The Blade 100 has a 100MHz 64 bit bus (from CPU to memory) - exactly the same as a Celeron. A Pentium 3 has a 133MHz 64 bit bus, the Duron has a 200MHz 64 bit bus, the Athlon has a 266MHz 64 bit bus and the P4 a 400MHz 64 bit bus.
So, the Blade is the equal to the Celeron and gets whipped in bus performance by every other x86 architecture around.
As far as price/performance goes... try looking for a used SparcStation 10 or 20 on Ebay, I've found a few for around $100, which outperform any $100 x86 PC you could likely buy... unless you get a really amazing deal on a used PII or better machine with SCSI disks...
Oh, you wanna talk USED machines? Sure, I can beat that on price/performance. I got an old K6 box for free the other day because no one wanted to buy it. Hard to beat that with any $100 machine.;-)
As for $40,000 machines - hell yeah! Look at the TPC results at www.tpc.org. Most of the x86 machines there are worth in excess of $500,000.
Seemed appropriate, especially if you plan to be using the system for development/compiling (a pure integer application). Were you really planning on getting a Blade 100 for floating point applications?
If you want to compare FP performance,
P4/1700 is 598
Athlon/1400 is 426
Blade 100 (500Mhz) is 163
So the UltraSparc is marginally faster clock for clock on FP performance than the Athlon but still gets whipped by the P4. Oh, and just before you accuse me of changing CPUs, the P4 beats the UltraSparc IIe clock for clock in integer performance also, just not by quite as much than the Athlon.
Given that the Blades that retain for under $1000 have less than a third of the performance of a similarly priced x86 machine, can you explain to me why on earth I'd really want one of these?
It's a bootstrap. It's going to have different drivers from the operating system anyhow, so what does it matter if they are real mode, protected mode or a-la-mode. There is no significant speed difference between real and protected mode anyhow (it's running on the same CPU) so I think your point here is way off the mark.
I really don't think everyone is going to drop x86 and by SPARC because of boot times. x86 has always blown SPARC out of the water in price/performance anyhow, and what am I going to do with all my x86 software if I move?
They could, but they can't. There is too much momentum along the current path...
Exactly my point. Java, like many other platforms or APIs is an "owned" specification that can't head off on a tangent because of momentum.
So, while Java itself is proprietary and all of those other nasty words it really doesn't affect the end user or developer one zot.
That's just mincing words... if many people are using the same spec to write cross-compatible systems how is that not a standard?
It's definitely mincing words. Lawyerspeak really. It's definitely a defacto standard - a standard in everything but being owned by an official standards committee.
Are you saying XP cannot run IIS? Best inform Microsoft!!
XP does run IIS, but the version of IIS that ships with XP does not have this particular hole. See the note on Microsoft's site here.
Troll was probably too strong a word. How about an "unfortunate remark made in haste"?
... Microsoft has shot itself in the foot...
Yes, and no. They can get rid of the whole Java mess they dug themselves into now and play games with.NET vs Java. It's a much cleaner playing field for them when they aren't shackled to a competitor's technology.
[.NET is] Better on what grounds?
My basic premise is that the.NET language functionality is a proper superset of the Java language functionality. It's very unfortunate that Microsoft saw it necessary to call everything from the bytecodes to protocols to authentication to Passport crud the one ".NET" name. Makes conversation hard. My real point was about the languages/bytecodes/VM. The rest will sort itself out given time.
After all, if.NET is a standard at the bytecode level then nothing stops Sun from taking that standard and implementing Java, J2EE and everything else on it. It wouldn't hurt them a lot at all!
It is controlled by a standards body called the Java Community Process, plain and simple.
Java(tm) is owned, specified and trademarked by Sun. Regardless of how Sun develops this specification you cannot deny that basic fact. If Sun went crazy tomorrow they could dissolve the JCP, make incompatible changes to Java and screw the rest of the industry. This is highly unlikely however (about as likely as Microsoft dropping Windows as a product).
There was a point where Sun was going to release the spec to be developed by an independant standards organisation (ironically the same one that is now controlling.NET) but for some reason they decided that this was not in their own best interests and pulled it back to themselves.
If Java really is closed, how can projects like Kaffe exists? (GNU JVM).
