You're confusing Firefox-the-browser with Gecko-the-renderer. There's no reason Firefox couldn't have one process per tab, and most Webkit/KHTML implementations currently use one process per browser window (like Firefox).
In short, pick something else to distinguish them. You're way off this time around.
Variety is the spice of life. If every browser used the same engine, there'd be no competitive spirit to improve it. Besides, when was a monoculture ever a good thing?
I've been using Konqueror for my primary browser for several years now, but still respect the Mozilla group and wish them the best of luck. As long as everyone follows the standards (which the Open Source browser folks have excelled at), the more the merrier!
Re:It's not a game....
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Well, that was my point. The "hardcore" crowd writes off anything that doesn't involve BFGs and headshots, missing out on a whole lot of fun gaming.
Re:It's not a game....
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Again, I'm not trying to defend Spore specifically. I haven't seen it and haven't played it. I'm just against the general idea that free-form goofing off can't be a game.
Re:How often do you play Go?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
More often than most. Why do you ask?
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Consoles aren't general purpose PCs, and yes, that's an important distinction. Console DRM has never affected me in any way, since I can still sell the games or play them in any other machine.
You didn't get caught up in the DRM issue, which is a big one.
Other than the designed-in defect which renders it totally unusable for a lot of people and utterly unsatisfactory for millions more, it sounds like fun. If I could install it on my system. More than three times. How can you possibly ignore that issue and still claim to write an objective review?
Re:It's not a game....
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's a toy.
You just muddle around in the world, you play here and there, and don't accomplish much of anything.
While it's a neat 'toy', for a *gamer* like myself it's ridiculous.
In Go, you just muddle around and put stones here and there. While it's a neat 'toy', for a *gamer* like myself it's ridiculous.
I'm not defending the anti-consumer Spore, but can't stand hearing people dismiss fun things like Sim City or Animal Crossing solely because they don't have immediate goals that have to be met. Sometimes playing for the sake of playing is enough for an enjoyable game.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you can do DRM without breaking the host operating system, fine.
Not in my opinion. Even well-behaved DRM for general-purpose PCs is anti-consumer.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm interested - do you guys complaining about the DRM (and I don't like it either) have an issue with buying the console versions?
I don't, because it's utterly invisible on every system I've ever owned. Buy a game, pop it into some random console, and it'll work without activations or calling home or even network access. If my Wii breaks, I can buy a new one and use all the same games without calling EA and begging for their kindness.
...as long as the writes are contiguous. If it's carved up into bunches of little seek-and-writes, pretty much any SSD is going to make the VR look bad.
In ten years of parallel processing research that is the first time that I've someone draw that distinction between faster and quicker.
It's not technical jargon, but one heard a fair amount in real life. Most recently in the Olympics we'd hear about athletes who were quick starters but who lost to faster runners after the launch.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to draw,
Latency versus throughput. If the new system processed those serially while the old could handle 130 in parallel, then the old system would be 10x faster even though the new was 10x quicker.
but total transaction capacity of the system increased along the same lines.
Yes, after throwing massive amounts of hardware at the problem.
Also he said support was crucial for his company. If something went down, he wanted to be able to call someone immediately. He couldn't afford to just post a question on a message board and hope someone replies.
Oh yeah, but we can do a bare-metal recovery in an acceptable amount of time, so a failure is more along the lines of "dangit, break out the tapes".
To answer other posters while I'm at it:
That chassis is maxed out on RAM. We could buy a newer, bigger system but this SSD would serve about the same ends for a lot less money and effort. Besides, at some point you have to flush those cached writes out to disk. Right now, that is sometimes a bottleneck on our system. If we could magically make those writes several times faster, it'd be a nice win.
Hey, I admit that our usage patterns probably don't match a lot of others'. These may not be ideal for everyone, but from what I've seen they'd work great for us.
These Intel drives are $595. Your $4,500 would buy 7 of these, for 560GB of storage, and 1750MB/s read / 490MB/s write in aggregate. Slice the speeds in half because you'll never balance loads that well, and you still get 875MB/s / 245MB/s. Slower writes but faster reads and 7 times the capacity.
Another option is to run your database/whatever entirely in ram.
I haven't priced machines with 64GB of RAM this month, but it was a little spendy last time I looked.
A step in the right direction, but at $600 per 1000 I am gonna wait a bit longer before jumping on the SSD bandwagon.
I'd place an order for one this instant if I could. My company uses a relatively small database, on the order of 40GB of online data. It's running on 4 SCSI-320 Cheetah 32GB, 15K RPM drives in RAID 0. By all accounts, this single SSD would out-seek the Cheetahs, meaning that our website can serve more customers and more quickly. This is a total no-brainer for a lot of applications, even at the current price.
RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. There is no Redundant part in aid 0.
Yes, and "hacker" means "enthusiastic computer explorer". Really, give up. RAID 0 is still recognized as RAID, regardless of what the "R" should mean, by everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing Firefox-the-browser with Gecko-the-renderer. There's no reason Firefox couldn't have one process per tab, and most Webkit/KHTML implementations currently use one process per browser window (like Firefox).
In short, pick something else to distinguish them. You're way off this time around.
Variety is the spice of life. If every browser used the same engine, there'd be no competitive spirit to improve it. Besides, when was a monoculture ever a good thing?
I've been using Konqueror for my primary browser for several years now, but still respect the Mozilla group and wish them the best of luck. As long as everyone follows the standards (which the Open Source browser folks have excelled at), the more the merrier!
