Heh, what an apt comparison. I can just imagine some kid in his souped up Mitsubishi, screaming along at 50 MP/h in first gear.. too bad processors don't have a gearbox!;)
My point is that strictly relying on clock speed to judge a processor's performance can be as misleading as any other single unit of measure. (I.E. watch a 1 GHz P3 mop the floor with a theoretical 1 GHz P4)
AMD's product ratings are actually a nice way to summarize a processor's specifications into a single number, and in my experience they are a fair comparison. As you said, the only problem with this is that Intel ultimately defines the benchmark. It would be better if there was an impartial industry body to define P-ratings.
Which is more misleading, engineering chips with an impressive clock speed but a mediocre instruction-per-cycle ratio, or to engineer chips with an impressive instruction-per-cycle ratio and market them as comparable to the industry leader's equivalent processors?
I'm not crazy about AMD's processor ratings, but I understand the necessity. Joe Blow doesn't know squat about processors, all he knows is that higher clock numbers are (supposedly) better. At least AMD keeps their marketing department out of the engineering meetings.
And all that meshugass was there only to hide the publisher's own piracy
Hilarious.. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
the copycrack consisted of a two-byte change elsewhere on the disk.
Ah, but knowing which two bytes to change is the point of the whole exercise. I've cracked a number of "protected" C64 software titles, where the protection was almost always based on intentional disk formatting errors. The simpler ones simply tried to read the "bad sector", and used the error code as a key to continue loading.
The most devious protection I've cracked was on "Indiana Jones in the Lost Kingdom", where the routine would read a sector from the disk (containing garbage), then XOR it with the same sector. Performing this operation manually produced nothing useful. I examined the disk's low level format and discovered the trick: There were two tracks with the same ID! It turned out their routine read the first track 20, then XOR'd it with the second track 20. This produced the missing loader code, and thus the game was cracked.
Re:Don't they mean they found spice?
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
That's right, it was a collaboration of RAMBUS(T) and INTEL to monopolize the memory market. Too bad, so sad, they lost. Anybody remember IBM and their MCA plans?
The National DNC list has been a blessing to my house. The endless daily and nightly telemarketing calls have finally ceased! The sound of a ringing phone is no longer a source of dread and continual disruption.
I rarely congratulate our government, but I'm proud of the judges involved who realized the need for this legislation.
That is a most interesting utility. I've heard of it before, but have not yet tried it (I normally use source RPMs or roll my own). If Checkinstall works as advertised, it would offer the best of both worlds -- one gets native compiled speed and options, along with the necessary package management.
When you leave school and enter the real world, maybe you'll realize that package management is absolutely essential when maintaining multiple machines.
I would argue that avoiding package management and doing a "./configure make make install" for all software is more noob-ish because it's quick and easy, but eventually will hose the system (at least any system that uses package management).
And Microsoft's goal (gaol) of backwards compatibility ensures that these misfeatures will stay in the infrastructure indefinitely. I realized this yesterday when cleaning spyware off a friend's Windoze box.
Windows has so many legacy interfaces for loading programs at boot like win.ini, autoexec.bat, ect. that no longer have a pratical purpose, are easily exploitable, are are in a word, "cruft". Their OS is full of this cruft, and it will continue to become more so, as long as Microsoft continues their indiscrimate adding of features without regard to security.
People of Earth. I am Lrrr of the planet Omicron Persei 8. We want the one you call "McNealy." Give us Open Java or we will lay waste to your servers with our mighty Slashdot effect. We demand McNealy!
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, what an apt comparison. I can just imagine some kid in his souped up Mitsubishi, screaming along at 50 MP/h in first gear.. too bad processors don't have a gearbox! ;)
My point is that strictly relying on clock speed to judge a processor's performance can be as misleading as any other single unit of measure. (I.E. watch a 1 GHz P3 mop the floor with a theoretical 1 GHz P4)
AMD's product ratings are actually a nice way to summarize a processor's specifications into a single number, and in my experience they are a fair comparison. As you said, the only problem with this is that Intel ultimately defines the benchmark. It would be better if there was an impartial industry body to define P-ratings.