Kaffe isn't Java. It's an implementation of the Java Virtual Machine and runtime libraries. If it was called Java then they'd be violating Sun's trademark or would have to pay licensing to Sun.
Well, that's great! So support then is on the same level as Perl, in that you can download and install that. What percentage of users do that again?
Actually, a lot more like the support is the same level as Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, Quicktime, RealAudio and others. Many users happily download them and it certainly hasn't hindered development on those platforms.
I think right now I'd say that XP comes with better support for Code Red than Java.
Code Red never ran on XP. Java does run on XP. Get your trolls right.
XP really has shot itself in the foot by not including Java... Microsoft could have kept Applets mired in the old Java 1.1 world... we're pretty sure to move on to using the Java Plugin for external applets
So you are saying that by XP not including a crappy JVM and giving web sites the ability to run better and smoother applets that it will hurt it's installed base? I don't think so. Basically MS has cut Java loose, which is what Sun always wanted them to do. By not supplying the 1.1.4 version they were restricted to in the court agreement they are freeing XP from a cruddy JVM and freeing Sun to find a way to get their own JVM onto all of those machines.
Of course, given that.NET is a better platform (though younger) it may be an interesting battle.
Why do most posters here insist on furthering group-think that's patently wrong? Who knows.
Most, like you and probably me, are just misinformed, don't post what they mean, or read things into the posts of others that aren't really there.
Not as far as I can see. I've been running it on XP for a while now and just had a look in my plugins folder and nothing there. Nothing in the registry pointing at it as a NS plugin either. Looked at the exports of the DLL and there are both NS API and ActiveX exports so you'll find on IE it is loaded as ActiveX.
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
I seriously doubt this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The chance of IE being unbundled is about the same as Solitare or Notepad being unbundled - probably even less given the Windows shell depends on the rendering engine now to display folders and the like.
The fact is that HTML rendering engines *are* being built into just about every modern GUI shell (Windows, KDE, GNOME, OSX etc) and any unbundling would give that shell a significant disadvantage over the rest of the systems.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share.
Generalised Bulls**t. Monopolies are just companies with a significant market share. Many exist and behave as normal. It's only the ones that take advantage of the limited competition that cause the problems. In fact, by the definition of a monopoly they don't NEED to give stuff away to maintain market share (the legal definition says that they can arbitrarily set prices and maintain the same share).
There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share.
Again, you misunderstand what a monopoly is. By virtue of being a monopoly they aren't doing anything illegal - they have just achieved the elimination of any serious competition. This may be because of a better product, better marketing or just stupid competition. Your statements are so general that they just cannot possibly be true.
The rest of the paragraph just goes on to reiterate your misunderstanding of corporate practises. Basically what you are describing is the behavior of a highly competitive amoral company. The actions listed can be taken regardless of your monopoly situation and you'll find that non-monopolies actually care more about their market share than true monopolies (their share is guaranteed by definition).
You are right. Microsoft isn't a hardware vendor. They are a software vendor which is simply the other side of the API. There is no good argument that an API should be specified by either side, so long as it is done in consultation with the other.
I agree that using DX is trusting Microsoft to do the "right thing" by hardware companies, but I'd also argue that it is well within their interests to do just that. If they invent a spec that just sucks then they are only harming their own APIs acceptance by the game industry as a whole - hardware and ISVs. Microsoft has been very fast to incorporate the latest hardware advances in DX and to work closely with the hardware vendors to ensure they converge on an interface that is manageable and uniform.
Remember DX8 has been available to ISVs for over a year now, even long before the nVidia specs on the GF3 were available. DX certainly gives you the time advantage over OpenGL. Waiting for the ARB spec to come out isn't the best solution for a game designer who wants to get their game using the latest hardware as soon as possible. A game developer who wrote to the DX8 spec could be sure their game will have life on the top level cards produced by all hardware manufacturers simply through MS's weight in the marketplace.
I'll happily grant that the OpenGL extensions for the GF3 are going to be much more closely aligned to the hardware than DX8 pixel shaders are. I'd expect that to be the case seeing they are vendor designed extensions for their own chipset.
