I find them less insulting than the drug commercials or the "we're green friendly, see our efficient SUVs" commercials.
Yea I agree their commercials are full of shit, specially since the first thing I do with an x86 is install GNU/Linux on it. But at least they're silly.
Being told to talk to my doctor about yeast infections is not funny. It's just downright nasty.
My custom Core 2 Duo desktop cost me $922 (CDN with tax + shipping), the cheapest similar thing [I didn't buy a keyboard/mouse with this] is the mac mini which cost $899 for the 1.83 Core Duo [not Core 2 Duo, e.g. conroe] version. Factor in taxes and the Mac Mini is $1024 in Ontario (6% GST and 8% PST). So for $100 less I got a better case [Antec 380W Tower], better processor [Core 2 Duo vs. Core Duo], and 512MB more memory.
OMG!!! COULD THAT BE WHY Apple is losing sales? I just don't know!!!
"zero-day" meant you have something effective before release, e.g. "zero-day keygen" means you have a keygen that works before the product goes retail such that on the first day of distribution people can use it.
Clearly IE has been "out for a while" so you can't make a zero-day for IE.
Suppose I'm a fan of movies made in France... but I live in Canada. Why would it be bad for me, or the producers of the media, for me to BUY a copy and have it shipped here?
What they really should call that is "out of monopololistic control zone."
"you wanna play with computers? program them first sonny."
Kids are fundamentally spoiled nowadays. They got a high speed computer, high speed net, digital cable, cell phones, spending money, etc.
When I was a kid [and damn I was a kid of the 80s/90s] I sure as hell didn't have half of that. My computer was a XT up until I was 11 or so then it was a 386/25 we scraped together from spare parts. We didn't have net access only local BBS stuff so for the most part we had to INVENT our own fun. That is, code stuff up, mess around with the box, etc.
If you want your kids to have similar adventures to what you had as a kid just don't spoil them rotten. Why on earth would your kid at age 10 want to sit through and learn themselves BASIC or C or Pascal or... if you're handing them a new Dell box with a Cable modem and a XBOX360 or something.
You can save money and your children themselves if you just learn to say "No."
That and your kids will appreciate earning money later on in life so they CAN buy themselves toys and shit. Teach them the value of work [or at least looking like working...]
Good question. I don't have a VIA to test. Fortunately, LibTomCrypt is pluggable which means if I had one and wrote a plugin for it I could run the benchmark with it enabled...:-)
You wouldn't see different results. I'm measuring clock cycles not wall time which is why I bought the LOWEST END processor possible [I'm not made of money...]
These benchmarks you see on the web where they run "media creation tests" or whatever are not really indicative of the technology. At least with my test you know what MD5 or AES is. So when you see it double performance from Pentium M to Conroe you know Intel did something right for a change.
In pure ALU performance I'd say Core 2 and the AMD K8 core are on roughly equal footing. AMD still has faster multipliers (see the ECC/RSA benchmarks) but the Conroe has a decent ALU otherwise (AES is faster for instance). In short, I'd expect a 2.13GHz Core 2 to perform much like a 2.13GHz AMD64 [though none exists...].
The data/code will be in at least the L2 cache. The test program isn't that big and I'm only processing the same data over and over and over [e.g. encrypt the same small blocks].
The results are very stable over multiple runs.
The point of my test is to see ALU performance over anything else. And you can see from this test that the ALU performance has gone up considerably since Pentium M [and probably the first Core processor].
It's an ALU benchmark nothing more. The goal is to see if the ALU has improved or not.
The code all fits in either the L1 or L2 (the test program is less than a 1MB) so it doesn't matter that I used a low end Conroe. The 1.83Ghz conroe has the SAME CORE as the expensive 2.9GHz conroe...
Clock speed won't change the cycle counts. I'm not counting wall time here. So you can expect that if AES takes 247 cycles @1.83GHz then it will probably take 247 cycles @2.93GHz.
My point is, the Office business unit at MSFT could make more profit if they sold Office to GNU/Linux folk. Isn't that the reason to be in business?
It'd be like Shell only selling gas to Ford owners, then buying up 1000s of gas stations in key locations [e.g. where you can own the market]. Wouldn't shell make more money by selling to everyone? Except yes, in this case Office is owned by MSFT just like Windows. So that's like Ford and Shell merging and then doing the same thing.
And saying that's solely a matter of "just not using it" is true, definitely true, just not going to happen. Mostly because people say things like "it's true, it's just not going to happen.":-)
Tom
N.B. I use OSS at home. I push it at work constantly. I'm not going to "not do" my job though in protest.
Think about it, what would be one reason to use Windows? Is it for the multi-user server capabilities? The stable modular and portable Kernel? The portable WM? etc. People buy Windows to run the programs that should be portable anyways.
Which makes me ask a question: If Office costs $800 a seat and windows is next to free [in huge license agreements] why not just ditch Windows and sell Office/Visual Studio as your main product?
I feel sorry for them though. In a generation or two times we're going to be robbing children of their final and last bit of innoncence all to make a buck.
Nothing will make me happier than the demise of MSFT. [in this respect...]
