Generally the way this is handled is setting up a TCP communication for critical information, such as the stats of the player, text communication etc.. then send small UDP (connectionless) messages for non-critical data, such as player and monster movments.
Actually the way this is usually handled is with UDP packets for everything. Using multiple socket connections (TCP+UDP) only wastes resources in your IP stack. If you have critical data then put a sequence number in the appropriate data packet and implement your own ACK mechanism. That way the program actually has an idea of what the lag for a certain client is rather than having it hidden by the TCP stack.
another is the zone approach (i.e. everquest) where you send the an entire zone worth of information
Everquest also uses the "moving bubble" approach. Updates are only sent frequently for mobs that are in your bubble of information (controlled by the client's clipping plane). Although the client does actually know of each mob in the "zone" (required for tracking skill to work) the updates for mobs in the far corner are extremely rare. Realistically the concept of a "zone" is used to limit the server requirements and client requirements. Each EQ server is run on 27 different machines, which would be next to impossible without using the "zone" approach. Clients only have to load textures and models which are implemented in that zone rather than demand loading anything in the world.
or, in terms of the old DOS days, exit(0). The fear comes in when you see it, know what it means and realize just how full your brain is of stuff you are never likely to use again...
Some people just like to make up arguments don't they? Perhaps you'll give some indication of the places in my post you thought I was saying the Apple was more expensive? Difficult to claim I'm "full of shit" for saying something that was totally YOUR own invention. In fact, I believe that puts you squarely in the definition of "full of shit" yourself. Congratulations.
If you'll actually read what I wrote, not dream something out of your crack pipe, I asked some technical questions that you seem to have no answers for.
To recap:
What proof is there that the 2M L3 cache offers any advantage over the x86's superior bandwidth to main memory?
Even with the 512k L2 cache on the Xeons, the significantly faster L2 cache (*much* faster than the L2 on the G4) will more than make up for the slow 500MHz L3 cache on the G4.
The G4 systems, even with the 2M L3 cache are simply not in the same league as Xeons. Apple would like to have you think they are but until they publish some verifiable SPEC benchmarks instead of toy Photoshop and Quake benchmarks it's not going to happen.
What stats do you have to show that a 2M L3 cache is actually a significant improvement over a 512k L2 cache? Last I heard L2 cache misses were pretty insignificant. Do you even know the latency on the G4's L3 cache?
A 500MHz L3 cache is slower than dual channel 266MHz DDR SDRAM. The only reason the G4 has this L3 cache is because of it's inferior memory architecture to the x86 world, let alone the other RISC crowd.
Xeons have an L2 cache of 2M running at a hell of a lot faster than the G4's L3 cache. It is actually more realistic to compare these G4s to either Athlons or P4s than it is to pretend that they are in the same league as Xeons.
The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence
You seem to forget that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. It's an impressive document but means jack squat when it comes to court.
we have this little thing called freedom of speech
Freedom of speech does not refer to the dissemination of technical information (see the DeCSS case). Speech must have some artistic content which a simple recipe does not have.
64 bit PCI is irrelavent for almost everyone out there. Tell me what 64 bit card you planned to plug into the slots? Seems to me it's just wasting layers on the motherboard for a feature that's not really necessary.
GigE is not 1GB/s. Someone duped you big time. The maximum (theoretical) rate is 1gigabit/sec and more commonly peaks out at aroun 200-300mb/s. Given the average HDD can only supply around 100-150mb/s I find your "use" of GigE hightly unlikely. You do realize that to use it you need GigE cables and a GigE switch, don't you?
Now, surely if GigE and 64 bit PCI matter so much to you, you'll be turning your nose up at the slow memory bandwidth (PC133), the slow IDE interface (ATA-66) and slow video card (MX not Ti)?
Your judgement on software is also highly subjective and inadequately explained. Explain to me how iTunes is better than Media Player or WinAmp? Personally, I find that XP is a much better system that OS X. YMMV.
The GF4MX is the upcoming replacement to the GF2MX. If you want a historical comparison, the GF2MX was slower than a DDR GeForce. What historical precedent are you using?
I'm sure I won't be talking about them being equal power on Windows machines either. The GF4MX will likely be slower than the GF3Ti200 on Windows boxes as well.:-P
Yeah, if you switch things around enough you can make it look like an iMac. If you really want to compare the value of the iMac though, I'd switch to a different PC as well.
The drive in the Dell is 7200rpm.
The comparison was against the previous poster's assertion that a single CPU P4 was more expensive than the Mac.