What it seems to come down to if you want the latest and greatest hardware support in your software (assuming you are a Windows-only designer) is to either support the latest DX and trust Microsoft to have the weight to pull the hardware designers into line (a pretty sure bet), or support OpenGL vendor extensions and hope the vendors don't change them, implement different ones or settle on a totally different ARB extension and write different code for each card you plan to support.
It makes DX very attractive if you are a Windows developer, especially given the fact you are almost certainly using other DX components to handle audio, input and force feedback.
The problem with extensions is that at least with DX8 you can write a pixel shader program once and expect it to work on any cards that support that version of the pixel shader (1.0 if you want to be conservative).
If you go with OpenGL you have to write your program for each different vendor extension that comes out. Honestly, what are the chances of ATI or PowerVR ever supporting NV_texture_shader or NV_texture_shader2?
One of the main aims of DirectX was to avoid the situation in the days of games under DOS where a game developer would have to write different code for each different target video card. Through the use of vendor extensions, OpenGL does no better than DOS did - requiring the developer to figure out exactly which cards he is going to support and writing to those extensions individually, also sacrificing future compatibility if the next generation of cards support different extensions.
Writing to DirectX gives some degree of future-proofing your application as forward compatibility of the core API is preserved through revisions of DirectX. Sure this may carry a bit of "bloat around the middle" but that's the price you pay for compatibility.
Of course, if you aren't writing for Windows you're stuck with extensions.
Hasn't DirectX 7 and 8 surpassed the abilities of OpenGL? I was fairly sure the only way to get some of the features offered with hardware T&L was through vendor specific extensions, and even then some of the abilities to manage the swapping of textures to and from card memory were not available.
I know OpenGL is a nice cross platform API and may even be simpler, but I think DirectX is keeping pace with hardware a lot better than OpenGL.
(braces for flames but hopes for constructive criticism)...
the vacumn of space has an ambient tempurature of around 3k
I believe this is the temperature of the average background radiation. The temperature of space outside the Earth would be significantly hotter than this.
I know about the HLT in Win2k and previous. The point I was making is that XP uses ACPI to lower the CPU speed when the OS is not under high load. HLT is nice, but doesn't power down the CPU at all - the clock is still running at full speed. Using ACPI means it reduces power consumption even more than Win2k.
Also, I think NT doesn't use a HLT instruction on a SMP box - it busy idles. I haven't had a chance to test this on XP yet, but I believe the ACPI will help out here.
Note that WinME does use a HLT instruction in the idle loop according to some reports I've read.
Win2k pisses me off with DirectX because it likes rearranging the icons on the screen when DirectX changes the screen resolution. XP handles this much better.:-)
Go to "Add/Remove Programs" in "Control Panel" (which should be on your Start Menu). Click on "Add/Remove Windows Componenets". The second item on the list will be "Internet Information Services (IIS)".
I didn't pirate anything - they come on my MSDN subscription. Perhaps you should check your facts a little before you post and make an utter fool of yourself?
You should now go around all those Pro machines you installed and remove the code red worm from them - it's admins like you that cause these things to spread in the first place. I can't believe you didn't even know what you were installing!!
As for "no servers on Pro" - don't be so stupid and ignorant. File and Print obviously is installed, IIS is installed (as you now know) and you can install other things like MMQ, SMTP, FTP and a whole stack of others if you want.
Seeing how XP Professional is based on a new kernel...
XP is based on the same kernel as Win2k and WinNT before it. Sure there's been some revisions, but hardly even enough to justify a version change - if you look at the versioning it's gone from 5.0 (win2k) to 5.1 (winxp)
I just find it funny that the first time I saw this type of "easy network setup" was in Mandrake.
Guess he never installed a Windows system before. This has been around since Win95 and Win2k. In fact, the XP install is almost identical to the 2k install.
Microsoft has managed to piss off my wife by making her default to a frog icon and has now nearly completely crossed over to the dark side of the "I Hate Bill Gates" club.
She got pissed over the cute green frog, that you could have changed for her to just about anything (note that you can import pictures). Sheesh. Hardly a damning indictment that they kept the install simply by defaulting the user icons.
I actually like this better and it PROMOTES others to not use your account because your name happens to be already typed into the field.
Umm... you can turn this off in profiles if you want?
but I'm sure there's some keystroke out there that changes users easily in XP
Yup - right there in the help on it if you look. Window-L.