Of course a generation of mindless automatons means that for us who know two things about the outside world can find jobs easierly...
And I think you're forgetting how engrained MSFT truly is. Yeah, sure it's nice to say "just stop using it." that's something I bring up often with my fellow co-workers. Doesn't seem to change anything. Even when we sneak a OSS OS on our workstations we still have to scramble to read the latest PPT from our PHBes.
If MSFT were truly about marketting various products you'd see things like Visual Studio or Office for GNU/Linux. I mean can't the Office business unit of MSFT only win by selling to both windows and GNU/Linux audiences?
oh wait, Office exists to sell Windows. That's about it.
Well that seems kinda counter intuitive given their whole "track changes" and "document owner" properties...
That said, suppose I send you a.doc file [sorry I know that's a sin] and you want to view it properly in BSD or Linux or heaven forbid, windows without Office...
Suppose, MSFT stops releasing Office [for whatever reason]. What do you do then? [other than rejoice...]
I know you're trolling but for the benefit of others...
The argument against MSFT isn't that they have technologies others don't have.
The argument is that they purposefully swindle their customers into using software that is designed to lock them into using a sole vendor [without otherwise good justification]. That they are abusing their POSITION as a large market share holder to FURTHER their lock in.
Arguing for MSFT is akin to saying "Yes MFST, release another product that I can't use as I choose, on the platform of my choosing with the tools of my choosing. I like being forced to use your tools, through out security and inefficiency problems because choice is bad."
There are no technical reasons why [for instance] the Office file formats are not well documented in the public. The *value* of Office is the connectivity and interface of the software. Not the file format. [hint: that's a big reason why people hate OpenOffice]. Releasing the file formats means that you can use third party tools to do things to your documents that you can't with Office [like edit them in GNU/Linux].
Similarly, their stance on DX and the Win32API is not founded in a technological superiority. It's just "different."
Slashdot Mirror
I find them less insulting than the drug commercials or the "we're green friendly, see our efficient SUVs" commercials.
Yea I agree their commercials are full of shit, specially since the first thing I do with an x86 is install GNU/Linux on it. But at least they're silly.
Being told to talk to my doctor about yeast infections is not funny. It's just downright nasty.
Tom
Hence names like "Core 2 Duo and "Core Duo."
They're the same right?
Tom
My custom Core 2 Duo desktop cost me $922 (CDN with tax + shipping), the cheapest similar thing [I didn't buy a keyboard/mouse with this] is the mac mini which cost $899 for the 1.83 Core Duo [not Core 2 Duo, e.g. conroe] version. Factor in taxes and the Mac Mini is $1024 in Ontario (6% GST and 8% PST). So for $100 less I got a better case [Antec 380W Tower], better processor [Core 2 Duo vs. Core Duo], and 512MB more memory.
OMG!!! COULD THAT BE WHY Apple is losing sales? I just don't know!!!
Tom
"zero-day" meant you have something effective before release, e.g. "zero-day keygen" means you have a keygen that works before the product goes retail such that on the first day of distribution people can use it.
Clearly IE has been "out for a while" so you can't make a zero-day for IE.
Tom
Or they could stop acting like children, sit it down, discuss the technical and logistical merits of both and DECIDE ON ONE STANDARD FOR NOW. ...
Just saying.
Tom
How playing "out of region" DVDs is bad?
... but I live in Canada. Why would it be bad for me, or the producers of the media, for me to BUY a copy and have it shipped here?
Suppose I'm a fan of movies made in France
What they really should call that is "out of monopololistic control zone."
Tom
386s were not expensive in 1995. Given that they came out in 1986.
Thanks for trying to troll though you halfwit.
Tom
"you wanna play with computers? program them first sonny."
... if you're handing them a new Dell box with a Cable modem and a XBOX360 or something.
Kids are fundamentally spoiled nowadays. They got a high speed computer, high speed net, digital cable, cell phones, spending money, etc.
When I was a kid [and damn I was a kid of the 80s/90s] I sure as hell didn't have half of that. My computer was a XT up until I was 11 or so then it was a 386/25 we scraped together from spare parts. We didn't have net access only local BBS stuff so for the most part we had to INVENT our own fun. That is, code stuff up, mess around with the box, etc.
If you want your kids to have similar adventures to what you had as a kid just don't spoil them rotten. Why on earth would your kid at age 10 want to sit through and learn themselves BASIC or C or Pascal or
You can save money and your children themselves if you just learn to say "No."
That and your kids will appreciate earning money later on in life so they CAN buy themselves toys and shit. Teach them the value of work [or at least looking like working...]
Tom
Good question. I don't have a VIA to test. Fortunately, LibTomCrypt is pluggable which means if I had one and wrote a plugin for it I could run the benchmark with it enabled... :-)
[hint hint]
Tom
You wouldn't see different results. I'm measuring clock cycles not wall time which is why I bought the LOWEST END processor possible [I'm not made of money...]
Tom
At what? That's the problem.
These benchmarks you see on the web where they run "media creation tests" or whatever are not really indicative of the technology. At least with my test you know what MD5 or AES is. So when you see it double performance from Pentium M to Conroe you know Intel did something right for a change.