64 bit PCI and GigE are only useful if you use them. If you are suggesting that a GigE card isn't available for PCs then you are sorely mistaken - I believe Dell even does offer them.
Video editing is standard with XP.
DVD authoring is $50.
And if you were a little more thorough, you'd notice that the "2nd pass at the specs" was attempting to show that a single-CPU P4 machine was more expensive than the dual G4.
Do you want to compare the Mac to a dual Athlon system?
Please read the previous post. It was talking about a single CPU machine.
If you feel threatened enough that you have to moan about the dual G4 comparison, drop it back to the single G4/933 machine which is still more expensive than this Dell box.
In fact, if you bothered to read the thread the "2nd pass at the specs" was suggesting a single CPU P4 box was more expensive than the dual G4. ROFL.
Dimension 4400
-- 2.0GHz P4 (should run circles around a 1GHz G4)
-- 512M DDR RAM
-- 80G ATA/100 (Mac only has ATA/66)
-- DVD-RW/CR-RW
-- 1yr warranty (Mac is only 90 days)
-- No monitor
-- Software options (ie Office) removed
-- GF3Ti200 (probably about equal to a GF4MX)
-- 56k winmodem
-- 10/100 NIC
$1,882
You really need to get better skills at finding low prices. The FireGL is waaaay over the top, as is your selection of RDRAM and even a sound card (mobos have internal sound remember).
Bottom line: Macs are still priced higher than an equivalent PC. Try doing the reverse experiment some day - choose a base model Dell and work out the price of a Mac to match it. The gap is even bigger.
You swallow and spout the anti-government line so well. Of course you forget that until the status of these people is determined they are, in fact, illegial aliens and not refugees and deserve no special treatment.
Back on topic:
The telecommunications act does not require any ability to block communications to be present. If you actually read the document you linked to, you'd see that "interception" is merely defined as listening/recording and nothing more. This is quite easy to do if you could be bothered making sense of the gigabytes per second running through the ISPs networks.
I'm quite sure the government can sniff traffic and may even do so. This does not consitute blocking the traffic however.
Oh, please. If you are really that concerned about it you should be marching up and down the streets campaigning for the increased taxes required to send them home again "humanely" or to support more people in the country that have no immediate way of supporting themselves.
Would you offer these ILLEGAL immigrants food and shelter in your own house, indefinitely? Would you put your money where your mouth is?
I think even paying for their accomodation in Australia is a waste of taxpayer's money. There are immigration laws that are there for a purpose and if conditions are better in Australia than they are where these immigrants live then they should apply for a visa like everyone else. I have precisely zero sympathy for anyone that turns up uninvited to a party and is surprised or upset to be turned away or ignored.
I'm seriously interested in your solutions to this "problem" you present. After all, if you are only going to bitch about it then you are only part of the problem yourself.
As for how I know they aren't censoring criticism, do you have any knowledge of how technically infeasible what you state is?
Last I looked there was plenty of criticism for the government in the form of the opposition. Never heard of them being censored. Watch out - those imaginary black helicopters may be around too...
- Best power management for laptops
- Best "legacy" compatibility for Win9x games
- Nicer UI than other Windows products (after you use it for week it's better)
For W2k:
- Less memory intensive than XP
- Older and so behavior is better known.
Your errors:
DRM and driver signing exist in Win2k in exactly the same way that they do in XP.
I don't get how either of these are "monopolistic" either. Is it monopolistic that Linux now has a flag that tells you if a driver isn't open source? Of course this is Slashdot and anything anti-MS doesn't need explanation.
Even using WMA format there's no DRM unless you choose to turn it on. I've ripped my entire CD collection into WMA format and am able to play them on any machine I want (though not any OS I want obviously).
As for activation, it's required whenever you make major changes to your PC (change more than 4 major components between reboots) or reinstall the OS. In any case it's rather painless...
This is a business decision from the broadband provider. You do NOT have the right for broadband access to your hous and you do NOT have the right to demand your provided gives you an unfiltered service. The facts are that they are providing a service which you pay for - your sole rights are in the contract you signed with them, most of which pretty much dictate that they can do whatever they damn well please.
If you really want an unfiltered service with high bandwidth then get your own T1, or are you really just bitching because you can't get everything you want for only $60/month?
Microsoft is far, far more anti-competitive and abusive than the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case [usdoj.gov] discusses.
If it is beyond the scope of the case then it is beyond the scope of the remedy. The findings of fact and law have been affirmed by the Appeals court and if the remedy doesn't follow those findings them Microsoft has valid ground for yet another appeal.