The real problem I have with XP is that by default it encourages you to run with root level permissions. This is going to get nasty from a security point of view pretty quickly.
Oh, yeah, you forgot that XP lets you have raw sockets just like Mandrake. Damn those evil Microsofties for implementing a standard!! The world will end! Well, at least according to Steve "Conspiracy" Gibson.
My wife demanded to be the little green frog. She refused to accept any of the other icons!!
What's even better is that she now understands how to use her own account and switch to it without logging me off or having to type anything cryptic like 'xinit --:1' (which only works if you know how many other people have logged on).
Let me state that XP offers VERY FEW stability or power enhancements over Win2K.
Depends on what you mean by "power". XP will automatically throttle the CPU clock (like SpeedStep) depending on the system load - makes a big difference on a laptop (or a rack server).
I found the boot time on XP to be absolutely amazing! Boots at least 3 times faster than Win2k on my machine.
The DirectX support is also seamless now - I can finally get rid of that Win98 partition on my system and move all my games to WinXP. Woohoo!!!
As for speed - ever consider you are using a beta? Most betas are slower than the release product, this was certainly the case for Win2k and don't see why XP should be any different.
The real problem with this idea is although you put up money with a trusted third party, you have NO guarantee anyone is going to develop your software. As a company, if you need a feature in a package or even a brand new package you must contract someone to do the work, not hope someone will pick up your offer.
It's basically the difference between driving across the US and hitchhiking. Hitchhiking works but you don't know how long it will take, what class of ride you will get and whether the person you hitch with is gonna shoot you with that gun under his seat.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like the P4's 3.2G/s bus?
Also, if I recall we were talking about the Sun Blade that some AC said was a much better system than any intel box...
This is just getting funny now!
The Blade 100 has a 100MHz 64 bit bus (from CPU to memory) - exactly the same as a Celeron. A Pentium 3 has a 133MHz 64 bit bus, the Duron has a 200MHz 64 bit bus, the Athlon has a 266MHz 64 bit bus and the P4 a 400MHz 64 bit bus.
So, the Blade is the equal to the Celeron and gets whipped in bus performance by every other x86 architecture around.
What else shall we compare?
As far as price/performance goes... try looking for a used SparcStation 10 or 20 on Ebay, I've found a few for around $100, which outperform any $100 x86 PC you could likely buy... unless you get a really amazing deal on a used PII or better machine with SCSI disks...
;-)
Oh, you wanna talk USED machines? Sure, I can beat that on price/performance. I got an old K6 box for free the other day because no one wanted to buy it. Hard to beat that with any $100 machine.
As for $40,000 machines - hell yeah! Look at the TPC results at www.tpc.org. Most of the x86 machines there are worth in excess of $500,000.
Seemed appropriate, especially if you plan to be using the system for development/compiling (a pure integer application). Were you really planning on getting a Blade 100 for floating point applications?
If you want to compare FP performance,
P4/1700 is 598
Athlon/1400 is 426
Blade 100 (500Mhz) is 163
So the UltraSparc is marginally faster clock for clock on FP performance than the Athlon but still gets whipped by the P4. Oh, and just before you accuse me of changing CPUs, the P4 beats the UltraSparc IIe clock for clock in integer performance also, just not by quite as much than the Athlon.
Who was comparing clock for clock? I was comparing SPEC benchmarks.
Oh, and you are wrong about clock-for-clock too.
500MHz UltraSPARC-IIe (Blade 100) SPECInt 165.
1400MHz Athlon SPECInt 495
The UltraSPARC is SLOWER clock for clock than the Athlon!!!
Given that the Blades that retain for under $1000 have less than a third of the performance of a similarly priced x86 machine, can you explain to me why on earth I'd really want one of these?
It's a bootstrap. It's going to have different drivers from the operating system anyhow, so what does it matter if they are real mode, protected mode or a-la-mode. There is no significant speed difference between real and protected mode anyhow (it's running on the same CPU) so I think your point here is way off the mark.
I really don't think everyone is going to drop x86 and by SPARC because of boot times. x86 has always blown SPARC out of the water in price/performance anyhow, and what am I going to do with all my x86 software if I move?
They could, but they can't. There is too much momentum along the current path...
