SMT -- "simultaneous multi-threading" (or more commonly SMP, symmetric multi-processing) -- is achieved by having two CPUs executing different instruction streams. This is great for things like database servers (possibly handle multiple requests simultaneously), but for anyone running XP Home Edition, there would be no increase in speed.
Which is why most likely, and I thought I made this clear in my first post, that Microsoft would need to release a service pack to enable dual processor configs in Windows XP Home (and likely allow quad processor configs in WXP Pro, and move the formula up for their other releases of XP/.NET Server).
As far as "the technology has been around since Windows '95", if you're talking about SMP, no, it hasn't. SMP has been around since NT 4 (possibly 3.5, I don't know) and above (in the NT line) -- while you can have two CPUs running under '95, the kernel doesn't know what do, so one will run a whole lot cooler than the other:)
I wasn't referring to SMP.. I was referring to multi-threading. Windows '95 was (AFAIK, unless Win32S had this under Windows 3.1) the first MS OS to have a function such as CreateThread (and the other thread-related support routines needed to manage threads). Multi-threading *HAS* been possible, and with the advent of SMT technology multithreaded applications will suddenly perform better without any effort on the part of the developer (as far as the OS is concerned, it's as if you have two CPU's installed).. this was the angle I was trying to present. =)
"but it does make your app more responsive" -- assuming it's written to take advantage of multithreaded operation, in which case it would [often] be more responsive than a single-threaded version. "the UI doesn't freeze during long operations", which again assumes that the long operation takes place in a separate thread, which would keep the main message pump running just as it would under a single-CPU system.
That's what I was assuming. =) As for the last bit about the message pump-- you mis-state how Windows handles multiple threads, it doesn't use messages to do this. The kernel is responsible for allocating slices of time to each active thread, and thread priorities are taken into account during said allocation (hence the 'idle' thread priority, for things working in the background, and the 'real-time' priority for things that MUST respond immediatly to input, for example).
In addition, introducing another processor means that both of them have to keep from stepping on each other's toes -- the two shouldn't try to write to the same region of RAM simultaneously, for example. This extra locking makes SMP-enabled kernels slower for a single thread than non-SMP kernels.
This is true, but only in complex situations where you need one thread to talk with or cooperate with another thread.. thankfully the Win32 API has this covered through Semaphores and Critical Sections. (Lookup CreateSemaphore or CreateCriticalSection in the Win32 API.) I've never done multi-threaded programming under Linux, so I'm not sure what facilities are available in an SMP/SMT environment, but I'd imagine similar functions are there as well (and if not, if you think about it, critical sections are *really* easy to implement in user-code).
The bottom line is that adding an extra processor won't help the average Windows XP user.
No, the bottom line is that with properly written applications, an extra processor WOULD help the average Windows XP user by being 1) more responsive and 2) unable to lock the system in the event of an endless loop being entered (or during a long operation involving one thread). (This I've experienced first-hand on my dual processor Pentium III system-- sometimes I've found bugs in shareware/freeware that involves the app entering a seemingly endless loop-- this endless loop consumes all the CPU resources; but only for one of the two processors. =) The other one is still unused and allows me to kill the errant application. In a single processor system, using the whole CPU could lead to the mouse being unresponsive and the keyboard not working as expected (if the errant code were running in the context of a 'real-time' priority thread/application). Specifically however, SMT *WOULD* help the average Windows XP user while being cheaper than buying two processors outright. As far as I understand it, SMT isn't the exact same as having two processors, but it DOES allow two threads (two execution streams) to execute at the same time when certain parts of the CPU are going unused (which, during typical UI refreshing, is probably quite likely). That's my take on it, again this assumes that Microsoft realizes people will be livid that their SMT enabled CPU's aren't being used in WXP Home, and releases a service pack to fix the issue.
The only reason DVD video on a PC would stutter and/or be worse during playback would *likely* be due to a lack of a hardware MPEG2 decoder (most ATI video cards come with this standard, but nVidia based boards (up until recently) didn't come with this).. I think newer nVidia cards support MPEG2 decoding, but someone else will have to verify this).. If you're using software decoding on a slow system, it's possible that you'd see breaks in the video or pauses.
Then there's also the issue of TV out (though, honestly, on a 17" or 19" monitor, DVD video looks VERY nice, and it'll be loads sharper than on any TV you're likely to have). The other thing to keep in mind with DVD video is that (for NTSC anyways) it's 720x480 (720 pixels wide, 480 pixels tall)-- if you're running a 17" or 19" monitor, you're likely running 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (or heavens be, possibly even 1600x1200, though even on a 19" that tends to kill the eyes). So your monitor is already exceeding the resolution of the video it's playing back (in Windows 2000 (and I imagine every variation of Windows) the video is stretched to fill the screen left-to-right (and the aspect ration is maintained for the vertical resolution) while in full-screen mode.. it's not visible that the image was stretched however).
Plus, I like watching DVD's on my PC more than on the TV because I have a better set of speakers on my PC (just the regular built-in TV speakers on the TV). =)
I'm sure if the MPAA didn't have their hands in the VCR manufacturers business, and in turn, if the VCR manufacturers didn't own stock in film studios (eg: Sony), we'd see options in our VCR to disable this 'Automatic Gain Control'. After making my post, I looked up Macrovision on everything2 and got a pretty accurate (or so I believe) description 2-3 nodes down. Yours looks pretty close to that one. =) I guess on older televisions however, these breaks in the signal *do* show up near the top of the screen (I'm going to guess these are pretty old TV's though, as I've never seen the effect mentioned).