In pure ALU performance I'd say Core 2 and the AMD K8 core are on roughly equal footing. AMD still has faster multipliers (see the ECC/RSA benchmarks) but the Conroe has a decent ALU otherwise (AES is faster for instance). In short, I'd expect a 2.13GHz Core 2 to perform much like a 2.13GHz AMD64 [though none exists...].
Tom
The data/code will be in at least the L2 cache. The test program isn't that big and I'm only processing the same data over and over and over [e.g. encrypt the same small blocks].
The results are very stable over multiple runs.
The point of my test is to see ALU performance over anything else. And you can see from this test that the ALU performance has gone up considerably since Pentium M [and probably the first Core processor].
Tom
It's an ALU benchmark nothing more. The goal is to see if the ALU has improved or not.
The code all fits in either the L1 or L2 (the test program is less than a 1MB) so it doesn't matter that I used a low end Conroe. The 1.83Ghz conroe has the SAME CORE as the expensive 2.9GHz conroe...
Tom
Clock speed won't change the cycle counts. I'm not counting wall time here. So you can expect that if AES takes 247 cycles @1.83GHz then it will probably take 247 cycles @2.93GHz.
Tom
Um, Opteron is not slower at any hashes than the Core2. It's also faster at most PK work.
... ahem ... ****NEW**** core. Opteron is more than 3 years old.
That said, this is Intels
The results show that Intel is finally catching up in ops/cycle performance. Which is nice for a change...
Tom
http://libtomcrypt.com/ltc113.html
crypto work done in 64-bit mode on the Core 2.
Tom
:-) crypto benches.
Seems core2 is closer to Opteron but not quite there.
Tom
Still a hack, not complete, but coolies.
... hehehee /me shakes fists.
Of course, AMD quad-core will actually "fully work" when shipped
Tom
My point is, the Office business unit at MSFT could make more profit if they sold Office to GNU/Linux folk. Isn't that the reason to be in business?
:-)
It'd be like Shell only selling gas to Ford owners, then buying up 1000s of gas stations in key locations [e.g. where you can own the market]. Wouldn't shell make more money by selling to everyone? Except yes, in this case Office is owned by MSFT just like Windows. So that's like Ford and Shell merging and then doing the same thing.
And saying that's solely a matter of "just not using it" is true, definitely true, just not going to happen. Mostly because people say things like "it's true, it's just not going to happen."
Tom
N.B. I use OSS at home. I push it at work constantly. I'm not going to "not do" my job though in protest.
Intuit doesn't make an OS.
Think about it, what would be one reason to use Windows? Is it for the multi-user server capabilities? The stable modular and portable Kernel? The portable WM? etc. People buy Windows to run the programs that should be portable anyways.
Which makes me ask a question: If Office costs $800 a seat and windows is next to free [in huge license agreements] why not just ditch Windows and sell Office/Visual Studio as your main product?
Tom
shut up you. :-)
Tom
I feel sorry for them though. In a generation or two times we're going to be robbing children of their final and last bit of innoncence all to make a buck.
Nothing will make me happier than the demise of MSFT. [in this respect...]
Of course a generation of mindless automatons means that for us who know two things about the outside world can find jobs easierly...
Woohooo
Tom
"help out other developers" ...
Um, how about doing the customers a service?
And I think you're forgetting how engrained MSFT truly is. Yeah, sure it's nice to say "just stop using it." that's something I bring up often with my fellow co-workers. Doesn't seem to change anything. Even when we sneak a OSS OS on our workstations we still have to scramble to read the latest PPT from our PHBes.
If MSFT were truly about marketting various products you'd see things like Visual Studio or Office for GNU/Linux. I mean can't the Office business unit of MSFT only win by selling to both windows and GNU/Linux audiences?
oh wait, Office exists to sell Windows. That's about it.
Tom
Well that seems kinda counter intuitive given their whole "track changes" and "document owner" properties...
.doc file [sorry I know that's a sin] and you want to view it properly in BSD or Linux or heaven forbid, windows without Office...
That said, suppose I send you a
Suppose, MSFT stops releasing Office [for whatever reason]. What do you do then? [other than rejoice...]
Tom
I know you're trolling but for the benefit of others...
The argument against MSFT isn't that they have technologies others don't have.
The argument is that they purposefully swindle their customers into using software that is designed to lock them into using a sole vendor [without otherwise good justification]. That they are abusing their POSITION as a large market share holder to FURTHER their lock in.
Arguing for MSFT is akin to saying "Yes MFST, release another product that I can't use as I choose, on the platform of my choosing with the tools of my choosing. I like being forced to use your tools, through out security and inefficiency problems because choice is bad."
There are no technical reasons why [for instance] the Office file formats are not well documented in the public. The *value* of Office is the connectivity and interface of the software. Not the file format. [hint: that's a big reason why people hate OpenOffice]. Releasing the file formats means that you can use third party tools to do things to your documents that you can't with Office [like edit them in GNU/Linux].
Similarly, their stance on DX and the Win32API is not founded in a technological superiority. It's just "different."
Tom