Depends upon how many apps/libs/etc. you're doing that coding to. I had to work with over 20 differing components for document imaging, some of which I started from ground zero, some were written by others and I had to pay for THIER sins (i.e. I had to rip it apart and put it back together, literally making a new component)- and had to worry about 16 versus 32 bit code, 95 versus NT (Because they ARE different in MANY ways), doing things with APIs that are plain flat broken (use wise- they SCREAM at doing what they do...), having to roll your own imaging functions because some of your libraries don't do enough to make the component work the way that the exec wants to)
It actually depends on what you're doing- you could be doing very quality stuff (I did as few lines/operations as possible...) but you could be doing a lot of it.
That's what it's looking like- and I hope the prices on these are reasonable and my carrier decides to offer them; it'd be a GREAT reason for me to upgrade my current phone...;->
For those who think that the memory was a 1 to 1 comparison, you're mistaken. Whatever they told NT to do with the memory they did NOT tell NT to not use the 4Gb, it told it to use it differently. (Which, between the disparity of memory used and that, I suspect that this is where some of NT's supposedly stellar performance came from...)
Simply put, 4Gb != 1Gb. They should have stripped down the box to do an apples to apples comparison. That right there just invalidated their little benchmark.
Second, as others have pointed out, I suspect that Apache's problem was not threading, or Linux itself per-se. It was that they did nothing to really tune Linux on that box- the Apache test slammed squarely into a preconfigured limit (why it's there, I don't know, but it is, just the same...) for the number of open handles for files. That's why it seemed to peter out like it did.
There's just so damn many things that are sloppily done and dead wrong on the Linux side of things that I don't even really know where to begin taking this apart and proving it all the lies that it is.
And what's more, you're right. Wonder what it'd be like with a PROPERLY tuned test machine. They never once got to comparing apples to apples- and it seems they are guilty of past sins of this nature.
Mindcraft, Inc. conducted the performance tests described in this report between March 10 and March 13, 1999. Microsoft Corporation sponsored the testing reported herein.
The test figures do NOT reflect real-world performance behavior of NT vs. Linux. NT can't cope with the loads they're claiming- we've seen NT boxen just like the Dell supposedly used collapse under the load whereas a Linux box keeps on chugging.
Yeah, this sounds vaguely familiar. I used the college as a springboard to obtain access to resources I couldn't have obtained otherwise. Information about programming languages and methodologies that the industry was going towards. Access to the Internet, and all the information it brought to me.
The only thing of use that I directly got from College and my professors was critical thinking- a couple of them were REAL teachers and taught me to think for myself and how to learn the things I need in life on my own.
It's because the dynamic range of the CD is dramatically superior to the tape- even if you're "losing something" digitizing, the amount of info you're getting encoded is dramatically different between the two. Combine this with the ease that you can retrieve the exact same bitstream from something easier than you can retrieve an analog signal from something, you get the performance difference. In reality, DAT is superior to CD because it has an even larger dynamic range.
Note: DAT lasts nearly as long as CDs do with full physical contact, unlike CDs...
The situation's not changed yet- but this is not because Id's chosen this situation. It's because of the following fact: There is no other card that currently supports acceleration of Mesa. That's right, if you want 3D acceleration today, you need Voodoo, Banshee, or Voodoo2. Thankfully, this is changing- we've got specs for Matrox' Millenium and G200, and we've got specs for SiS' AGP offering. What's heartening is that we've got the community working on the problem- and shortly, 3DfX will not be the only player in the field. Don't be surprised if Matrox' sales jump through the roof this year.
What kind of contortions did we all end up going through just to get Riva support for X? Have we seen a single thing from them for Mesa yet- other than "we're working on something..."? Well, they've been working on "something" for nearly a year and a half now (That's when they told me that same thing....).
Matrox, even though they took their sweet time to get it out to us, kept their promises and released the register level specs to their chips in the G200 family. There's work right now from several groups to make 3D support from the G200 possible under Linux.
The chipset specs are out for the G200 and the SiS AGP chipset (It doesn't perform anywhere near as good as the G200, but it's a lot cheaper than the G200 ($30-40US) and many of the cards based on the SiS chipset are opting for the hardware MPEG2 accel option- it's concieveable to see DVD under Linux possibly happening with this adapter...).
If Matrox and SiS isn't supported for 3D acceleration under XFree86 4.0, you can expect a large crowd working on seeing to it that the omission of the same is quickly rectified.