Regardless, Macrovision is utterly futile; a search of 'Macrovision' on eBay turned up 15-20 auctions for a device to thwart it (connects between your DVD player and your VCR, which in my hypothetical 'Mary' situation, would be all she needs, and far cheaper than buying a new TV). The only problem with them is that 1) they're $40 (minimum bid) and 2) they require their own power source (which I guess is normal, but I'd think that this type of device, if running on a "D" cell, would probably run for eons). Shrug. =)
Why is Intel's newest fad so special that they should get extra attention? It's not.
Oh, but I think it is. Any new technology that can give you a 10:1 performance improvement is worth ANY persons time to investigate. That can make the difference between an MPEG2 video stream compiling in 10 hours or 4 hours.
You seem to forget the whole point of optimizing the compiler is to make the compiled code perform faster and better (and possibly with fewer instructions, thus decreasing bloat). Now sure, SSE and SSE2 (and really, even MMX) require more thought from the actual developer as well, but implementing these enhancements in standard libraries and in commonly used functions would surely help people realize some of these benefits up-front with a simple re-compile of their code.
There's also your issue of considering it a "fad". This technology is here to stay, and Intel has pretty much said that using the FPU is the wrong way to go about things in their newer CPU's. By this very virtue, one could pretty much surmise out of the gate that if a test or benchmark uses *only* the FPU, Intel will likely fail, and fail miserably. Intel has really only introduced three new technologies since the release of the Pentium--
MMX (MultiMedia eXtensions) - SIMD (single instruction multiple data; basically performing the same operation repeatedly on a set of data, by only executing a single instruction) integer routines, useful in certain video functions, and in some string functions. Introduced in some later Pentium processors (not in the Pentium Pro, I believe, not sure though).
SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) - SIMD again, but applied to floating point work. Introduced in the Pentium III.
SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) - More SIMD, again applied to floating point (I believe, I've only begun to read the info on this from Intel's developer website (developer.intel.com has tons of manuals in PDF format you can read on the subject though). Introduced in the Pentium 4.
Only three "fads", as you call them. Other than this, very few instructions have been added that a compiler team need worry about; the only ones I can even think of worth dealing with in a compiler are the CMOVcc instructions (and with these, it depends on the amount of time you save using these instructions; I assume they're an improvement though since it saves you the trouble of branching in your code).
BTW: The compiler issue is really more of a Wintel based problem (afterall, the benchmarks being run are usually on Windows based systems).. take a look at Borland's compilers for example; Borland Delphi offers little optimization configurations. Borland CBuilder offers more options, but as far as I recall, no ability to compile with MMX/SSE enhancements. As someone else pointed out, you can in fact purchase Intel's compiler technology as a plugin for Visual Studio, but Microsoft should *really* be adding these features directly to their compiler.
And the latest optimization issue (which I don't believe can be addressed through compiler changes, but who knows) will likely be when Intel releases SMT-capable processors.. suddenly everyone running Windows XP Professional (or if MS decides to allow dual processors on WXP Home Edition) will be able to run multiple threads at the same time-- the problem is, not a lot of software utilizes multiple threads, even though the technology has been around since Windows '95 (obviously in a single processor environment, you don't get a speed increase, but it does make your app more responsive (the UI doesn't freeze during long operations, for example)). Benchmarking an AMD processor without any form of SMT against an SMT capable Intel processor would be unfair at that point.
Uh, actually it's copyrighted 1994-- that makes it six or seven years old. Strangely, except for suggesting that people use REP MOVSxxx, it's fairly timely considering that the Pentium processor is covered (and later iterations of the Pentium line used almost the exact same core). Hence why I also suggested that it might be nice if the author put out an updated book, taking into consideration current processor technology (the Pentium 4 being the first big change since the Pentium Pro).
As for optimizing skills coming naturally, that's a bad assumption to make. You'd be surprised how many VB coders couldn't optimize their way out of a paper bag. (And really, I've seen some badly written C/C++ code as well...)
Macrovision has always been something I think the government should deem illegal-- especially in light of DVD players and how it infringes on a consumers rights;
Example: Mary has an old RF (coax) input TV that works fine, and she has a semi-old (1990) VCR attached to it to watch movies. This VCR has a video input on the back for hooking up other devices, camcorders and so forth. Mary decides she wants to take advantage of the latest price drops in DVD players (example: Pioneer DVD player at Costco for roughly $200-250). Mary buys said DVD player, takes it home and plugs it into her VCR using A/V cables (RCA jacks). Mary proceeds to try to watch The Matrix. Lo and behold, Mary notices that instead of a superior image, she sees the image getting extremely dark, then turning bright, then dark again, repeatedly. The culprit? Macrovision.
It's bullshit that people should have to purchase a brand-new television set to watch DVD movies (and this may in fact not be possible for the person used in the example above, after all, a new TV can cost three times as much as a DVD player).
