I just updated to 2.0.6 (wasnt aware 2.0.5 was old), and the results are:
MD5 Benchmark took 2.413 seconds for 3000 hashes (1243 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 1.692 seconds for 2700 hashes (1596 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 2.586 seconds for 1900 hashes (735 hashes/second)
So a slight improvement in.6, there could also be differences between OSX/Linux that make a difference, all my benchmarks were done on OSX tho i can ask someone here to test against Linux also running on a 2.1ghz core2 macbook.
And having to update each one seperately every time a security hole or drm breach comes out, because windows lacks a common package management system...
Well it depends at what, i had an MD5 routine and benchmark in javascript that was laughably slow on konqueror/safari... The benchmark is at: http://pentestmonkey.net/jsbm/index.html
And i get the following results on a macbook pro 2.16ghz core2 duo running osx 10.4.10:
Safari (2.0.4): MD5 Benchmark took 15.136 seconds for 3000 hashes (198 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 10.876 seconds for 2700 hashes (248 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 19.052 seconds for 1900 hashes (100 hashes/second)
Camino (1.5.1): MD5 Benchmark took 1.78 seconds for 3000 hashes (1685 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 1.271 seconds for 2700 hashes (2124 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 1.931 seconds for 1900 hashes (984 hashes/second)
Firefox (latest nightly build): MD5 Benchmark took 1.867 seconds for 3000 hashes (1607 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 1.299 seconds for 2700 hashes (2079 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 2.077 seconds for 1900 hashes (915 hashes/second)
Firefox (2.0.5): MD5 Benchmark took 2.628 seconds for 3000 hashes (1142 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 1.919 seconds for 2700 hashes (1407 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 2.872 seconds for 1900 hashes (662 hashes/second)
Opera 9.23 (current stable): MD5 Benchmark took 4.561 seconds for 3000 hashes (658 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 3.163 seconds for 2700 hashes (854 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 4.812 seconds for 1900 hashes (395 hashes/second)
Opera 9.50 alpha (build 4404): MD5 Benchmark took 1.446 seconds for 3000 hashes (2075 hashes/second) MD4 Benchmark took 1.021 seconds for 2700 hashes (2644 hashes/second) SHA1 Benchmark took 1.607 seconds for 1900 hashes (1182 hashes/second)
Quite impressive the improvements that have been made in the latest opera... Also, camino wasn't faster than the firefox nightlies last time i tried it (camino 1.0.4)... I don't have access to msie or konqueror, i would assume konqueror performance would be similar to safari tho.
I have had similar issues with windows, some games not working properly and involving considerable hassle to make them work... Many more problems occur when i've had slightly non standard setups too, things from network play modes not being able to detect network settings properly (due to multiple interfaces or additional protocols than tcp/ipv4)... I've had copy protection systems bite me in the ass too, wether it be due to using a scsi cdrom, having a disk image mounter running (a third party implementation of a feature pretty much every other os has as standard) or just a random incompatibility with something else in the system. Most games are also horrendously buggy when you buy them, and require you to read that a patch exists, locate it, click through agreements, and then select an often overcrowded download location, before actually installing the update and hoping it doesnt break anything. Very few games have an auto update feature built in, and windows lacks a package manager to do the update for you automatically. Also a lot of modern games require the original media in the drive, which means if you want to play on the road you need to carry a stack of DVDs around with you, and be sure not to lose them. You can often get NoCD cracks, but then your left hunting for a new crack each time you try to update, and sometimes the presence of a crack breaks online play.
And then when actually running games, random problems often occur, sometimes patches fix these and sometimes there arent any patches. Game publishers often don't support their games for very long, so you soon stop getting patches while bugs remain unfixed. There's also often forums dealing with these issues, and sometimes editing game files or registry entries can solve problems, but you have to read the forums to find this out.
So yes, wine can be problematic, but so can gaming in windows. You often end up with problems and bugs either way. The difference is that for pretty much any typical non gaming task linux is far better, it just provides you more freedom to get things done in the way you want, while not forcing you to worry about spyware/viruses/etc and the associated performance hit of having all this stuff running... Plus you get all your apps and the os supported by your distro and updated with a single tool.
