As my Abit BP6 goes 550 MHz/chip with 366 MHz Celerons (OC'ed by 184 MHz/chip!) I show my elablorate work to all my friends. This isn't a "counter culture" or "a bunch of men showing off". It's about knowing how to push your computer to extremes, saving a fortune, and showing how much you know about computer hardware.
Those who build OC'ed boards are true to form. It's not about showing off. The big trade off is real simple -- your knowledge saves you a fortune. Take my Abit BP6 -- combined power of the two chips puts me over 1 GHz. An AMD Athlon 1 GHz is $1300. My rig is about $300. And better yet, my SMP Celerons combined is 100 MHz faster.:) I mean no reason to brag at all; this is fact.
I use powerful heatsinks with heatsink compound and a case built to keep the machine cool. My chips stay about 35 C (I know this thanks to Abit's BIOS.) and run stably. I don't care if in 8 years the Celeron will be ancient. I resently went from 233 MHz to 1100 MHz -- big trade-off! Why? I OC. One of my friends OC's as well. Clever him -- he water cools his machine by putting a PCV valve over the tops of the chips and allows the water to splash on top. The heat transfer is amazing! Him and I both have Abit BP6 boards. We both OC our rigs to 550 MHz/chip and we both use 366 MHz chips.
No counter-culture here. We know our hardware and we reap the rewards for it. To us, it's a craft. No chip too hard to OC, no rig we can't build.;) Amazing how some cool their chips so that the machine doesn't blow up. Water-cool, air-cool, heatsinks, fans, compounds, and other tricks keeps it running. Heat is the almighty enemy of the OC'er and we know it. Our tricks to cool our machines are unlike any other. We inspire and cause creativity. They should have an OC'ers Convention, IMO, just like Hot Rod Conventions, to show our style and form.
With Micor$oft offically guilty of monopoly, there shall be a market. And with this market shall be the flavors of UNIX. You would have to be rather sheltered (or else work for M$) not to realize that there are other useable platforms.
I am a Linux user myself, and I've contributed a few patches to various projects in the last couple of years.
Either you view Linux as a hobby or you are no longer intrested in Linux. If you indeed developed in Linux, certainly you would know of the various widget sets...now tell me that GNOME (GTK) or KDE (QT) is made out of a "primative" widget set. These UIs hail supreme for most Linux users, and rival (better put, better than) explorer in Windows.
Your best option IMHO is to stick with Windows - if it's a Windows app you're developing then use MS Developer Studio. It's a very easy to use, logical product with built in support for the MFC, which will make your development much quicker. After all, why switch to Linux to develop a Windows app? You wouldn't write the Linux kernel in Dev Studio would you?
The ideal of crossing platforms is to make as little change to the source and be able to keep a consistant feel and functionality. Java was a pioneer in that regard, and since I don't know Java, I won't comment on how good it really is. Aside from Java, Tcl/Tk comes to mind. To what I best know, Tcl/Tk is like Java with JIT contemplation and the need for a interpetor. Both languages I have seen with some of the programs I use and these both fit the ideal of a cross-platform program.
With the various open-source projects out there distrbuting widget sets on multiple platforms (No, DevStudio doesn't count just because it can go from Win 9x to Win CE to Win NT to Win 2k), it allows for developers to again, fit the ideal of crossing platforms. The future of computers doesn't reside with M$ any longer -- cross-development is now. Those who learn now to cross-develop will be the ones with the highest salaries, where people who make remarks such as "Why bother with cross-platform?" will still be paid the lower salaries.
It has nothing to with the closed source. If any other OS were to be just as buggy as Windows, people would flame it as well.
Those without awe on the specticale of a computer are usually those who don't understand enough about them, nonetheless care. The end-users are the ones who just submit to whatever is handed to them, and thus this is why Micor$oft has gained a monopoly.
Now that Micro$oft is getting a tounge-lashing (or so it appears) from the DOJ this time around, while M$ has had to deal with with the DOJ, other OSes have emmerged. Solairis is seeked as a powerful UNIX meant to deal best with heavy web traffic. BSD harnesses the aspect of stability and a good price. Linux is the most popular because of how easily it can replace Windows, and on top of that, have a variety of uses for a variety of reasons yet be so inexpensive.
Windows 2000, IMO, is another version of Windows NT. Nothing new here; just a Windows 98 feel. When Windows 2000 was being conceptualized, Linux made its push on the market (heaven forbid, Mr. Gates, competetion). Many of Windows 2000's ideas are yet again unoriginal. Perhaps you have never seen the Red Hat Package Manager? (Windows Installer) Or thought about installing from network? (Linux can install from FTP sites.) Granted that the industry doesn't code for Linux (at least not yet) doesn't mean that Linux is useless.
M$ is a dissapointment as well as a monopoly. Perhaps they should live up to its hype -- say, if it's stable, maybe there's no bugs? Or if it's stable, it doesn't crash at random? The fact people flame M$ is over the fact that they say one thing, and they don't live up to people's expectations. On the other hand, a choice is good, isn't it? I for one do not prefer to be stuck with an OS that crashes and forces upon me all of the company's programs.