It's also interesting to note that Laser Discs, for whatever reason, didn't employ Macrovision. Another problem I have with Macrovision is that (supposedly, based upon my little understanding of the subject) introduces errors into the video (and audio?) INTENTIONALLY, errors which the human eye supposedly can't see, but which confuse video inputs on VCR's and other 'video input' devices (video capture cards in PC's, and so on).
The P3 adds SSE (yeah, like that is used a lot) and brings the cache on-die with the Copper[less]mine processors.
Actually, this brings up an important issue-- compiler technology, and the run-time libraries (RTL's) they use (in the case of C/C++, the standard libraries, in the case of Pascal/Delphi, the RTL and possibly parts of Borland's VCL/CLX). The problem, it seems to me, is that compiler authors don't seem to take advantage of architecture specific improvements like they used to (and as they should). Sure, some libraries/RTL's take advantage of it (and the compiler may have switches to emit optimized code), but if the standard libraries/RTL's are re-compiled (or even re-written) to take advantage of it, then it's all for nothing.
It seems to me that Intel has the right idea (the FPU is really useless if you know HOW to use SSE and SSE2 properly), and that if anything, it's poor software authors and poor compiler writers that are to blame for the lackluster performance of code on Intel's CPUs. It's saddening to me to see the optimization skills software engineers *used* to have back in the day diminishing year by year as the ability to right crappy code is justified by ever-faster CPU's. (Why spend the weeks or months needed to engineer everything to run properly now, when Intel/AMD will have a 'fix' for our sloppy code out in a few months?)
I wish authors such as Michael Abrash still released optimization guides for assembly language (or even just updated versions for C/C++ and assembler).. his 'Zen of Code Optimization' (ISBN: 1-883577-03-9 *or* FatBrain.com's description (out of print)) was probably the best investment *I* ever made.
Any way to get the currency outside of Europe?
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
I've always been fascinated with foreign currency (specifically, the printed variety), and the Euro is the most interesting to come around in a long time. Is there any place online one can order printed currency or coin ala the US Mint? (http://www.usmint.gov/ for coins or http://www.treas.gov/ for printed currency-- US Mint apparently handles international orders for those curious about US currency, not sure about the Treasury.)
The first track is likely the data track, and the people who wrote this report didn't realize that the total number of tracks increased by one (eg: look on the back of the CD case, note the total number of tracks (let's pretend we know this ourselves and say it's 13).. now look in Explorer or the CD Player app (or Windows Media Player or whatever the hell you're using to play CD audio or browse the CD's files). You should notice *14* tracks. The full 13 audio tracks are all there, but instead of ignoring the data track, it's showing it as the *first* track on the disc (something you probably wouldn't want to play anyways-- binary data doesn't sound good when piped through a speaker).
That's my theory anyways, if anyone can confirm this, I'd be pleased.
Good Christ.. they say that survival mode has you KILL 100 people as fast as you can. While this is partly true, it's also PARTLY WRONG. The Street Fighter titles, unlike Mortal Kombat, work on the premise that you're knocking your opponent out (hence the KO when you defeat an opponent-- what the hell did they think KO stood for?!). Sure, during gameplay it no longer says KO between the energy/life/power meters, but that's an issue with screen real-estate; the timer couldn't go in it's original location on such a small screen.
I remember a site that lambasted South Park's movie when it came out, I can't find the link now but it's just evil-- not the movie, the site, for trying to tell people that a movie which to most adults is harmless is just so "evil" and likely to corrupt little children and impressionable adults.. blech. I hate these kooks.
The movie is just pointless with James Cameron directing it. Sure, Arnold being back is great, but Cameron was the soul and vision behind the movies IMHO. Linda Hamilton not being involved also pretty much assures me that for all of the Hollywood hubbub on the subject, it's gonna flop, bad. (And if the WWF Chyna connection is true, that should be enough for ANYONE to see that it's gonna be as bad as The Mummy Returns (eg: The Rock, c'mon!)..)
Ed Norton would have made an interesting addition though.
Shrug, just as offensive as CNN is to conservatives-- you guys are just pissed they finally got a news channel of their own. (Having had the lock on all the major networks and other media outlets, this must be a real let-down-- now you can't force-feed your point of view on the rest of the world, with no way for dissenting viewers to refute it publically.)
Besides, like I said in my first post, FoxNews was one of the only networks running news (LIVE news) 24/7 advertising free after the attacks on 9/11. You could switch it on at 2 or 3 am (Pacific Time) in the days (and I think even weeks) following the attack and get live updates on what was going on.
They were only on 24/7 in the days following 9/11 reporting on every detail as it came out. Making assumptions is something I EXPECT the media to do, what the hell do you think reporters do all day? "Hm, let's gather some facts, but never actually suggest any possible conclusion, yes, this is news-worthy, HONEST."
Besides, I'd be willing to bet they were only reporting what government officials were telling them in private (the bin Laden connection). I think most people are used to seeing un-substantiated news on the TV, and most folk are smart enough to make their own decisions (what's the Fox News slogan-- "We report, you decide."-- this was more than true after 9/11; they presented a number of possibilities right after the attacks happened, and left it to you, THE VIEWER, to decide).
Personally, I think you're just some CNN-zealot who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly.