Secret file formats are anti-competitive. -- A good partial resolution of the case would be to prohibit Microsoft from using secret file formats. Then there could be competition again.
This case wasn't about Office. In fact Microsoft has a monopoly in both areas and therefore can't (by definition) use a monopoly in one area to GAIN a monopoly in the other. I don't believe there was anything in the findings about file formats and if not then applying those in a remedy would likely get it overturned in appeals. Sorry.
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all have articifial limitations which cause them to crash even though there are plenty of hardware resources. These are called "User Resources" and "GDI Resources". The memory for these resources is artificially limited to 128,000 bytes in some cases and 2 megabytes in other cases. When these resources are exhausted, the operating systems stop functioning.
These aren't arbitrary limits. There are valid technical reasons (regardless of how ugly the solution was) for them being there (namely the use of the Win16 GDI layer as the drawing engine in Win9x). These restrictions no longer exist in WinXP so your argument here is quite a joke.
What sort of programmer are you?
Microsoft deliberately allows piracy.
So I take it you support their moves for product activation?
Seriously, this is a stupid comment. Microsoft are perfectly within their rights not to prosecute every report of piracy they find, just as you are within your rights not to press charges over someone trespassing on your property. What are you really asking for here?
Microsoft is ending support.
This is a standard business practice. All businesses define an end of life for a product and try to get consumers to move to the next version in line. You can't support an old product forever and NOTHING is stopping a company from continuing to use the software. You are not forced to upgrade, the company just doesn't provide a particular service for your software any more.
In the end, it seems what you are trying to do is introduce new facts to a case which has already had those findings affirmed by the Appeals Court. Perhaps you would be far better off pushing for a new trial with these ideas of yours rather than somehow introducing them into the remedy which would almost certainly result in a successful appeal from Microsoft should they be addressed.
I agree that Microsoft (and any software company for that matter) should get patches out as soon as possible - especially "within a few days". At the very least, a workaround or protection measure that is somewhat more useful than just disabling Active Scripting should be posted within 24 hours.
Full disclosure should follow the announcement of a bug after 30 days or whenever a patch is released, as is standard practice on security mailing lists. Not having full disclosure hanging over a company's head allows them to become lax in protecting their customers which when it comes down to it for Microsoft is exactly what Scott Culp's job should be.
As for "Can anyone imagine MS responding that quickly?", yes. They responded in about 24 hours to the Ping of Death bug (IIRC). They were only beaten by the Linux devs who responded in about 8 hours.
To be fair though, the iTunes bug (which would wipe all your MP3s without any external provocation) and a IE bug (which requires a hostile site to set up the flaw) are in somewhat different circles. I wouldn't even make a comparison between a bug freshly released product and a bug in a browser that has been released and is in common use. Pulling the IE installer is really going to solve a lot of problems...
Apple has been fairly slow at fixing some of the security issues in OS X - many were just postponed to 10.1, so I wouldn't hold them up to being the paragon of truth and justice right now. Go look on their web site and see if you can find full disclosure on any of the problems of OS X...
Linux is even descending into the game of playing petty politics with security issues. Alan Cox should know a lot better than to play into Microsoft's hands the way he seems to be. Not announcing Linux flaws simply gives credence to Microsoft's current bad behaviour.
I believe that when you copy a file 2k reads a chunk and then writes it, then repeats.
I'm pretty sure it mmaps the files and does a memcpy(). Would make the most sense because it then just results in direct access to the cache manager's buffers.
From lots of testing, using mmap'd files is about twice as fast as using read/write on Win2k.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally the way this is handled is setting up a TCP communication for critical information, such as the stats of the player, text communication etc.. then send small UDP (connectionless) messages for non-critical data, such as player and monster movments.
Actually the way this is usually handled is with UDP packets for everything. Using multiple socket connections (TCP+UDP) only wastes resources in your IP stack. If you have critical data then put a sequence number in the appropriate data packet and implement your own ACK mechanism. That way the program actually has an idea of what the lag for a certain client is rather than having it hidden by the TCP stack.
another is the zone approach (i.e. everquest) where you send the an entire zone worth of information
Everquest also uses the "moving bubble" approach. Updates are only sent frequently for mobs that are in your bubble of information (controlled by the client's clipping plane). Although the client does actually know of each mob in the "zone" (required for tracking skill to work) the updates for mobs in the far corner are extremely rare. Realistically the concept of a "zone" is used to limit the server requirements and client requirements. Each EQ server is run on 27 different machines, which would be next to impossible without using the "zone" approach. Clients only have to load textures and models which are implemented in that zone rather than demand loading anything in the world.
