has the 'magic chip' for hw decode on it. It's not magic, you have to use specific software to make use of it. Did you pay for CoreAVC Pro or something?
I use mpc. I did turn off overlay and used VMR7 or 9. Yes. Don't do that, I did that and it could barely manage to play in real time. Use Overlay (the default) or Haali'a renderer, like I said.
Huh, my 8800GTS plays back 1080p just fine using MPC, ffdshow and XP, provided you're using Overlay or Haali's renderer. Do you have a dinky single core CPU or something?
Yup, GPG have been pretty good with that; the usual copy protection on release, and about 3 months later it's patched out.
With their next game, Demigod, they're actually forgoing copy protection outright; publishing via Stardock, who have a pretty friendly download app which doesn't act like a paranoid cleptomaniac like Steam and co.
Pretty much every link I follow means opening a new tab in the background; it can load while I finish with the current page, I can switch to the new one, and back again easily. If something's interesting and I want to read it later I'll generally leave it open rather than bookmark it, unless I'm likely to want to keep it for more than a day or so.
The way and amount I browse, I can easily pass 35 tabs; 2-3x that isn't uncommon, especially when going through feeds; rather than switching from and to my list of new messages, I'll open interesting links in the background and move to the next one.
So why go full tilt towards banning lead in electronics for something that *might* be a problem (and probably making the problem worse by increasing failure rates), but not do anything about lead roofing, which is probably a far more serious risk of leeching into groundwater and also has plenty of proven alternatives?
I guess if banning lead roofing was going to increase failure rates there, the roofing industry would be all for it; more revenue for them.
I keep wondering why people buy 30" computer monitors... is there something wrong with a 1080p 46" TV set? Erm, yeah, plenty; first, it's huge. 30" is marginal for a monitor you want to fit on a desk and sit 25" away from, 46" is going to be stupid.
Second, the TV set has a crappy resolution for its size; 1920×1080? If I wanted that resolution I'd get a 24" monitor (or two) which is at least going to have a sensible DPI for, well, a monitor.
here's the kicker, the difference in response time?.5 ms the Samsung has 6ms the Westinghouse has 6.5ms Haha, right, a mere.5ms difference in dubious response time measurements sure does make for a kicker; I can't even tell the difference between my 16ms 20"'s and my 8ms 30". Never mind the Samsung has twice the resolution and a 36% wider colour range, that response time is critical!;)
is it really worth it to support 2560x1600 resolution? especially since modern (single card setups) gaming cards can't even handle 1080p on modern game engines Sorry, that's bullshit. I have a single 8800GTS 512 and a 2.6GHz Opteron 185, and most games play fine at 2560*1600. I use it for 1080p from the PS3 too, and that looks great, so you don't necessarily need to run in native resolution; you benefit from the size, and when you can manage it you benefit from the resolution.
And what makes you think games were my primary motivation for it? It's a computer, I do work on it, and that resolution gives me space to run a browser side by side with editors, file browsers, half a dozen terminals, TV guides and media players. With the addition of one of my old 20"'s, it's like having 3 monitors.
Read the start:
WE HAVE BEEN dogging Nvidia's new chip for a while for being too big, too hot, too slow, and unmanufacturable. It is all of that, and you will know why we said that in a few weeks. For example:
Word has come out of Satan Clara that the yields are laughable. No, make that abysmal, they are 40 per cent. To add insult to injury, that 40 per cent includes both the 280 and the 260 yield salvage parts. With about 100 die candidates per wafer, that means 40 good dice per wafer. Doing the maths, a TSMC 300mm 65nm wafer runs about $5000, so that means each good die costs $125 before packaging, testing and the like....
To add insult to injury, the TDPs of the 260 and 280 are 182W and 236W respectively. This means big copper heatsinks, possibly heatpipes, and high-end fans....
The GT200 is about six months late, blew out their die size estimates and missed clock targets by a lot. ATI didn't. This means that buying a GT260 board will cost about 50 per cent more than an R770 for equivalent performance. The GT280 will be about 25 per cent faster but cost more than twice as much. A month or so after the 770 comes the 700, basically two 770s on a slab. This will crush the GT280 in just about every conceivable benchmark and likely cost less. 236W TDP! I have a 30" display, so good performance at very high resolutions is important to me, but.. I think I'll pass if the GPU alone is going to draw more power than my entire system.