Uh, because people are allowed to have opinions? Moderating it as a Troll wasn't appropriate, I called it because that's the hip thing to do when you don't agree with the majority (even though that's NOT what moderation is supposed to be used for-- engineering the visible opinion to match yours).
The only "fucking moron" here is you and the dipshit who modded me down because he didn't AGREE with me (nothing I said could be read as "Trolling", unless you're fucking paranoid)..
I haven't been infected with the virus, so I have no clue-- the guy prior to me was making it sound like NTFS presented some sort of difficult challenge to delete files in, and I was merely pointing out that it's possible to just MoveFile() it and reboot and it's gone.
Easier way, yeah-- open Task Manager | Processes and find it in there (if it is, even), right-click on it and End Process. Then deleting the file should be easy (should be able to do it with Explorer).
But, then there's a reason I threw in 'programmers perspective' in the subject line...
The combination of MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT and a NULL lpNewFileName creates a special condition where Windows deletes the file at startup. This is commonly used by installers, for example, when a file is in use and DeleteFile fails. For anyone going through the trouble of putting this into an executable, you might want to grab the Windows system directory from Windows itself.. this can be done using GetSystemDirectory (prototyped as--
UINT GetSystemDirectory(
LPTSTR lpBuffer,// buffer for system directory
UINT uSize// size of directory buffer
);
) or you could be clever and use ExpandEnvironmentStrings, prototyped as--
DWORD ExpandEnvironmentStrings(
LPCTSTR lpSrc,// string with environment variables
LPTSTR lpDst,// string with expanded strings
DWORD nSize// maximum characters in expanded string
);
Shrug. =) Just thought this might help, for those unable to figure out how to delete a file in NTFS (but that do have a C/C++ or other compatible compiler).
Redundant, or probably going to be modded as a Troll, but I just don't care--
WHAT IS WITH THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND APPLE COMPUTERS?
When I was in high-school, they force-fed this crap into our lives, and it's sad to see a generation later that this attitude persists even to this day. Doesn't anybody in the public school system GET IT? The real world uses PC-based hardware and software, mostly Windows based systems, but I imagine Linux has a bigger share of the market than MacOS does. (It certainly has a lot of mindshare in the public.)
Why public schools don't go out and buy (or assemble!) cheap PC's instead of forking out a fortune for Apple crap is beyond me. Sure, these are laptops, so self-assembly really isn't realistic, but you could buy Celeron-based laptops and make out on the cheap fairly well! (Cruise over to Gateway and check out their low-end Celeron systems, hell, even the mid-range Pentium III systems don't break the $2000 mark if you keep off most of the big spendy features (CD-RW drive, for example).
Very irritating that my tax dollars go to NOT helping kids learn how to use real-world systems and software...
What, exactly, is your point with this statement? Let's think, just for a little bit, about whether what you said changes anything-- [thinks, thinks some more, comes to a conclusion]. NOPE! It's still an entirely accurate statement.
Just because Company A doesn't produce as much as Company B doesn't mean you ignore that Company B sold FAR more units at retail than Company A did (even if both sold out). While the numbers don't show all sides of the issue, it does show that Nintendo indeed sold twice as many units as Microsoft did. No FUD in there. I'm not afraid. I'm quite certain. And there's no doubt.
Great ideas, especially about limiting transparency to only windows beneath the app, not the entire background/desktop. An ability to limit transparency to just X windows deep would also be helpful. Finally, if transparency were able to be limited to the applications workspace (and exluded from say, the title bar and menu bar areas, as well as the borders) it would LOOK better as well.
Of course Windows would probably be tons better in this department if it was just a configuration option, and not something you had to have some people write a specialized app for, but all the same... I agree about terminal windows though, IMHO that's about all I'd make transparent given the chance..
I've heard of SDL (not even sure what the acronym stands for) being used for cross-platform development between Win32 and Linux-- what kind of functionality does this cover?
At my first IT-type job with a dot-com I had quite a lot of after-hours interactions with co-workers; this was mostly due to the fact that we were all roommates in the same house, but before we even moved in together we'd hang out, Quake III with eachother and whatnot (I'm not sure if playing Quake III counts, but it gave us a chance to interact). My wife knew stuff about the others and vice versa, that kind of thing, as well. But I suppose this is almost a given when people are shacked up together.
My second job, on the other hand, was quite different. I wasn't exactly outgoing, but it was my general impression that any relationship I had with my co-workers terminated at the end of the day-- don't get me wrong, they were great people and wonderful co-workers, but there wasn't much in the way of personal interaction or after work activities (in fact, in this latter category, I can recall NO after-work activities whatsoever). I mostly attribute this to my closed-off nature at the second job though, I think under different circumstances (eg: the prior dot-com not screwing me over) I'd have probably been friendlier.
To get to the juice of your question though; yes it does happen, it's perfectly normal and okay, and while it doesn't happen with ALL people (see my two examples above), it can. Some people may just not like that kind of thing (if you're questioning yourself and why it is you haven't had these kinds of 'bonding' relationships), I know that I enjoy my privacy after work, and the time it allots me to work on my hobbies (which are pretty much an addiction). If you have a similar all-consuming hobby, it's likely you don't interact with co-workers on this bonding-level you speak of, and it's likely normal given the situation. Now if you find yourself sitting around the house/apartment on the sofa watching more TV than is normal (or simply bored beyond words), I'd suggest speaking up or arranging something with your co-workers that might be fun for all of them. (EG: Bar/club, maybe just out to eat at a restaraunt, perhaps a movie, or just about any fun-to-do-in-groups activity.)