I initially read that as "Fubar", which I imagine is a possible consequence of (ab)using the Flybar..
I'd heard this somewhere about logs, but I can't remember where.
Stimpy, you eediot!
Which is more misleading, engineering chips with an impressive clock speed but a mediocre instruction-per-cycle ratio, or to engineer chips with an impressive instruction-per-cycle ratio and market them as comparable to the industry leader's equivalent processors?
I'm not crazy about AMD's processor ratings, but I understand the necessity. Joe Blow doesn't know squat about processors, all he knows is that higher clock numbers are (supposedly) better. At least AMD keeps their marketing department out of the engineering meetings.
What will the goose loose, when it leaves the roost?
I call the extensions INTEL64. Yes, it was my idea.
/Hawking
*cough* WeedShare anyone?
I dunno man, it sounds a little harsh..
And all that meshugass was there only to hide the publisher's own piracy
Hilarious.. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
the copycrack consisted of a two-byte change elsewhere on the disk.
Ah, but knowing which two bytes to change is the point of the whole exercise. I've cracked a number of "protected" C64 software titles, where the protection was almost always based on intentional disk formatting errors. The simpler ones simply tried to read the "bad sector", and used the error code as a key to continue loading.
The most devious protection I've cracked was on "Indiana Jones in the Lost Kingdom", where the routine would read a sector from the disk (containing garbage), then XOR it with the same sector. Performing this operation manually produced nothing useful. I examined the disk's low level format and discovered the trick: There were two tracks with the same ID! It turned out their routine read the first track 20, then XOR'd it with the second track 20. This produced the missing loader code, and thus the game was cracked.
Let's hope they don't find any peculiar rock formations.
Yeah, like I'm real scared. :p
That's no moon..
Pop-ups? How quaint. ;)
That's right, it was a collaboration of RAMBUS(T) and INTEL to monopolize the memory market. Too bad, so sad, they lost. Anybody remember IBM and their MCA plans?
The National DNC list has been a blessing to my house. The endless daily and nightly telemarketing calls have finally ceased! The sound of a ringing phone is no longer a source of dread and continual disruption.
I rarely congratulate our government, but I'm proud of the judges involved who realized the need for this legislation.
Naming it Babylon 1 would be cool, just beware of sabotage!!
That is a most interesting utility. I've heard of it before, but have not yet tried it (I normally use source RPMs or roll my own). If Checkinstall works as advertised, it would offer the best of both worlds -- one gets native compiled speed and options, along with the necessary package management.
When you leave school and enter the real world, maybe you'll realize that package management is absolutely essential when maintaining multiple machines.
I would argue that avoiding package management and doing a "./configure make make install" for all software is more noob-ish because it's quick and easy, but eventually will hose the system (at least any system that uses package management).
Tragic! But at least you can get another copy. ;)
Thanks, it wasn't clear from the context what the mistake was. My fault for only skimming the article, I guess. :)
And Microsoft's goal (gaol) of backwards compatibility ensures that these misfeatures will stay in the infrastructure indefinitely. I realized this yesterday when cleaning spyware off a friend's Windoze box.
Windows has so many legacy interfaces for loading programs at boot like win.ini, autoexec.bat, ect. that no longer have a pratical purpose, are easily exploitable, are are in a word, "cruft". Their OS is full of this cruft, and it will continue to become more so, as long as Microsoft continues their indiscrimate adding of features without regard to security.
It's a shame no one's making Linux games any more
Oh really?
There's nothing wrong with that spelling . Maybe Mr. XaXXon prefers the obnoxious Mebibytes?
How many virtual desktops does OS X support? I had to fix a friend's Windoze box today and it felt so limiting with only a single screen to work with.
People of Earth. I am Lrrr of the planet Omicron Persei 8. We want the one you call "McNealy." Give us Open Java or we will lay waste to your servers with our mighty Slashdot effect. We demand McNealy!