The most problem-free games i have found btw, are the open source ones (older quake/doom, tuxracer, taspring, freeciv etc, ones which arent in early stages of development) which you can install and keep updated using your system's package manager. Browsing to the "games" section of your package manager, selecting a few and hitting install is much easier than fussing around with DVDs...
Me too, i only occasionally play games, and then under Linux or OSX... I do own several games consoles, but i don't get enough free time to play them... The only time i do get some free time, is when i'm away somewhere on business where i have an OSX or Linux based laptop.
With open source drivers on linux, and closed source drivers on windows... If the windows drivers continue to be as poor as they've been in the past, coupled with vista's high demands on hardware, performance on linux will easily beat out windows on the same ATI hardware... This will probably end up with some hard-core gamers using linux at least for the games which run on it (ut, quake etc) to get the few extra fps.
Remember that these are communications satellites.... And they last 15 years usually... They could have built more expensive satellites in the first place, to last longer, but why bother? Communications technology changes a lot in 15 years, i wouldnt be surprised if many of the satelites up there werent even in active use for the full 15 years before being replaced with a more modern device.
Yes, rewrites are good and necessary... But they really should give a period of time between the standard being finalised, and compliance being required (ie the old one is deprecated)... They should also make new standards as compatible with old ones as possible, to make it easier to transition... HTML is a good example of this, an old browser will render newer versions of HTML and display the content but lose some of the layout/formatting...
I've never used windows mobile enough to notice it crash, what it did do was get on my nerves greatly... It's interface is designed for use on a PDA, with a stylus or other pointing device, it really doesnt work well on a phone, especially when you lose the stylus (which is pathetically easy to do). I prefer phone interfaces which can be operated easily with 1 hand, like virtually all old mobile phones, and the blackberry pearl is working very nicely as a smartphone for me.
IBM and Sony have both released drivers for Linux/PPC... Do they not constitute hardware manufacturers? Admittedly, they mostly did the right thing and released them as patches to the mainline kernel.
PPC and Sparc workstations are not commodity devices... If you buy such a device from IBM/Sun, then the respective vendor will have made sure it comes with a compatible video card. ARM is really only used for low-power situations, where you'd also want to couple it with a low power video chipset (if any at all). Although highend videocards offload a lot of the processing, they don't offload it all so you still need a reasonably performant CPU to go along with it.
You want to be able to access it from anywhere (this means public terminals in airports, cafes etc), almost all of which have a browser but very few have ssh or the ability to install your own mail client. Although, modern smartphones are making this idea somewhat redundant.
They won't want to lose the level of lockin the os gives them... Their lockin on office formats is already heavily threatened, if they fail to get OOXML ratified by ISO then there will be an even stronger push towards ODF. Once they lose the lockin, their customers will drop like flies.
There are plenty of free programs for creating flash content... OpenOffice can export to flash for one... There are flash libraries for PHP i believe too, so you can dynamically generate flash content.
But seriously, how many PPC workstations get sold nowadays? Especially ones with slots able to take new videocards... It's such a small niche that it's probably not worth it for AMD to pursue.
Are there multiple standards? I always thought ISO was against having multiple standards for the same thing... 1250 standards a year doesnt imply overlap, there are many things which need to be standardised, lots of which seem rather petty to people outside of their own industry... But where would we be without standardised measurements etc?
OpenOffice doesn't actually fully implement ODF yet, some parts of the format have still not been implemented and there are some parts that koffice for instance implements but openoffice does not... HTML is perfectly reliable to render accurately, HTML is just a hinting engine and not a fixed layout engine (try pdf for that), html has to adapt to the size of the output device. What your thinking about, is more to do with bugs in browsers and poorly written HTML. All of the HTML i've written renders the same in all major graphical browsers except msie.
The "backwards compatibility" talk is all FUD really... Backwards compatibility should be handled by the converter, and shouldn't pollute the format itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I just updated to 2.0.6 (wasnt aware 2.0.5 was old), and the results are:
.6, there could also be differences between OSX/Linux that make a difference, all my benchmarks were done on OSX tho i can ask someone here to test against Linux also running on a 2.1ghz core2 macbook.