-1 Redundant, I KNOW...
on
MAME On Xbox
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But this REALLY HAS been posted before. Not even over 4 months ago at that... [shake] You know you read/. too much when you can remember articles and point out repeats...
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why most likely, and I thought I made this clear in my first post, that Microsoft would need to release a service pack to enable dual processor configs in Windows XP Home (and likely allow quad processor configs in WXP Pro, and move the formula up for their other releases of XP/.NET Server).
I wasn't referring to SMP.. I was referring to multi-threading. Windows '95 was (AFAIK, unless Win32S had this under Windows 3.1) the first MS OS to have a function such as CreateThread (and the other thread-related support routines needed to manage threads). Multi-threading *HAS* been possible, and with the advent of SMT technology multithreaded applications will suddenly perform better without any effort on the part of the developer (as far as the OS is concerned, it's as if you have two CPU's installed).. this was the angle I was trying to present. =)
That's what I was assuming. =) As for the last bit about the message pump-- you mis-state how Windows handles multiple threads, it doesn't use messages to do this. The kernel is responsible for allocating slices of time to each active thread, and thread priorities are taken into account during said allocation (hence the 'idle' thread priority, for things working in the background, and the 'real-time' priority for things that MUST respond immediatly to input, for example).
This is true, but only in complex situations where you need one thread to talk with or cooperate with another thread.. thankfully the Win32 API has this covered through Semaphores and Critical Sections. (Lookup CreateSemaphore or CreateCriticalSection in the Win32 API.) I've never done multi-threaded programming under Linux, so I'm not sure what facilities are available in an SMP/SMT environment, but I'd imagine similar functions are there as well (and if not, if you think about it, critical sections are *really* easy to implement in user-code).
No, the bottom line is that with properly written applications, an extra processor WOULD help the average Windows XP user by being 1) more responsive and 2) unable to lock the system in the event of an endless loop being entered (or during a long operation involving one thread). (This I've experienced first-hand on my dual processor Pentium III system-- sometimes I've found bugs in shareware/freeware that involves the app entering a seemingly endless loop-- this endless loop consumes all the CPU resources; but only for one of the two processors. =) The other one is still unused and allows me to kill the errant application. In a single processor system, using the whole CPU could lead to the mouse being unresponsive and the keyboard not working as expected (if the errant code were running in the context of a 'real-time' priority thread/application). Specifically however, SMT *WOULD* help the average Windows XP user while being cheaper than buying two processors outright. As far as I understand it, SMT isn't the exact same as having two processors, but it DOES allow two threads (two execution streams) to execute at the same time when certain parts of the CPU are going unused (which, during typical UI refreshing, is probably quite likely). That's my take on it, again this assumes that Microsoft realizes people will be livid that their SMT enabled CPU's aren't being used in WXP Home, and releases a service pack to fix the issue.
The only reason DVD video on a PC would stutter and/or be worse during playback would *likely* be due to a lack of a hardware MPEG2 decoder (most ATI video cards come with this standard, but nVidia based boards (up until recently) didn't come with this).. I think newer nVidia cards support MPEG2 decoding, but someone else will have to verify this).. If you're using software decoding on a slow system, it's possible that you'd see breaks in the video or pauses.
Then there's also the issue of TV out (though, honestly, on a 17" or 19" monitor, DVD video looks VERY nice, and it'll be loads sharper than on any TV you're likely to have). The other thing to keep in mind with DVD video is that (for NTSC anyways) it's 720x480 (720 pixels wide, 480 pixels tall)-- if you're running a 17" or 19" monitor, you're likely running 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (or heavens be, possibly even 1600x1200, though even on a 19" that tends to kill the eyes). So your monitor is already exceeding the resolution of the video it's playing back (in Windows 2000 (and I imagine every variation of Windows) the video is stretched to fill the screen left-to-right (and the aspect ration is maintained for the vertical resolution) while in full-screen mode.. it's not visible that the image was stretched however).
Plus, I like watching DVD's on my PC more than on the TV because I have a better set of speakers on my PC (just the regular built-in TV speakers on the TV). =)
I'm sure if the MPAA didn't have their hands in the VCR manufacturers business, and in turn, if the VCR manufacturers didn't own stock in film studios (eg: Sony), we'd see options in our VCR to disable this 'Automatic Gain Control'. After making my post, I looked up Macrovision on everything2 and got a pretty accurate (or so I believe) description 2-3 nodes down. Yours looks pretty close to that one. =) I guess on older televisions however, these breaks in the signal *do* show up near the top of the screen (I'm going to guess these are pretty old TV's though, as I've never seen the effect mentioned).