... if many people are using the same spec to write cross-compatible systems how is that not a standard?
... Microsoft has shot itself in the foot ...
.NET vs Java. It's a much cleaner playing field for them when they aren't shackled to a competitor's technology.
.NET language functionality is a proper superset of the Java language functionality. It's very unfortunate that Microsoft saw it necessary to call everything from the bytecodes to protocols to authentication to Passport crud the one ".NET" name. Makes conversation hard. My real point was about the languages/bytecodes/VM. The rest will sort itself out given time.
.NET is a standard at the bytecode level then nothing stops Sun from taking that standard and implementing Java, J2EE and everything else on it. It wouldn't hurt them a lot at all!
Exactly my point. Java, like many other platforms or APIs is an "owned" specification that can't head off on a tangent because of momentum.
So, while Java itself is proprietary and all of those other nasty words it really doesn't affect the end user or developer one zot.
That's just mincing words
It's definitely mincing words. Lawyerspeak really. It's definitely a defacto standard - a standard in everything but being owned by an official standards committee.
Are you saying XP cannot run IIS? Best inform Microsoft!!
XP does run IIS, but the version of IIS that ships with XP does not have this particular hole. See the note on Microsoft's site here.
Troll was probably too strong a word. How about an "unfortunate remark made in haste"?
Yes, and no. They can get rid of the whole Java mess they dug themselves into now and play games with
[.NET is] Better on what grounds?
My basic premise is that the
After all, if
It is controlled by a standards body called the Java Community Process, plain and simple.
.NET) but for some reason they decided that this was not in their own best interests and pulled it back to themselves.
... Microsoft could have kept Applets mired in the old Java 1.1 world ... we're pretty sure to move on to using the Java Plugin for external applets
.NET is a better platform (though younger) it may be an interesting battle.
Java(tm) is owned, specified and trademarked by Sun. Regardless of how Sun develops this specification you cannot deny that basic fact. If Sun went crazy tomorrow they could dissolve the JCP, make incompatible changes to Java and screw the rest of the industry. This is highly unlikely however (about as likely as Microsoft dropping Windows as a product).
There was a point where Sun was going to release the spec to be developed by an independant standards organisation (ironically the same one that is now controlling
If Java really is closed, how can projects like Kaffe exists? (GNU JVM).
Kaffe isn't Java. It's an implementation of the Java Virtual Machine and runtime libraries. If it was called Java then they'd be violating Sun's trademark or would have to pay licensing to Sun.
Well, that's great! So support then is on the same level as Perl, in that you can download and install that. What percentage of users do that again?
Actually, a lot more like the support is the same level as Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, Quicktime, RealAudio and others. Many users happily download them and it certainly hasn't hindered development on those platforms.
I think right now I'd say that XP comes with better support for Code Red than Java.
Code Red never ran on XP. Java does run on XP. Get your trolls right.
XP really has shot itself in the foot by not including Java
So you are saying that by XP not including a crappy JVM and giving web sites the ability to run better and smoother applets that it will hurt it's installed base? I don't think so. Basically MS has cut Java loose, which is what Sun always wanted them to do. By not supplying the 1.1.4 version they were restricted to in the court agreement they are freeing XP from a cruddy JVM and freeing Sun to find a way to get their own JVM onto all of those machines.
Of course, given that
Why do most posters here insist on furthering group-think that's patently wrong? Who knows.
Most, like you and probably me, are just misinformed, don't post what they mean, or read things into the posts of others that aren't really there.
Go figure.
Sun's Java plugin uses NS API.
Not as far as I can see. I've been running it on XP for a while now and just had a look in my plugins folder and nothing there. Nothing in the registry pointing at it as a NS plugin either. Looked at the exports of the DLL and there are both NS API and ActiveX exports so you'll find on IE it is loaded as ActiveX.
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
I seriously doubt this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The chance of IE being unbundled is about the same as Solitare or Notepad being unbundled - probably even less given the Windows shell depends on the rendering engine now to display folders and the like.
The fact is that HTML rendering engines *are* being built into just about every modern GUI shell (Windows, KDE, GNOME, OSX etc) and any unbundling would give that shell a significant disadvantage over the rest of the systems.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share.