Do you really think that they're going to turn on us?
Not a single one of them make any real money off of the OS products on their machines- the money's in the hardware and support services. It's what they provide to make their hardware go- so why not have the user community help with it's growth and development?
And it's not just the low end in some of the cases of the companies getting on board with us- HP's porting Linux to PA-RISC high-end boxes, and Sun's help with UltraPenguin is allowing Linux to run on Sun's big iron.
It's "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." This "matters", if you must know.
How many times do we all have to tell people- "Yes,/. talks about Linux/Open Source, but NO, it's not the only thing we talk about..."?
It'd do it at the onset of playing...
on
Anti-DIVX article
·
· Score: 1
Stupid box has to certify the use before it'll unlock the disk for 48 hours.
Yeah, and I envision your scenerio- and I'm amazed that they didn't include it into their comparision of the two formats.
This has to be the best comparision yet...
on
Anti-DIVX article
·
· Score: 2
...for DVD vs. DIVX that I've seen. It says it exactly like it is without a LOT of marketroid BS- amazing that it's coming from a corporation.
DIVX does have grotesque problems...
on
Anti-DIVX article
·
· Score: 1
Simply put, it's a greedy power-grab by those parties in the entertainment industry that are most in need of a clue-by-fouring about things as they are and things as they're becoming. It's like the "secure music format" BS that the recording industry's trying to foist off as an alternative to MP3 (how many/.'ers out there think that's slowly going down in flames like DIVX is?;-)
But even if Disney had the audience to make or break it- the bad PR from all the grief caused by this stilted, broken, bogus videodisk format would have driven them out of the DIVX business as the people gave up in disgust over it all.
...but frightenly believable. It's not beyond the realm of doable- like everything else we've seen today. (I.E. Don't be giving some sick SOB ideas now!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Depends upon how many apps/libs/etc. you're doing that coding to. I had to work with over 20 differing components for document imaging, some of which I started from ground zero, some were written by others and I had to pay for THIER sins (i.e. I had to rip it apart and put it back together, literally making a new component)- and had to worry about 16 versus 32 bit code, 95 versus NT (Because they ARE different in MANY ways), doing things with APIs that are plain flat broken (use wise- they SCREAM at doing what they do...), having to roll your own imaging functions because some of your libraries don't do enough to make the component work the way that the exec wants to)
It actually depends on what you're doing- you could be doing very quality stuff (I did as few lines/operations as possible...) but you could be doing a lot of it.
You guys are nuts (but then so am I... :-)!
:->
As it is, I claimed I did 15k-19,999; it seemed like boasting to claim the 20+ Kloc slot (Even if it is very true!), and I try not to boast...
C, C++ (they ARE different...), Pascal, Ada, Forth, Basic (UGH- thank the Lord I'm not doing VB anymore!! :-) , TCL, Perl, Awk.
I've used all of these in my career with C, C++, Object Pascal(Delphi), and Perl being the most recently used ones...
That's what it's looking like- and I hope the prices on these are reasonable and my carrier decides to offer them; it'd be a GREAT reason for me to upgrade my current phone... ;->
Cut straight from their "White Paper"...
RAM: 4 GB 100 MHz SDRAM ECC
For those who think that the memory was a 1 to 1 comparison, you're mistaken. Whatever they told NT to do with the memory they did NOT tell NT to not use the 4Gb, it told it to use it differently. (Which, between the disparity of memory used and that, I suspect that this is where some of NT's supposedly stellar performance came from...)
Simply put, 4Gb != 1Gb. They should have stripped down the box to do an apples to apples comparison. That right there just invalidated their little benchmark.
Second, as others have pointed out, I suspect that Apache's problem was not threading, or Linux itself per-se. It was that they did nothing to really tune Linux on that box- the Apache test slammed squarely into a preconfigured limit (why it's there, I don't know, but it is, just the same...) for the number of open handles for files. That's why it seemed to peter out like it did.
There's just so damn many things that are sloppily done and dead wrong on the Linux side of things that I don't even really know where to begin taking this apart and proving it all the lies that it is.
And what's more, you're right. Wonder what it'd be like with a PROPERLY tuned test machine. They never once got to comparing apples to apples- and it seems they are guilty of past sins of this nature.
Check the daily updates section- it's there.
Mindcraft, Inc. conducted the performance tests described in this report between March 10 and March 13, 1999. Microsoft Corporation sponsored the testing reported herein.