MD5 Benchmark took 2.413 seconds for 3000 hashes (1243 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 1.692 seconds for 2700 hashes (1596 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 2.586 seconds for 1900 hashes (735 hashes/second)
So a slight improvement in
Historical precedent - it happened with the Matrox G400 drivers when they got opened up...
I'd like a multi threaded browser, where something heavy in one tab doesnt drag the rest of the browser down to a crawl...
And having to update each one seperately every time a security hole or drm breach comes out, because windows lacks a common package management system...
Well it depends at what, i had an MD5 routine and benchmark in javascript that was laughably slow on konqueror/safari...
The benchmark is at:
http://pentestmonkey.net/jsbm/index.html
And i get the following results on a macbook pro 2.16ghz core2 duo running osx 10.4.10:
Safari (2.0.4):
MD5 Benchmark took 15.136 seconds for 3000 hashes (198 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 10.876 seconds for 2700 hashes (248 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 19.052 seconds for 1900 hashes (100 hashes/second)
Camino (1.5.1):
MD5 Benchmark took 1.78 seconds for 3000 hashes (1685 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 1.271 seconds for 2700 hashes (2124 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 1.931 seconds for 1900 hashes (984 hashes/second)
Firefox (latest nightly build):
MD5 Benchmark took 1.867 seconds for 3000 hashes (1607 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 1.299 seconds for 2700 hashes (2079 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 2.077 seconds for 1900 hashes (915 hashes/second)
Firefox (2.0.5):
MD5 Benchmark took 2.628 seconds for 3000 hashes (1142 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 1.919 seconds for 2700 hashes (1407 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 2.872 seconds for 1900 hashes (662 hashes/second)
Opera 9.23 (current stable):
MD5 Benchmark took 4.561 seconds for 3000 hashes (658 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 3.163 seconds for 2700 hashes (854 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 4.812 seconds for 1900 hashes (395 hashes/second)
Opera 9.50 alpha (build 4404):
MD5 Benchmark took 1.446 seconds for 3000 hashes (2075 hashes/second)
MD4 Benchmark took 1.021 seconds for 2700 hashes (2644 hashes/second)
SHA1 Benchmark took 1.607 seconds for 1900 hashes (1182 hashes/second)
Quite impressive the improvements that have been made in the latest opera... Also, camino wasn't faster than the firefox nightlies last time i tried it (camino 1.0.4)...
I don't have access to msie or konqueror, i would assume konqueror performance would be similar to safari tho.
I have had similar issues with windows, some games not working properly and involving considerable hassle to make them work...
Many more problems occur when i've had slightly non standard setups too, things from network play modes not being able to detect network settings properly (due to multiple interfaces or additional protocols than tcp/ipv4)...
I've had copy protection systems bite me in the ass too, wether it be due to using a scsi cdrom, having a disk image mounter running (a third party implementation of a feature pretty much every other os has as standard) or just a random incompatibility with something else in the system.
Most games are also horrendously buggy when you buy them, and require you to read that a patch exists, locate it, click through agreements, and then select an often overcrowded download location, before actually installing the update and hoping it doesnt break anything. Very few games have an auto update feature built in, and windows lacks a package manager to do the update for you automatically.
Also a lot of modern games require the original media in the drive, which means if you want to play on the road you need to carry a stack of DVDs around with you, and be sure not to lose them. You can often get NoCD cracks, but then your left hunting for a new crack each time you try to update, and sometimes the presence of a crack breaks online play.
And then when actually running games, random problems often occur, sometimes patches fix these and sometimes there arent any patches. Game publishers often don't support their games for very long, so you soon stop getting patches while bugs remain unfixed. There's also often forums dealing with these issues, and sometimes editing game files or registry entries can solve problems, but you have to read the forums to find this out.
So yes, wine can be problematic, but so can gaming in windows. You often end up with problems and bugs either way. The difference is that for pretty much any typical non gaming task linux is far better, it just provides you more freedom to get things done in the way you want, while not forcing you to worry about spyware/viruses/etc and the associated performance hit of having all this stuff running... Plus you get all your apps and the os supported by your distro and updated with a single tool.