Generalised Bulls**t. Monopolies are just companies with a significant market share. Many exist and behave as normal. It's only the ones that take advantage of the limited competition that cause the problems. In fact, by the definition of a monopoly they don't NEED to give stuff away to maintain market share (the legal definition says that they can arbitrarily set prices and maintain the same share).
There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share.
Again, you misunderstand what a monopoly is. By virtue of being a monopoly they aren't doing anything illegal - they have just achieved the elimination of any serious competition. This may be because of a better product, better marketing or just stupid competition. Your statements are so general that they just cannot possibly be true.
The rest of the paragraph just goes on to reiterate your misunderstanding of corporate practises. Basically what you are describing is the behavior of a highly competitive amoral company. The actions listed can be taken regardless of your monopoly situation and you'll find that non-monopolies actually care more about their market share than true monopolies (their share is guaranteed by definition).
I wasn't aware the Radeon had problems with DX8. Can you send me a URL so I can read more on this?
Thanks for the great reply.
You are right. Microsoft isn't a hardware vendor. They are a software vendor which is simply the other side of the API. There is no good argument that an API should be specified by either side, so long as it is done in consultation with the other.
I agree that using DX is trusting Microsoft to do the "right thing" by hardware companies, but I'd also argue that it is well within their interests to do just that. If they invent a spec that just sucks then they are only harming their own APIs acceptance by the game industry as a whole - hardware and ISVs. Microsoft has been very fast to incorporate the latest hardware advances in DX and to work closely with the hardware vendors to ensure they converge on an interface that is manageable and uniform.
Remember DX8 has been available to ISVs for over a year now, even long before the nVidia specs on the GF3 were available. DX certainly gives you the time advantage over OpenGL. Waiting for the ARB spec to come out isn't the best solution for a game designer who wants to get their game using the latest hardware as soon as possible. A game developer who wrote to the DX8 spec could be sure their game will have life on the top level cards produced by all hardware manufacturers simply through MS's weight in the marketplace.
I'll happily grant that the OpenGL extensions for the GF3 are going to be much more closely aligned to the hardware than DX8 pixel shaders are. I'd expect that to be the case seeing they are vendor designed extensions for their own chipset.
What it seems to come down to if you want the latest and greatest hardware support in your software (assuming you are a Windows-only designer) is to either support the latest DX and trust Microsoft to have the weight to pull the hardware designers into line (a pretty sure bet), or support OpenGL vendor extensions and hope the vendors don't change them, implement different ones or settle on a totally different ARB extension and write different code for each card you plan to support.
It makes DX very attractive if you are a Windows developer, especially given the fact you are almost certainly using other DX components to handle audio, input and force feedback.
The problem with extensions is that at least with DX8 you can write a pixel shader program once and expect it to work on any cards that support that version of the pixel shader (1.0 if you want to be conservative).
If you go with OpenGL you have to write your program for each different vendor extension that comes out. Honestly, what are the chances of ATI or PowerVR ever supporting NV_texture_shader or NV_texture_shader2?
One of the main aims of DirectX was to avoid the situation in the days of games under DOS where a game developer would have to write different code for each different target video card. Through the use of vendor extensions, OpenGL does no better than DOS did - requiring the developer to figure out exactly which cards he is going to support and writing to those extensions individually, also sacrificing future compatibility if the next generation of cards support different extensions.
Writing to DirectX gives some degree of future-proofing your application as forward compatibility of the core API is preserved through revisions of DirectX. Sure this may carry a bit of "bloat around the middle" but that's the price you pay for compatibility.
Of course, if you aren't writing for Windows you're stuck with extensions.
Hasn't DirectX 7 and 8 surpassed the abilities of OpenGL? I was fairly sure the only way to get some of the features offered with hardware T&L was through vendor specific extensions, and even then some of the abilities to manage the swapping of textures to and from card memory were not available.
I know OpenGL is a nice cross platform API and may even be simpler, but I think DirectX is keeping pace with hardware a lot better than OpenGL.
(braces for flames but hopes for constructive criticism)...
Either someone has hacked up Apache to report a different server string, or jobs.osdn.com is actually running IIS 5.0.
THAT is interesting!!
the vacumn of space has an ambient tempurature of around 3k
I believe this is the temperature of the average background radiation. The temperature of space outside the Earth would be significantly hotter than this.