The test figures do NOT reflect real-world performance behavior of NT vs. Linux. NT can't cope with the loads they're claiming- we've seen NT boxen just like the Dell supposedly used collapse under the load whereas a Linux box keeps on chugging.
...and what do they do? Throw a couple of gallons of gasoline onto that bonfire...
Yeah, this sounds vaguely familiar. I used the college as a springboard to obtain access to resources I couldn't have obtained otherwise. Information about programming languages and methodologies that the industry was going towards.
Access to the Internet, and all the information it brought to me.
The only thing of use that I directly got from College and my professors was critical thinking- a couple of them were REAL teachers and taught me to think for myself and how to learn the things I need in life on my own.
Try something more in the PCS band- something in the 1.9 GHz range more like. The rest of the details sounds right though...
It's because the dynamic range of the CD is dramatically superior to the tape- even if you're "losing something" digitizing, the amount of info you're getting encoded is dramatically different between the two. Combine this with the ease that you can retrieve the exact same bitstream from something easier than you can retrieve an analog signal from something, you get the performance difference. In reality, DAT is superior to CD because it has an even larger dynamic range.
Note: DAT lasts nearly as long as CDs do with full physical contact, unlike CDs...
I've got a subscription to GDMag! I wanna see this article and show it to everyone.
The situation's not changed yet- but this is not because Id's chosen this situation. It's because of the following fact: There is no other card that currently supports acceleration of Mesa. That's right, if you want 3D acceleration today, you need Voodoo, Banshee, or Voodoo2. Thankfully, this is changing- we've got specs for Matrox' Millenium and G200, and we've got specs for SiS' AGP offering. What's heartening is that we've got the community working on the problem- and shortly, 3DfX will not be the only player in the field. Don't be surprised if Matrox' sales jump through the roof this year.
But there's several groups working at rectifying that omission...
My advice... Get the G200 card now- it's supported under X already and the 3D support's coming soon.
What kind of contortions did we all end up going through just to get Riva support for X? Have we seen a single thing from them for Mesa yet- other than "we're working on something..."? Well, they've been working on "something" for nearly a year and a half now (That's when they told me that same thing....).
Matrox, even though they took their sweet time to get it out to us, kept their promises and released the register level specs to their chips in the G200 family. There's work right now from several groups to make 3D support from the G200 possible under Linux.
The chipset specs are out for the G200 and the SiS AGP chipset (It doesn't perform anywhere near as good as the G200, but it's a lot cheaper than the G200 ($30-40US) and many of the cards based on the SiS chipset are opting for the hardware MPEG2 accel option- it's concieveable to see DVD under Linux possibly happening with this adapter...).
If Matrox and SiS isn't supported for 3D acceleration under XFree86 4.0, you can expect a large crowd working on seeing to it that the omission of the same is quickly rectified.
Do you really think that they're going to turn on us?
Not a single one of them make any real money off of the OS products on their machines- the money's in the hardware and support services. It's what they provide to make their hardware go- so why not have the user community help with it's growth and development?
And it's not just the low end in some of the cases of the companies getting on board with us- HP's porting Linux to PA-RISC high-end boxes, and Sun's help with UltraPenguin is allowing Linux to run on Sun's big iron.
It's "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." This "matters", if you must know.
/. talks about Linux/Open Source, but NO, it's not the only thing we talk about..."?
How many times do we all have to tell people- "Yes,
Stupid box has to certify the use before it'll unlock the disk for 48 hours.
Yeah, and I envision your scenerio- and I'm amazed that they didn't include it into their comparision of the two formats.
...for DVD vs. DIVX that I've seen. It says it exactly like it is without a LOT of marketroid BS- amazing that it's coming from a corporation.
Simply put, it's a greedy power-grab by those parties in the entertainment industry that are most in need of a clue-by-fouring about things as they are and things as they're becoming. It's like the "secure music format" BS that the recording industry's trying to foist off as an alternative to MP3 (how many /.'ers out there think that's slowly going down in flames like DIVX is? ;-)
But even if Disney had the audience to make or break it- the bad PR from all the grief caused by this stilted, broken, bogus videodisk format would have driven them out of the DIVX business as the people gave up in disgust over it all.
Linux Today at this point, they don't seem to be perpetuating any Hoaxes or Pranks at this point in time...
...but frightenly believable. It's not beyond the realm of doable- like everything else we've seen today. (I.E. Don't be giving some sick SOB ideas now! ;-)