In the end, it's all a tradeoff.
Does MOV AX,4C00 set the exit code then?
Yes. Function 4C (in AH) is exit. 00 (in AL) is the exit code.
Don't know about Apple IIs but I still remember the "SYS 64738" command from the C64.
It's x86 machine code for:
MOV AX,4C00 (note little endian)
INT 21
or, in terms of the old DOS days, exit(0). The fear comes in when you see it, know what it means and realize just how full your brain is of stuff you are never likely to use again...
Some people just like to make up arguments don't they? Perhaps you'll give some indication of the places in my post you thought I was saying the Apple was more expensive? Difficult to claim I'm "full of shit" for saying something that was totally YOUR own invention. In fact, I believe that puts you squarely in the definition of "full of shit" yourself. Congratulations.
If you'll actually read what I wrote, not dream something out of your crack pipe, I asked some technical questions that you seem to have no answers for.
To recap:
What proof is there that the 2M L3 cache offers any advantage over the x86's superior bandwidth to main memory?
Even with the 512k L2 cache on the Xeons, the significantly faster L2 cache (*much* faster than the L2 on the G4) will more than make up for the slow 500MHz L3 cache on the G4.
The G4 systems, even with the 2M L3 cache are simply not in the same league as Xeons. Apple would like to have you think they are but until they publish some verifiable SPEC benchmarks instead of toy Photoshop and Quake benchmarks it's not going to happen.
Photoshop+Quake do not make a cluster. Sorry.
Some things:
What stats do you have to show that a 2M L3 cache is actually a significant improvement over a 512k L2 cache? Last I heard L2 cache misses were pretty insignificant. Do you even know the latency on the G4's L3 cache?
A 500MHz L3 cache is slower than dual channel 266MHz DDR SDRAM. The only reason the G4 has this L3 cache is because of it's inferior memory architecture to the x86 world, let alone the other RISC crowd.
Xeons have an L2 cache of 2M running at a hell of a lot faster than the G4's L3 cache. It is actually more realistic to compare these G4s to either Athlons or P4s than it is to pretend that they are in the same league as Xeons.
The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence
You seem to forget that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. It's an impressive document but means jack squat when it comes to court.
we have this little thing called freedom of speech
Freedom of speech does not refer to the dissemination of technical information (see the DeCSS case). Speech must have some artistic content which a simple recipe does not have.
[C:\]cd temp [C:\temp]md t2 [C:\temp]cd t2 [C:\temp\t2]copy con testme. con => C:\temp\t2\testme apple ^Z 1 file copied [C:\temp\t2]find "apple" * ---------- TESTME apple [C:\temp\t2] What's your problem?
I own a Mac. I run OS X. What's there to know?
64 bit PCI is irrelavent for almost everyone out there. Tell me what 64 bit card you planned to plug into the slots? Seems to me it's just wasting layers on the motherboard for a feature that's not really necessary.
GigE is not 1GB/s. Someone duped you big time. The maximum (theoretical) rate is 1gigabit/sec and more commonly peaks out at aroun 200-300mb/s. Given the average HDD can only supply around 100-150mb/s I find your "use" of GigE hightly unlikely. You do realize that to use it you need GigE cables and a GigE switch, don't you?
Now, surely if GigE and 64 bit PCI matter so much to you, you'll be turning your nose up at the slow memory bandwidth (PC133), the slow IDE interface (ATA-66) and slow video card (MX not Ti)?
Your judgement on software is also highly subjective and inadequately explained. Explain to me how iTunes is better than Media Player or WinAmp? Personally, I find that XP is a much better system that OS X. YMMV.
Head over to xlr8yourmac. Benchmarks there show Macs with GeForce3's and slower CPUs running Quake faster than the new 933s with a GF4MX.
The GF3Ti200 is *not* the budget chipset from nVidia. The GF2MX is the budget chipset and the GF4MX is it's successor.
It would certainly make sense for the GF4MX to be slower than existing GF3 cards in the same way the GF2MX was slower than existing GF1 cards.
The GF4MX is the upcoming replacement to the GF2MX. If you want a historical comparison, the GF2MX was slower than a DDR GeForce. What historical precedent are you using?
:-P
I'm sure I won't be talking about them being equal power on Windows machines either. The GF4MX will likely be slower than the GF3Ti200 on Windows boxes as well.