I'm pretty sure they're only *publishers* of some of those games; Operation Flashpoint, for instance, was developed by Prague developers Bohemia Interactive. And that turned out to be bit of a clusterfuck, with BI going on to develop the sequel, ArmA, with another publisher, and Codemasters making their own using just the name.
I remember reading somewhere that different colours are processed at different rates by the visual cortex, with blue being handled faster than red.
Here is an interesting looking paper on the subject, "If, however, stimuli possess good chromatic selectivity and minimize achromatic intrusions, then there is a strong dependence of RT [reaction time] on stimulus color" -- alas it seems like red invokes better reaction times going by a quick scan of it, but it is interesting that red-green and blue-yellow have distinct processing paths that can be measured.
SMART sometimes works, very often it doesn't. Manufacturers have been progressively crippling it, to the point at which some barely even monitor anything, because they're perceived by marketing as being bad for business.
e.g. Seagate are one of the few vendors who are honest about ECC correction and seek error rates, and their SMART counters are correspondingly huge and read rather poorly (50-60/100 is a common value); you can even graph them and see the rates sweep up and down as the drive moves the heads over the platters every hour or so. Nobody else does this, and occasionally you'll see someone on a forum asking if it means their disk is failing.
Raw read and seek error rate on my Western Digital drives? 0, corrected values: 200/200. Right, I'm sure WD have magical drive heads which read every bit perfectly every time, and never miss seeking to a track, ever.
That's not to say SMART can't be useful, but as Google's disk failures USENIX paper demonstrates, they're not as reliable as one might hope.
Opera support more platforms directly too; while Firefox supports OS X, Windows and Linux i686, Opera support all those, plus Linux x86-64/sparc/ppc, FreeBSD i386/amd64, and Solaris sparc and x86.
Of course you can't compile Opera for anything else, so I guess it's just as well.
They're just using it as an excuse to further cripple their own useless NNTP services, aren't they? It's not like they're preventing you from using third party ones. Right?
Apache isn't responsible for the well formedness of web pages, it's responsible for HTTP. If Apache's sending out mangled HTTP headers which causes a browser to crash, sure, the browser vendor is at fault for not failing gracefully or recovering, but Apache sure as hell should take a lot of blame for not catching protocol violations during QA. Potential security issues are very serious, yes, but so are potential interoperability problems and Microsoft are the *last* people who should be let off lightly for those.
Ultimately both are indicative of poor development practices. Sure, the router developers are completely responsible for a DoS hole, but Microsoft are equally culpable for failing to follow spec, iff that is indeed the case.
While it's true that network hardware shouldn't crash in any circumstances, Microsoft would certainly deserve bashing if it's a result of them violating the specs and sending out mangled packets. Impossible to say without further details. Certainly cheapo network hardware manufacturers deserve bashing as a matter of course.
Path of least resistance; it works much like CVS, it fits in with existing infrastructure, and everyone knows how to use it.
git isn't terribly well suited to very large monolithic projects; you need to split into multiple smaller projects since it tracks entire trees rather than single files. When your tree is 1.3GB+ and has upwards of quarter of a million files that's rather painful either way.
It also isn't well suited to rewriting history, e.g. in the case when you have to remove a changeset because it violates someone's patent or copyright; you can rewrite the repository to remove it, but you end up renaming every commit afterwards, since their names are SHA1's dependent on every previous commit, generating tonnes of churn in many different places as the whole of history basically disappears and reappears elsewhere.
Many of git's advantages can still be leveraged with SVN; git-svn works pretty well, and it doesn't require massive upheavals in all areas of the project.
I haven't seen the cheesy-looking TV mini-series remake of The Andromeda Strain to see how much they may have fucked up a good movie. Oh, they fucked it up tonnes. Evidently the original story wasn't good enough, and needed a dose of conspiracy, wormholes, time travel, terrorists, a clumsy out of place and entirely unconnected love scene, a deadly nuclear reactor pool in an unlikely location which seems to warp local physics to allow plot-necessary and otherwise impossible ballistics to succeed.
It gets worse as it goes on; the first half is passable. Watch only to see how much fail Robert Schenkkan can fit into one script.