Regardless, Macrovision is utterly futile; a search of 'Macrovision' on eBay turned up 15-20 auctions for a device to thwart it (connects between your DVD player and your VCR, which in my hypothetical 'Mary' situation, would be all she needs, and far cheaper than buying a new TV). The only problem with them is that 1) they're $40 (minimum bid) and 2) they require their own power source (which I guess is normal, but I'd think that this type of device, if running on a "D" cell, would probably run for eons). Shrug. =)
Oh, but I think it is. Any new technology that can give you a 10:1 performance improvement is worth ANY persons time to investigate. That can make the difference between an MPEG2 video stream compiling in 10 hours or 4 hours.
You seem to forget the whole point of optimizing the compiler is to make the compiled code perform faster and better (and possibly with fewer instructions, thus decreasing bloat). Now sure, SSE and SSE2 (and really, even MMX) require more thought from the actual developer as well, but implementing these enhancements in standard libraries and in commonly used functions would surely help people realize some of these benefits up-front with a simple re-compile of their code.
There's also your issue of considering it a "fad". This technology is here to stay, and Intel has pretty much said that using the FPU is the wrong way to go about things in their newer CPU's. By this very virtue, one could pretty much surmise out of the gate that if a test or benchmark uses *only* the FPU, Intel will likely fail, and fail miserably. Intel has really only introduced three new technologies since the release of the Pentium--
MMX (MultiMedia eXtensions) - SIMD (single instruction multiple data; basically performing the same operation repeatedly on a set of data, by only executing a single instruction) integer routines, useful in certain video functions, and in some string functions. Introduced in some later Pentium processors (not in the Pentium Pro, I believe, not sure though).
SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) - SIMD again, but applied to floating point work. Introduced in the Pentium III.
SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) - More SIMD, again applied to floating point (I believe, I've only begun to read the info on this from Intel's developer website (developer.intel.com has tons of manuals in PDF format you can read on the subject though). Introduced in the Pentium 4.
Only three "fads", as you call them. Other than this, very few instructions have been added that a compiler team need worry about; the only ones I can even think of worth dealing with in a compiler are the CMOVcc instructions (and with these, it depends on the amount of time you save using these instructions; I assume they're an improvement though since it saves you the trouble of branching in your code).
BTW: The compiler issue is really more of a Wintel based problem (afterall, the benchmarks being run are usually on Windows based systems).. take a look at Borland's compilers for example; Borland Delphi offers little optimization configurations. Borland CBuilder offers more options, but as far as I recall, no ability to compile with MMX/SSE enhancements. As someone else pointed out, you can in fact purchase Intel's compiler technology as a plugin for Visual Studio, but Microsoft should *really* be adding these features directly to their compiler.
And the latest optimization issue (which I don't believe can be addressed through compiler changes, but who knows) will likely be when Intel releases SMT-capable processors.. suddenly everyone running Windows XP Professional (or if MS decides to allow dual processors on WXP Home Edition) will be able to run multiple threads at the same time-- the problem is, not a lot of software utilizes multiple threads, even though the technology has been around since Windows '95 (obviously in a single processor environment, you don't get a speed increase, but it does make your app more responsive (the UI doesn't freeze during long operations, for example)). Benchmarking an AMD processor without any form of SMT against an SMT capable Intel processor would be unfair at that point.
Uh, actually it's copyrighted 1994-- that makes it six or seven years old. Strangely, except for suggesting that people use REP MOVSxxx, it's fairly timely considering that the Pentium processor is covered (and later iterations of the Pentium line used almost the exact same core). Hence why I also suggested that it might be nice if the author put out an updated book, taking into consideration current processor technology (the Pentium 4 being the first big change since the Pentium Pro).
As for optimizing skills coming naturally, that's a bad assumption to make. You'd be surprised how many VB coders couldn't optimize their way out of a paper bag. (And really, I've seen some badly written C/C++ code as well...)
Macrovision has always been something I think the government should deem illegal-- especially in light of DVD players and how it infringes on a consumers rights;
Example: Mary has an old RF (coax) input TV that works fine, and she has a semi-old (1990) VCR attached to it to watch movies. This VCR has a video input on the back for hooking up other devices, camcorders and so forth. Mary decides she wants to take advantage of the latest price drops in DVD players (example: Pioneer DVD player at Costco for roughly $200-250). Mary buys said DVD player, takes it home and plugs it into her VCR using A/V cables (RCA jacks). Mary proceeds to try to watch The Matrix. Lo and behold, Mary notices that instead of a superior image, she sees the image getting extremely dark, then turning bright, then dark again, repeatedly. The culprit? Macrovision.
It's bullshit that people should have to purchase a brand-new television set to watch DVD movies (and this may in fact not be possible for the person used in the example above, after all, a new TV can cost three times as much as a DVD player).
It's also interesting to note that Laser Discs, for whatever reason, didn't employ Macrovision. Another problem I have with Macrovision is that (supposedly, based upon my little understanding of the subject) introduces errors into the video (and audio?) INTENTIONALLY, errors which the human eye supposedly can't see, but which confuse video inputs on VCR's and other 'video input' devices (video capture cards in PC's, and so on).
Actually, this brings up an important issue-- compiler technology, and the run-time libraries (RTL's) they use (in the case of C/C++, the standard libraries, in the case of Pascal/Delphi, the RTL and possibly parts of Borland's VCL/CLX). The problem, it seems to me, is that compiler authors don't seem to take advantage of architecture specific improvements like they used to (and as they should). Sure, some libraries/RTL's take advantage of it (and the compiler may have switches to emit optimized code), but if the standard libraries/RTL's are re-compiled (or even re-written) to take advantage of it, then it's all for nothing.