Well, that was my point. The "hardcore" crowd writes off anything that doesn't involve BFGs and headshots, missing out on a whole lot of fun gaming.
Again, I'm not trying to defend Spore specifically. I haven't seen it and haven't played it. I'm just against the general idea that free-form goofing off can't be a game.
More often than most. Why do you ask?
Consoles aren't general purpose PCs, and yes, that's an important distinction. Console DRM has never affected me in any way, since I can still sell the games or play them in any other machine.
You didn't get caught up in the DRM issue, which is a big one.
Other than the designed-in defect which renders it totally unusable for a lot of people and utterly unsatisfactory for millions more, it sounds like fun. If I could install it on my system. More than three times. How can you possibly ignore that issue and still claim to write an objective review?
It's a toy.
You just muddle around in the world, you play here and there, and don't accomplish much of anything.
While it's a neat 'toy', for a *gamer* like myself it's ridiculous.
In Go, you just muddle around and put stones here and there. While it's a neat 'toy', for a *gamer* like myself it's ridiculous.
I'm not defending the anti-consumer Spore, but can't stand hearing people dismiss fun things like Sim City or Animal Crossing solely because they don't have immediate goals that have to be met. Sometimes playing for the sake of playing is enough for an enjoyable game.
If you can do DRM without breaking the host operating system, fine.
Not in my opinion. Even well-behaved DRM for general-purpose PCs is anti-consumer.
I'm interested - do you guys complaining about the DRM (and I don't like it either) have an issue with buying the console versions?
I don't, because it's utterly invisible on every system I've ever owned. Buy a game, pop it into some random console, and it'll work without activations or calling home or even network access. If my Wii breaks, I can buy a new one and use all the same games without calling EA and begging for their kindness.
I meant that they probably want to portray themselves as a "oppressed minority" or something like that...
Ironic, since isn't it their intention to genocide the Thetans or something bizarre like that?
If someone were to prosecute them for persecuting Thetans, what would their defense be?
Was it interesting to you? Then you must read "Longitude". That is a seriously wonderful book.
In fact my VR destroys it in write speed
...as long as the writes are contiguous. If it's carved up into bunches of little seek-and-writes, pretty much any SSD is going to make the VR look bad.
Figure on a doubling each year, that'd be 3 years before the SSD exceeds current models.
In all fairness, HDDs are growing, too. Anyone got the (approximate) Moore's Law for SSD and HDD and know where the lines cross?
In ten years of parallel processing research that is the first time that I've someone draw that distinction between faster and quicker.
It's not technical jargon, but one heard a fair amount in real life. Most recently in the Olympics we'd hear about athletes who were quick starters but who lost to faster runners after the launch.
I meant to say "whether you're not legally allowed to try to run it under Wine".
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to draw,
Latency versus throughput. If the new system processed those serially while the old could handle 130 in parallel, then the old system would be 10x faster even though the new was 10x quicker.
but total transaction capacity of the system increased along the same lines.
Yes, after throwing massive amounts of hardware at the problem.
Also he said support was crucial for his company. If something went down, he wanted to be able to call someone immediately. He couldn't afford to just post a question on a message board and hope someone replies.
So.... why'd he pick Microsoft?
No, actually the Windows system (10 ms per transaction) was a 13x speedup over the older system (135 ms per transaction)
No. That means it was 13x quicker, not 13x faster.
If you don't see Wine listed as a supported platform, you don't have a right to run it on Wine.
Yes you do, or at least the right to try to run it.
I hope you know how volatile RAID 0 can be.
Oh yeah, but we can do a bare-metal recovery in an acceptable amount of time, so a failure is more along the lines of "dangit, break out the tapes".
To answer other posters while I'm at it:
That chassis is maxed out on RAM. We could buy a newer, bigger system but this SSD would serve about the same ends for a lot less money and effort. Besides, at some point you have to flush those cached writes out to disk. Right now, that is sometimes a bottleneck on our system. If we could magically make those writes several times faster, it'd be a nice win.
Hey, I admit that our usage patterns probably don't match a lot of others'. These may not be ideal for everyone, but from what I've seen they'd work great for us.
What company would really want to run their DB on a Raid 0 (Striped) Disk setup?
One who replicates the data to slower backup systems.
Does this not put it at risk from a single spindle failure?
If those were the only spindles involved, sure.
These Intel drives are $595. Your $4,500 would buy 7 of these, for 560GB of storage, and 1750MB/s read / 490MB/s write in aggregate. Slice the speeds in half because you'll never balance loads that well, and you still get 875MB/s / 245MB/s. Slower writes but faster reads and 7 times the capacity.
Another option is to run your database/whatever entirely in ram.
I haven't priced machines with 64GB of RAM this month, but it was a little spendy last time I looked.
A step in the right direction, but at $600 per 1000 I am gonna wait a bit longer before jumping on the SSD bandwagon.
I'd place an order for one this instant if I could. My company uses a relatively small database, on the order of 40GB of online data. It's running on 4 SCSI-320 Cheetah 32GB, 15K RPM drives in RAID 0. By all accounts, this single SSD would out-seek the Cheetahs, meaning that our website can serve more customers and more quickly. This is a total no-brainer for a lot of applications, even at the current price.
RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. There is no Redundant part in aid 0.
Yes, and "hacker" means "enthusiastic computer explorer". Really, give up. RAID 0 is still recognized as RAID, regardless of what the "R" should mean, by everyone.