incorrect. SLI can and does run on some Intel chipsets, at the minimum. This was the original place SLI worked, before ever working on an Nvidia chipset (at least outside Nvidia.) (The article is prior to the actual introduction, but that was one of the boards which worked.) http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gef orce6-sli_3.html
The original Celerons did not have L2 cache. They did have L1 cache. They also performed horribly. (A couple of people I knew who had them compared them unfavorably with 486s.)
And the overclocked ones were primarily the celeron 300As. (Of which a lot were rated as p2-450s, but rather than sell that way (flooding the market) they were modified a bit and sold as Celeron 300As, so the overclocking (50%) was great, and the only time I've seen that equaled is on my Athlon 64 (1.8GHz->2.7GHz) which requires an slight increase in voltage, which the celeron 300As almost never required.)
Incorrect, the early FX chips were 940.
The original FXs were 940s, However, the newer ones have been 939 (they might also have a 940, but I don't believe so.)
Also, it's not just one pin removed, the actual layout is different between 939 and 940. (940 also supports smp, that being the main difference.)
The big difference between 754 and 939/940 is that 939/940 support dual-channel memory. This is important, because if they didn't, while the athlon 64 is relatively non-memory bandwidth hungry (as compared to the p4), performance would suffer with two cores on single channel memory.
I'm sorry, but the only 2 groups of programs that runs poorly are copy-protected games, or poorly written programs that attempt to write where they aren't supposed to. (And with permissions to write to their own directory or more likely a subfolder, most will run.)
It might *gasp* take some work on the Admin's part.
So either 2/3 of your programs are games, very poorly written programs, or you simply can't be bothered to adjust permissions. I'd like an actual list, if you would be so kind, as it is you have one example.
So, basically it boils down to KDE being a more centralized, and consistant base, with usually a few custom (config) apps added in. However, Gnome isn't, so there's a lot more parallel effort to get it to the state KDE is in. (You've got to pull in a IM client, media player and lots of other apps which are part of KDE's base (meaning by that the common packages (kdegames, kdepim, kdemultimedia, etc), not just 'kdebase').
I happen to feel that KDE's way is better, but that's my personal opinion.
And if it wasn't IRC, it'd be something else (email, http, IM, etc etc etc). Basically any protocol that can be proxied, or connetced to by multiple programs.
Try using Konqueror.
Konqueror has Allow or Deny, combined with scope of this cookie, all cookies from domain, and all cookies. This pops up upon recieving a cookie.
The above means that after a short amount of time (However long it takes you to visit all the sites you'd actually use cookies on) all cookies you'd want are white-listed, and everything else blacklisted. I'd like to see Firefox adopt something as easy to use as that, but unfortuantely, advanced features seem to get hidden. Also gives you a bit of a guide to what sites are sleasy, quite quickly.
Oh, but you forget that people who write these things are smarter than that, and know that most firewalls work like this, thus: c) Client is infected via IE, or e-mail. Client initiates connection to $RANDOM_IRC_NETWORK channel #zombie-control. Zombie operator then passes commands. Nicely bypassing your firewall all the time.
As for texture cache, that's one of the big things about AGP, (and now ATI & Nvidia's reinvention, TurboCache, and Hypersomething) is that you can use main memory (what an integrated video works out of) for texture cache (and other things). Though it is much much better to keep things in local memory, given the relative speeds (say 1000MHZx128bit(dedicated) vs 400MHzx128bit(shared with processor)) as well as latency. (figures taken from a 6600GT and DDR400 dual channel main memory)
Then you've obviously not looked much at retail boxes: Sony's, eMachines, and most of the others don't have AGP slots, on the low or middle part of the market.
And how the heck have you missed this, practically every integrated video chipset since i810 (that has it, i810 didn't have to have integrated video) has not had an AGP port. That was one of the remarkable things about nvidia's last integrated graphics. Almost all the boards did have an AGP slot. (I don't know of one that didn't, and I heard Nvidia mandated an AGP port.) It's a major issue, why else do you think that PCI video cards would be available as they are? (and marked up as much as they are?) I can certainly tell you that those who want multiple video cards in one system are not the reason at all. (Please note, that I am referring to PCI and not PCI express.)
Juk (KDE' itunes-like player) also has MusicBrainz integration. ("Guess Tag Information... from Internet")
In my experiments, it works decently well.
Of course, This is for a slightly different thing than the phone, as this generates a signature, that only works for files on your computer. How often are people playing music they don't have tagged, or at least guessable better by name/directory? Once per song, and that's only for those ripped without the aid of cddb.