It seems to me that Intel has the right idea (the FPU is really useless if you know HOW to use SSE and SSE2 properly), and that if anything, it's poor software authors and poor compiler writers that are to blame for the lackluster performance of code on Intel's CPUs. It's saddening to me to see the optimization skills software engineers *used* to have back in the day diminishing year by year as the ability to right crappy code is justified by ever-faster CPU's. (Why spend the weeks or months needed to engineer everything to run properly now, when Intel/AMD will have a 'fix' for our sloppy code out in a few months?)
I wish authors such as Michael Abrash still released optimization guides for assembly language (or even just updated versions for C/C++ and assembler).. his 'Zen of Code Optimization' (ISBN: 1-883577-03-9 *or* FatBrain.com's description (out of print)) was probably the best investment *I* ever made.
I've always been fascinated with foreign currency (specifically, the printed variety), and the Euro is the most interesting to come around in a long time. Is there any place online one can order printed currency or coin ala the US Mint? (http://www.usmint.gov/ for coins or http://www.treas.gov/ for printed currency-- US Mint apparently handles international orders for those curious about US currency, not sure about the Treasury.)
The first track is likely the data track, and the people who wrote this report didn't realize that the total number of tracks increased by one (eg: look on the back of the CD case, note the total number of tracks (let's pretend we know this ourselves and say it's 13).. now look in Explorer or the CD Player app (or Windows Media Player or whatever the hell you're using to play CD audio or browse the CD's files). You should notice *14* tracks. The full 13 audio tracks are all there, but instead of ignoring the data track, it's showing it as the *first* track on the disc (something you probably wouldn't want to play anyways-- binary data doesn't sound good when piped through a speaker).
That's my theory anyways, if anyone can confirm this, I'd be pleased.
Good Christ.. they say that survival mode has you KILL 100 people as fast as you can. While this is partly true, it's also PARTLY WRONG. The Street Fighter titles, unlike Mortal Kombat, work on the premise that you're knocking your opponent out (hence the KO when you defeat an opponent-- what the hell did they think KO stood for?!). Sure, during gameplay it no longer says KO between the energy/life/power meters, but that's an issue with screen real-estate; the timer couldn't go in it's original location on such a small screen.
I remember a site that lambasted South Park's movie when it came out, I can't find the link now but it's just evil-- not the movie, the site, for trying to tell people that a movie which to most adults is harmless is just so "evil" and likely to corrupt little children and impressionable adults.. blech. I hate these kooks.
The movie is just pointless with James Cameron directing it. Sure, Arnold being back is great, but Cameron was the soul and vision behind the movies IMHO. Linda Hamilton not being involved also pretty much assures me that for all of the Hollywood hubbub on the subject, it's gonna flop, bad. (And if the WWF Chyna connection is true, that should be enough for ANYONE to see that it's gonna be as bad as The Mummy Returns (eg: The Rock, c'mon!)..)
Ed Norton would have made an interesting addition though.
Shrug, just as offensive as CNN is to conservatives-- you guys are just pissed they finally got a news channel of their own. (Having had the lock on all the major networks and other media outlets, this must be a real let-down-- now you can't force-feed your point of view on the rest of the world, with no way for dissenting viewers to refute it publically.)
Besides, like I said in my first post, FoxNews was one of the only networks running news (LIVE news) 24/7 advertising free after the attacks on 9/11. You could switch it on at 2 or 3 am (Pacific Time) in the days (and I think even weeks) following the attack and get live updates on what was going on.
Uh, sure, whatever.
They were only on 24/7 in the days following 9/11 reporting on every detail as it came out. Making assumptions is something I EXPECT the media to do, what the hell do you think reporters do all day? "Hm, let's gather some facts, but never actually suggest any possible conclusion, yes, this is news-worthy, HONEST."
Besides, I'd be willing to bet they were only reporting what government officials were telling them in private (the bin Laden connection). I think most people are used to seeing un-substantiated news on the TV, and most folk are smart enough to make their own decisions (what's the Fox News slogan-- "We report, you decide."-- this was more than true after 9/11; they presented a number of possibilities right after the attacks happened, and left it to you, THE VIEWER, to decide).
Personally, I think you're just some CNN-zealot who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly.
Uh, because people are allowed to have opinions? Moderating it as a Troll wasn't appropriate, I called it because that's the hip thing to do when you don't agree with the majority (even though that's NOT what moderation is supposed to be used for-- engineering the visible opinion to match yours).
The only "fucking moron" here is you and the dipshit who modded me down because he didn't AGREE with me (nothing I said could be read as "Trolling", unless you're fucking paranoid)..
Shrug.
I haven't been infected with the virus, so I have no clue-- the guy prior to me was making it sound like NTFS presented some sort of difficult challenge to delete files in, and I was merely pointing out that it's possible to just MoveFile() it and reboot and it's gone.
Easier way, yeah-- open Task Manager | Processes and find it in there (if it is, even), right-click on it and End Process. Then deleting the file should be easy (should be able to do it with Explorer).
But, then there's a reason I threw in 'programmers perspective' in the subject line...