Yeah, if you switch things around enough you can make it look like an iMac. If you really want to compare the value of the iMac though, I'd switch to a different PC as well.
The drive in the Dell is 7200rpm.
The comparison was against the previous poster's assertion that a single CPU P4 was more expensive than the Mac.
64 bit PCI and GigE are only useful if you use them. If you are suggesting that a GigE card isn't available for PCs then you are sorely mistaken - I believe Dell even does offer them.
Video editing is standard with XP.
DVD authoring is $50.
Nice try, but no cigar.
And if you were a little more thorough, you'd notice that the "2nd pass at the specs" was attempting to show that a single-CPU P4 machine was more expensive than the dual G4.
Do you want to compare the Mac to a dual Athlon system?
Please read the previous post. It was talking about a single CPU machine.
If you feel threatened enough that you have to moan about the dual G4 comparison, drop it back to the single G4/933 machine which is still more expensive than this Dell box.
In fact, if you bothered to read the thread the "2nd pass at the specs" was suggesting a single CPU P4 box was more expensive than the dual G4. ROFL.
Of course, if you were a little more thorough:
Dimension 4400
-- 2.0GHz P4 (should run circles around a 1GHz G4)
-- 512M DDR RAM
-- 80G ATA/100 (Mac only has ATA/66)
-- DVD-RW/CR-RW
-- 1yr warranty (Mac is only 90 days)
-- No monitor
-- Software options (ie Office) removed
-- GF3Ti200 (probably about equal to a GF4MX)
-- 56k winmodem
-- 10/100 NIC
$1,882
You really need to get better skills at finding low prices. The FireGL is waaaay over the top, as is your selection of RDRAM and even a sound card (mobos have internal sound remember).
Bottom line: Macs are still priced higher than an equivalent PC. Try doing the reverse experiment some day - choose a base model Dell and work out the price of a Mac to match it. The gap is even bigger.
You swallow and spout the anti-government line so well. Of course you forget that until the status of these people is determined they are, in fact, illegial aliens and not refugees and deserve no special treatment.
Back on topic:
The telecommunications act does not require any ability to block communications to be present. If you actually read the document you linked to, you'd see that "interception" is merely defined as listening/recording and nothing more. This is quite easy to do if you could be bothered making sense of the gigabytes per second running through the ISPs networks.
I'm quite sure the government can sniff traffic and may even do so. This does not consitute blocking the traffic however.
Oh, please. If you are really that concerned about it you should be marching up and down the streets campaigning for the increased taxes required to send them home again "humanely" or to support more people in the country that have no immediate way of supporting themselves.
Would you offer these ILLEGAL immigrants food and shelter in your own house, indefinitely? Would you put your money where your mouth is?
I think even paying for their accomodation in Australia is a waste of taxpayer's money. There are immigration laws that are there for a purpose and if conditions are better in Australia than they are where these immigrants live then they should apply for a visa like everyone else. I have precisely zero sympathy for anyone that turns up uninvited to a party and is surprised or upset to be turned away or ignored.
I'm seriously interested in your solutions to this "problem" you present. After all, if you are only going to bitch about it then you are only part of the problem yourself.
As for how I know they aren't censoring criticism, do you have any knowledge of how technically infeasible what you state is?
Last I looked there was plenty of criticism for the government in the form of the opposition. Never heard of them being censored. Watch out - those imaginary black helicopters may be around too...
For XP:
- Best power management for laptops
- Best "legacy" compatibility for Win9x games
- Nicer UI than other Windows products (after you use it for week it's better)
For W2k:
- Less memory intensive than XP
- Older and so behavior is better known.
Your errors:
DRM and driver signing exist in Win2k in exactly the same way that they do in XP.
I don't get how either of these are "monopolistic" either. Is it monopolistic that Linux now has a flag that tells you if a driver isn't open source? Of course this is Slashdot and anything anti-MS doesn't need explanation.
Even using WMA format there's no DRM unless you choose to turn it on. I've ripped my entire CD collection into WMA format and am able to play them on any machine I want (though not any OS I want obviously).
As for activation, it's required whenever you make major changes to your PC (change more than 4 major components between reboots) or reinstall the OS. In any case it's rather painless...
This is a business decision from the broadband provider. You do NOT have the right for broadband access to your hous and you do NOT have the right to demand your provided gives you an unfiltered service. The facts are that they are providing a service which you pay for - your sole rights are in the contract you signed with them, most of which pretty much dictate that they can do whatever they damn well please.