So why do SSD's get sold with MTBF's roughly the same as enterprisey HD's? Why have I heard reports of early failures on flash, and poorer than expected lifespan in certain applications? Just because it's solid state doesn't mean every part of every chip is homogenous, and just because you can take the specs, do a bit of maths and say "hey, look, 50-150 years lifespan!" doesn't mean that's actually what's going to happen.
Extremely long lifespans are big claims, and need big evidence backing them up, not just "64GB * 1000000 cycles / 50MB/s = 41.5 years".
With modern wear leveling algorithms, you can write to an SSD continuously at its maximum write rate for about fifty years before you wear it out Really? Because that sounds suspiciously like saying "MTBF of my HD is a million hours, so it'll live for 114 years, give or take". MTBF values I've seen for SSD's certainly don't seem especially far removed from that of normal HD's.
No, SSD's have always shined at random *reads*. Small random writes have traditionally been where they're very weak; you might manage 160MB/s writing large chunks, but if you're droping 16k blocks all over the place (as, e.g, databases are apt to do) you'll be lucky to manage 1MB/s because of the overhead each write incurrs, certainly on cheaper drives aimed at portable use.
Hence, it's a perfectly reasonable question; depending on how they've implemented it, they could be anywhere from 20-20,000 random writes/sec.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, my 8800GTS plays back 1080p just fine using MPC, ffdshow and XP, provided you're using Overlay or Haali's renderer. Do you have a dinky single core CPU or something?
Does the Steam version work with the unofficial patches?
Yup, GPG have been pretty good with that; the usual copy protection on release, and about 3 months later it's patched out.
With their next game, Demigod, they're actually forgoing copy protection outright; publishing via Stardock, who have a pretty friendly download app which doesn't act like a paranoid cleptomaniac like Steam and co.
Pretty much every link I follow means opening a new tab in the background; it can load while I finish with the current page, I can switch to the new one, and back again easily. If something's interesting and I want to read it later I'll generally leave it open rather than bookmark it, unless I'm likely to want to keep it for more than a day or so.
The way and amount I browse, I can easily pass 35 tabs; 2-3x that isn't uncommon, especially when going through feeds; rather than switching from and to my list of new messages, I'll open interesting links in the background and move to the next one.
So why go full tilt towards banning lead in electronics for something that *might* be a problem (and probably making the problem worse by increasing failure rates), but not do anything about lead roofing, which is probably a far more serious risk of leeching into groundwater and also has plenty of proven alternatives?
I guess if banning lead roofing was going to increase failure rates there, the roofing industry would be all for it; more revenue for them.
Second, the TV set has a crappy resolution for its size; 1920×1080? If I wanted that resolution I'd get a 24" monitor (or two) which is at least going to have a sensible DPI for, well, a monitor. here's the kicker, the difference in response time?
And what makes you think games were my primary motivation for it? It's a computer, I do work on it, and that resolution gives me space to run a browser side by side with editors, file browsers, half a dozen terminals, TV guides and media players. With the addition of one of my old 20"'s, it's like having 3 monitors.
To add insult to injury, the TDPs of the 260 and 280 are 182W and 236W respectively. This means big copper heatsinks, possibly heatpipes, and high-end fans.
The GT200 is about six months late, blew out their die size estimates and missed clock targets by a lot. ATI didn't. This means that buying a GT260 board will cost about 50 per cent more than an R770 for equivalent performance. The GT280 will be about 25 per cent faster but cost more than twice as much. A month or so after the 770 comes the 700, basically two 770s on a slab. This will crush the GT280 in just about every conceivable benchmark and likely cost less. 236W TDP! I have a 30" display, so good performance at very high resolutions is important to me, but.. I think I'll pass if the GPU alone is going to draw more power than my entire system.
I'm pretty sure they're only *publishers* of some of those games; Operation Flashpoint, for instance, was developed by Prague developers Bohemia Interactive. And that turned out to be bit of a clusterfuck, with BI going on to develop the sequel, ArmA, with another publisher, and Codemasters making their own using just the name.
I remember reading somewhere that different colours are processed at different rates by the visual cortex, with blue being handled faster than red.
Here is an interesting looking paper on the subject, "If, however, stimuli possess good chromatic selectivity and minimize achromatic intrusions, then there is a strong dependence of RT [reaction time] on stimulus color" -- alas it seems like red invokes better reaction times going by a quick scan of it, but it is interesting that red-green and blue-yellow have distinct processing paths that can be measured.