Just because you like Linux doesn't mean you have to use it. Go ahead and buy an OS that costs $219 and rant all you want when some piece of hardware or some driver from a program that you prefer doesn't work. When I'm done installing Red Hat Linux from a grahpical install and letting Kusko detect and properly installing my new cards, I'll be still writing to/. while you work on Windows behaving to your taste.
Slashdot Mirror
"WOW! Your brain is going 1.1 GHz!? Cool! How do I get mine that fast?"
Those who build OC'ed boards are true to form. It's not about showing off. The big trade off is real simple -- your knowledge saves you a fortune. Take my Abit BP6 -- combined power of the two chips puts me over 1 GHz. An AMD Athlon 1 GHz is $1300. My rig is about $300. And better yet, my SMP Celerons combined is 100 MHz faster. :) I mean no reason to brag at all; this is fact.
I use powerful heatsinks with heatsink compound and a case built to keep the machine cool. My chips stay about 35 C (I know this thanks to Abit's BIOS.) and run stably. I don't care if in 8 years the Celeron will be ancient. I resently went from 233 MHz to 1100 MHz -- big trade-off! Why? I OC. One of my friends OC's as well. Clever him -- he water cools his machine by putting a PCV valve over the tops of the chips and allows the water to splash on top. The heat transfer is amazing! Him and I both have Abit BP6 boards. We both OC our rigs to 550 MHz/chip and we both use 366 MHz chips.
No counter-culture here. We know our hardware and we reap the rewards for it. To us, it's a craft. No chip too hard to OC, no rig we can't build. ;) Amazing how some cool their chips so that the machine doesn't blow up. Water-cool, air-cool, heatsinks, fans, compounds, and other tricks keeps it running. Heat is the almighty enemy of the OC'er and we know it. Our tricks to cool our machines are unlike any other. We inspire and cause creativity. They should have an OC'ers Convention, IMO, just like Hot Rod Conventions, to show our style and form.
Overclocking forever!!!
I am a Linux user myself, and I've contributed a few patches to various projects in the last couple of years.
Either you view Linux as a hobby or you are no longer intrested in Linux. If you indeed developed in Linux, certainly you would know of the various widget sets...now tell me that GNOME (GTK) or KDE (QT) is made out of a "primative" widget set. These UIs hail supreme for most Linux users, and rival (better put, better than) explorer in Windows.
Your best option IMHO is to stick with Windows - if it's a Windows app you're developing then use MS Developer Studio. It's a very easy to use, logical product with built in support for the MFC, which will make your development much quicker. After all, why switch to Linux to develop a Windows app? You wouldn't write the Linux kernel in Dev Studio would you?
The ideal of crossing platforms is to make as little change to the source and be able to keep a consistant feel and functionality. Java was a pioneer in that regard, and since I don't know Java, I won't comment on how good it really is. Aside from Java, Tcl/Tk comes to mind. To what I best know, Tcl/Tk is like Java with JIT contemplation and the need for a interpetor. Both languages I have seen with some of the programs I use and these both fit the ideal of a cross-platform program.
With the various open-source projects out there distrbuting widget sets on multiple platforms (No, DevStudio doesn't count just because it can go from Win 9x to Win CE to Win NT to Win 2k), it allows for developers to again, fit the ideal of crossing platforms. The future of computers doesn't reside with M$ any longer -- cross-development is now. Those who learn now to cross-develop will be the ones with the highest salaries, where people who make remarks such as "Why bother with cross-platform?" will still be paid the lower salaries.
Those without awe on the specticale of a computer are usually those who don't understand enough about them, nonetheless care. The end-users are the ones who just submit to whatever is handed to them, and thus this is why Micor$oft has gained a monopoly.
Now that Micro$oft is getting a tounge-lashing (or so it appears) from the DOJ this time around, while M$ has had to deal with with the DOJ, other OSes have emmerged. Solairis is seeked as a powerful UNIX meant to deal best with heavy web traffic. BSD harnesses the aspect of stability and a good price. Linux is the most popular because of how easily it can replace Windows, and on top of that, have a variety of uses for a variety of reasons yet be so inexpensive.
Windows 2000, IMO, is another version of Windows NT. Nothing new here; just a Windows 98 feel. When Windows 2000 was being conceptualized, Linux made its push on the market (heaven forbid, Mr. Gates, competetion). Many of Windows 2000's ideas are yet again unoriginal. Perhaps you have never seen the Red Hat Package Manager? (Windows Installer) Or thought about installing from network? (Linux can install from FTP sites.) Granted that the industry doesn't code for Linux (at least not yet) doesn't mean that Linux is useless.
M$ is a dissapointment as well as a monopoly. Perhaps they should live up to its hype -- say, if it's stable, maybe there's no bugs? Or if it's stable, it doesn't crash at random? The fact people flame M$ is over the fact that they say one thing, and they don't live up to people's expectations. On the other hand, a choice is good, isn't it? I for one do not prefer to be stuck with an OS that crashes and forces upon me all of the company's programs.
Just because you like Linux doesn't mean you have to use it. Go ahead and buy an OS that costs $219 and rant all you want when some piece of hardware or some driver from a program that you prefer doesn't work. When I'm done installing Red Hat Linux from a grahpical install and letting Kusko detect and properly installing my new cards, I'll be still writing to /. while you work on Windows behaving to your taste.