You'd use MoveFileEx to get rid of the file, like so--
// buffer for system directory
// size of directory buffer
// string with environment variables
// string with expanded strings
// maximum characters in expanded string
MoveFileEx("C:\\WINNT\\System32\\Gone.scr", NULL, MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT);
The combination of MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT and a NULL lpNewFileName creates a special condition where Windows deletes the file at startup. This is commonly used by installers, for example, when a file is in use and DeleteFile fails. For anyone going through the trouble of putting this into an executable, you might want to grab the Windows system directory from Windows itself.. this can be done using GetSystemDirectory (prototyped as--
UINT GetSystemDirectory(
LPTSTR lpBuffer,
UINT uSize
);
) or you could be clever and use ExpandEnvironmentStrings, prototyped as--
DWORD ExpandEnvironmentStrings(
LPCTSTR lpSrc,
LPTSTR lpDst,
DWORD nSize
);
Shrug. =) Just thought this might help, for those unable to figure out how to delete a file in NTFS (but that do have a C/C++ or other compatible compiler).
Yay, I called that one. Damn lemmings here on /.
Redundant, or probably going to be modded as a Troll, but I just don't care--
WHAT IS WITH THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND APPLE COMPUTERS?
When I was in high-school, they force-fed this crap into our lives, and it's sad to see a generation later that this attitude persists even to this day. Doesn't anybody in the public school system GET IT? The real world uses PC-based hardware and software, mostly Windows based systems, but I imagine Linux has a bigger share of the market than MacOS does. (It certainly has a lot of mindshare in the public.)
Why public schools don't go out and buy (or assemble!) cheap PC's instead of forking out a fortune for Apple crap is beyond me. Sure, these are laptops, so self-assembly really isn't realistic, but you could buy Celeron-based laptops and make out on the cheap fairly well! (Cruise over to Gateway and check out their low-end Celeron systems, hell, even the mid-range Pentium III systems don't break the $2000 mark if you keep off most of the big spendy features (CD-RW drive, for example).
Very irritating that my tax dollars go to NOT helping kids learn how to use real-world systems and software...
What, exactly, is your point with this statement? Let's think, just for a little bit, about whether what you said changes anything-- [thinks, thinks some more, comes to a conclusion]. NOPE! It's still an entirely accurate statement.
Just because Company A doesn't produce as much as Company B doesn't mean you ignore that Company B sold FAR more units at retail than Company A did (even if both sold out). While the numbers don't show all sides of the issue, it does show that Nintendo indeed sold twice as many units as Microsoft did. No FUD in there. I'm not afraid. I'm quite certain. And there's no doubt.
Great ideas, especially about limiting transparency to only windows beneath the app, not the entire background/desktop. An ability to limit transparency to just X windows deep would also be helpful. Finally, if transparency were able to be limited to the applications workspace (and exluded from say, the title bar and menu bar areas, as well as the borders) it would LOOK better as well.
Of course Windows would probably be tons better in this department if it was just a configuration option, and not something you had to have some people write a specialized app for, but all the same... I agree about terminal windows though, IMHO that's about all I'd make transparent given the chance..
I've heard of SDL (not even sure what the acronym stands for) being used for cross-platform development between Win32 and Linux-- what kind of functionality does this cover?
At my first IT-type job with a dot-com I had quite a lot of after-hours interactions with co-workers; this was mostly due to the fact that we were all roommates in the same house, but before we even moved in together we'd hang out, Quake III with eachother and whatnot (I'm not sure if playing Quake III counts, but it gave us a chance to interact). My wife knew stuff about the others and vice versa, that kind of thing, as well. But I suppose this is almost a given when people are shacked up together.
My second job, on the other hand, was quite different. I wasn't exactly outgoing, but it was my general impression that any relationship I had with my co-workers terminated at the end of the day-- don't get me wrong, they were great people and wonderful co-workers, but there wasn't much in the way of personal interaction or after work activities (in fact, in this latter category, I can recall NO after-work activities whatsoever). I mostly attribute this to my closed-off nature at the second job though, I think under different circumstances (eg: the prior dot-com not screwing me over) I'd have probably been friendlier.
To get to the juice of your question though; yes it does happen, it's perfectly normal and okay, and while it doesn't happen with ALL people (see my two examples above), it can. Some people may just not like that kind of thing (if you're questioning yourself and why it is you haven't had these kinds of 'bonding' relationships), I know that I enjoy my privacy after work, and the time it allots me to work on my hobbies (which are pretty much an addiction). If you have a similar all-consuming hobby, it's likely you don't interact with co-workers on this bonding-level you speak of, and it's likely normal given the situation. Now if you find yourself sitting around the house/apartment on the sofa watching more TV than is normal (or simply bored beyond words), I'd suggest speaking up or arranging something with your co-workers that might be fun for all of them. (EG: Bar/club, maybe just out to eat at a restaraunt, perhaps a movie, or just about any fun-to-do-in-groups activity.)
But this REALLY HAS been posted before. Not even over 4 months ago at that... [shake] You know you read /. too much when you can remember articles and point out repeats...
I never said it was Sean Connery. Click the link next time.
...explains where those damned doughnut shaped ear-muffs Leia wore in Star Wars came from!