Which is why I said "directly", as in, not maintained by third parties.
With the CDDL covering ZFS, I know some people are hopeful that HAMMER will become ubiquitous.
SMART sometimes works, very often it doesn't. Manufacturers have been progressively crippling it, to the point at which some barely even monitor anything, because they're perceived by marketing as being bad for business.
e.g. Seagate are one of the few vendors who are honest about ECC correction and seek error rates, and their SMART counters are correspondingly huge and read rather poorly (50-60/100 is a common value); you can even graph them and see the rates sweep up and down as the drive moves the heads over the platters every hour or so. Nobody else does this, and occasionally you'll see someone on a forum asking if it means their disk is failing.
Raw read and seek error rate on my Western Digital drives? 0, corrected values: 200/200. Right, I'm sure WD have magical drive heads which read every bit perfectly every time, and never miss seeking to a track, ever.
That's not to say SMART can't be useful, but as Google's disk failures USENIX paper demonstrates, they're not as reliable as one might hope.
Opera support more platforms directly too; while Firefox supports OS X, Windows and Linux i686, Opera support all those, plus Linux x86-64/sparc/ppc, FreeBSD i386/amd64, and Solaris sparc and x86.
Of course you can't compile Opera for anything else, so I guess it's just as well.
They're just using it as an excuse to further cripple their own useless NNTP services, aren't they? It's not like they're preventing you from using third party ones. Right?
He doesn't know where he is, but he's got a lot of experience in building b-trees to locate things in sublinear time; how difficult can it be?
Apache isn't responsible for the well formedness of web pages, it's responsible for HTTP. If Apache's sending out mangled HTTP headers which causes a browser to crash, sure, the browser vendor is at fault for not failing gracefully or recovering, but Apache sure as hell should take a lot of blame for not catching protocol violations during QA. Potential security issues are very serious, yes, but so are potential interoperability problems and Microsoft are the *last* people who should be let off lightly for those.
Ultimately both are indicative of poor development practices. Sure, the router developers are completely responsible for a DoS hole, but Microsoft are equally culpable for failing to follow spec, iff that is indeed the case.
While it's true that network hardware shouldn't crash in any circumstances, Microsoft would certainly deserve bashing if it's a result of them violating the specs and sending out mangled packets. Impossible to say without further details. Certainly cheapo network hardware manufacturers deserve bashing as a matter of course.
Path of least resistance; it works much like CVS, it fits in with existing infrastructure, and everyone knows how to use it.
git isn't terribly well suited to very large monolithic projects; you need to split into multiple smaller projects since it tracks entire trees rather than single files. When your tree is 1.3GB+ and has upwards of quarter of a million files that's rather painful either way.
It also isn't well suited to rewriting history, e.g. in the case when you have to remove a changeset because it violates someone's patent or copyright; you can rewrite the repository to remove it, but you end up renaming every commit afterwards, since their names are SHA1's dependent on every previous commit, generating tonnes of churn in many different places as the whole of history basically disappears and reappears elsewhere.
Many of git's advantages can still be leveraged with SVN; git-svn works pretty well, and it doesn't require massive upheavals in all areas of the project.
It gets worse as it goes on; the first half is passable. Watch only to see how much fail Robert Schenkkan can fit into one script.
So why do SSD's get sold with MTBF's roughly the same as enterprisey HD's? Why have I heard reports of early failures on flash, and poorer than expected lifespan in certain applications? Just because it's solid state doesn't mean every part of every chip is homogenous, and just because you can take the specs, do a bit of maths and say "hey, look, 50-150 years lifespan!" doesn't mean that's actually what's going to happen.
Extremely long lifespans are big claims, and need big evidence backing them up, not just "64GB * 1000000 cycles / 50MB/s = 41.5 years".
Maybe a dust devil?
No, SSD's have always shined at random *reads*. Small random writes have traditionally been where they're very weak; you might manage 160MB/s writing large chunks, but if you're droping 16k blocks all over the place (as, e.g, databases are apt to do) you'll be lucky to manage 1MB/s because of the overhead each write incurrs, certainly on cheaper drives aimed at portable use.
Hence, it's a perfectly reasonable question; depending on how they've implemented it, they could be anywhere from 20-20,000 random writes/sec.