I know about the HLT in Win2k and previous. The point I was making is that XP uses ACPI to lower the CPU speed when the OS is not under high load. HLT is nice, but doesn't power down the CPU at all - the clock is still running at full speed. Using ACPI means it reduces power consumption even more than Win2k.
:-)
Also, I think NT doesn't use a HLT instruction on a SMP box - it busy idles. I haven't had a chance to test this on XP yet, but I believe the ACPI will help out here.
Note that WinME does use a HLT instruction in the idle loop according to some reports I've read.
Win2k pisses me off with DirectX because it likes rearranging the icons on the screen when DirectX changes the screen resolution. XP handles this much better.
You are wrong.
Go to "Add/Remove Programs" in "Control Panel" (which should be on your Start Menu). Click on "Add/Remove Windows Componenets". The second item on the list will be "Internet Information Services (IIS)".
I didn't pirate anything - they come on my MSDN subscription. Perhaps you should check your facts a little before you post and make an utter fool of yourself?
You should now go around all those Pro machines you installed and remove the code red worm from them - it's admins like you that cause these things to spread in the first place. I can't believe you didn't even know what you were installing!!
As for "no servers on Pro" - don't be so stupid and ignorant. File and Print obviously is installed, IIS is installed (as you now know) and you can install other things like MMQ, SMTP, FTP and a whole stack of others if you want.
Seeing how XP Professional is based on a new kernel...
XP is based on the same kernel as Win2k and WinNT before it. Sure there's been some revisions, but hardly even enough to justify a version change - if you look at the versioning it's gone from 5.0 (win2k) to 5.1 (winxp)
I just find it funny that the first time I saw this type of "easy network setup" was in Mandrake.
Guess he never installed a Windows system before. This has been around since Win95 and Win2k. In fact, the XP install is almost identical to the 2k install.
Microsoft has managed to piss off my wife by making her default to a frog icon and has now nearly completely crossed over to the dark side of the "I Hate Bill Gates" club.
She got pissed over the cute green frog, that you could have changed for her to just about anything (note that you can import pictures). Sheesh. Hardly a damning indictment that they kept the install simply by defaulting the user icons.
I actually like this better and it PROMOTES others to not use your account because your name happens to be already typed into the field.
Umm... you can turn this off in profiles if you want?
but I'm sure there's some keystroke out there that changes users easily in XP
Yup - right there in the help on it if you look. Window-L.
The real problem I have with XP is that by default it encourages you to run with root level permissions. This is going to get nasty from a security point of view pretty quickly.
Oh, yeah, you forgot that XP lets you have raw sockets just like Mandrake. Damn those evil Microsofties for implementing a standard!! The world will end! Well, at least according to Steve "Conspiracy" Gibson.
My wife demanded to be the little green frog. She refused to accept any of the other icons!!
:1' (which only works if you know how many other people have logged on).
What's even better is that she now understands how to use her own account and switch to it without logging me off or having to type anything cryptic like 'xinit --
Let me state that XP offers VERY FEW stability or power enhancements over Win2K.
Depends on what you mean by "power". XP will automatically throttle the CPU clock (like SpeedStep) depending on the system load - makes a big difference on a laptop (or a rack server).
I found the boot time on XP to be absolutely amazing! Boots at least 3 times faster than Win2k on my machine.
The DirectX support is also seamless now - I can finally get rid of that Win98 partition on my system and move all my games to WinXP. Woohoo!!!
As for speed - ever consider you are using a beta? Most betas are slower than the release product, this was certainly the case for Win2k and don't see why XP should be any different.
FYI, Win2k Professional also runs IIS and would be susceptible to this attack if it is enabled (and unpatched).
what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).
Doesn't that section only refer to the broadcaster, not the recipient of the signal?
The real problem with this idea is although you put up money with a trusted third party, you have NO guarantee anyone is going to develop your software. As a company, if you need a feature in a package or even a brand new package you must contract someone to do the work, not hope someone will pick up your offer.
It's basically the difference between driving across the US and hitchhiking. Hitchhiking works but you don't know how long it will take, what class of ride you will get and whether the person you hitch with is gonna shoot you with that gun under his seat.