If you really want an unfiltered service with high bandwidth then get your own T1, or are you really just bitching because you can't get everything you want for only $60/month?
Want some cheese with your whine?
Your letter has some glaring problems:
Microsoft is far, far more anti-competitive and abusive than the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case [usdoj.gov] discusses.
If it is beyond the scope of the case then it is beyond the scope of the remedy. The findings of fact and law have been affirmed by the Appeals court and if the remedy doesn't follow those findings them Microsoft has valid ground for yet another appeal.
Secret file formats are anti-competitive. -- A good partial resolution of the case would be to prohibit Microsoft from using secret file formats. Then there could be competition again.
This case wasn't about Office. In fact Microsoft has a monopoly in both areas and therefore can't (by definition) use a monopoly in one area to GAIN a monopoly in the other. I don't believe there was anything in the findings about file formats and if not then applying those in a remedy would likely get it overturned in appeals. Sorry.
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all have articifial limitations which cause them to crash even though there are plenty of hardware resources. These are called "User Resources" and "GDI Resources". The memory for these resources is artificially limited to 128,000 bytes in some cases and 2 megabytes in other cases. When these resources are exhausted, the operating systems stop functioning.
These aren't arbitrary limits. There are valid technical reasons (regardless of how ugly the solution was) for them being there (namely the use of the Win16 GDI layer as the drawing engine in Win9x). These restrictions no longer exist in WinXP so your argument here is quite a joke.
What sort of programmer are you?
Microsoft deliberately allows piracy.
So I take it you support their moves for product activation?
Seriously, this is a stupid comment. Microsoft are perfectly within their rights not to prosecute every report of piracy they find, just as you are within your rights not to press charges over someone trespassing on your property. What are you really asking for here?
Microsoft is ending support.
This is a standard business practice. All businesses define an end of life for a product and try to get consumers to move to the next version in line. You can't support an old product forever and NOTHING is stopping a company from continuing to use the software. You are not forced to upgrade, the company just doesn't provide a particular service for your software any more.
In the end, it seems what you are trying to do is introduce new facts to a case which has already had those findings affirmed by the Appeals Court. Perhaps you would be far better off pushing for a new trial with these ideas of yours rather than somehow introducing them into the remedy which would almost certainly result in a successful appeal from Microsoft should they be addressed.
Now, do I start listing the Microsoft worms
Please do. Remember we are talking worms here and not trojans or virii. I'd be very interested in hearing your list.
I agree that Microsoft (and any software company for that matter) should get patches out as soon as possible - especially "within a few days". At the very least, a workaround or protection measure that is somewhat more useful than just disabling Active Scripting should be posted within 24 hours.
Full disclosure should follow the announcement of a bug after 30 days or whenever a patch is released, as is standard practice on security mailing lists. Not having full disclosure hanging over a company's head allows them to become lax in protecting their customers which when it comes down to it for Microsoft is exactly what Scott Culp's job should be.
As for "Can anyone imagine MS responding that quickly?", yes. They responded in about 24 hours to the Ping of Death bug (IIRC). They were only beaten by the Linux devs who responded in about 8 hours.
To be fair though, the iTunes bug (which would wipe all your MP3s without any external provocation) and a IE bug (which requires a hostile site to set up the flaw) are in somewhat different circles. I wouldn't even make a comparison between a bug freshly released product and a bug in a browser that has been released and is in common use. Pulling the IE installer is really going to solve a lot of problems...
Apple has been fairly slow at fixing some of the security issues in OS X - many were just postponed to 10.1, so I wouldn't hold them up to being the paragon of truth and justice right now. Go look on their web site and see if you can find full disclosure on any of the problems of OS X...
Linux is even descending into the game of playing petty politics with security issues. Alan Cox should know a lot better than to play into Microsoft's hands the way he seems to be. Not announcing Linux flaws simply gives credence to Microsoft's current bad behaviour.
I'm talking about files bigger than 2GB and not warez ISOs. Try database dumps.
Get a clue before you flame.
I believe that when you copy a file 2k reads a chunk and then writes it, then repeats.
I'm pretty sure it mmaps the files and does a memcpy(). Would make the most sense because it then just results in direct access to the cache manager's buffers.
From lots of testing, using mmap'd files is about twice as fast as using read/write on Win2k.
To ask the question another way, my big pet peeve with Windows 2K is that copying a big file (100's of megs) locks up the system.
Interesting. I've copied files around that are several gigabytes in size and suffered no ill effects.
What were you using to copy the files? Command line, Explorer? Define 'locks up the system'?