The most problem-free games i have found btw, are the open source ones (older quake/doom, tuxracer, taspring, freeciv etc, ones which arent in early stages of development) which you can install and keep updated using your system's package manager. Browsing to the "games" section of your package manager, selecting a few and hitting install is much easier than fussing around with DVDs...
Me too, i only occasionally play games, and then under Linux or OSX...
I do own several games consoles, but i don't get enough free time to play them... The only time i do get some free time, is when i'm away somewhere on business where i have an OSX or Linux based laptop.
With open source drivers on linux, and closed source drivers on windows... If the windows drivers continue to be as poor as they've been in the past, coupled with vista's high demands on hardware, performance on linux will easily beat out windows on the same ATI hardware...
This will probably end up with some hard-core gamers using linux at least for the games which run on it (ut, quake etc) to get the few extra fps.
What is the point of rebates anyway?
why not just lower the price in the first place... Cut the admin overhead and hassle for the customer.
Remember that these are communications satellites.... And they last 15 years usually...
They could have built more expensive satellites in the first place, to last longer, but why bother? Communications technology changes a lot in 15 years, i wouldnt be surprised if many of the satelites up there werent even in active use for the full 15 years before being replaced with a more modern device.
Yes, rewrites are good and necessary... But they really should give a period of time between the standard being finalised, and compliance being required (ie the old one is deprecated)...
They should also make new standards as compatible with old ones as possible, to make it easier to transition... HTML is a good example of this, an old browser will render newer versions of HTML and display the content but lose some of the layout/formatting...
I've never used windows mobile enough to notice it crash, what it did do was get on my nerves greatly...
It's interface is designed for use on a PDA, with a stylus or other pointing device, it really doesnt work well on a phone, especially when you lose the stylus (which is pathetically easy to do).
I prefer phone interfaces which can be operated easily with 1 hand, like virtually all old mobile phones, and the blackberry pearl is working very nicely as a smartphone for me.
IBM and Sony have both released drivers for Linux/PPC... Do they not constitute hardware manufacturers?
Admittedly, they mostly did the right thing and released them as patches to the mainline kernel.
PPC and Sparc workstations are not commodity devices... If you buy such a device from IBM/Sun, then the respective vendor will have made sure it comes with a compatible video card.
ARM is really only used for low-power situations, where you'd also want to couple it with a low power video chipset (if any at all). Although highend videocards offload a lot of the processing, they don't offload it all so you still need a reasonably performant CPU to go along with it.
You want to be able to access it from anywhere (this means public terminals in airports, cafes etc), almost all of which have a browser but very few have ssh or the ability to install your own mail client.
Although, modern smartphones are making this idea somewhat redundant.
They won't want to lose the level of lockin the os gives them...
Their lockin on office formats is already heavily threatened, if they fail to get OOXML ratified by ISO then there will be an even stronger push towards ODF. Once they lose the lockin, their customers will drop like flies.
There are plenty of free programs for creating flash content...
OpenOffice can export to flash for one...
There are flash libraries for PHP i believe too, so you can dynamically generate flash content.
But seriously, how many PPC workstations get sold nowadays?
Especially ones with slots able to take new videocards...
It's such a small niche that it's probably not worth it for AMD to pursue.
Exactly, it should never have got this far...
It's only the constant pushing, bullying and bribery from microsoft thats got it this far
Supporting PPC makes even less sense now that AMD owns ATI...
Why would they want to support their cards on a processor type they don't produce?
Are there multiple standards? I always thought ISO was against having multiple standards for the same thing...
1250 standards a year doesnt imply overlap, there are many things which need to be standardised, lots of which seem rather petty to people outside of their own industry...
But where would we be without standardised measurements etc?
OpenOffice doesn't actually fully implement ODF yet, some parts of the format have still not been implemented and there are some parts that koffice for instance implements but openoffice does not...
HTML is perfectly reliable to render accurately, HTML is just a hinting engine and not a fixed layout engine (try pdf for that), html has to adapt to the size of the output device. What your thinking about, is more to do with bugs in browsers and poorly written HTML. All of the HTML i've written renders the same in all major graphical browsers except msie.
The "backwards compatibility" talk is all FUD really...
Backwards compatibility should be handled by the converter, and shouldn't pollute the format itself.
IBM mainframes still use EBDIC...
Do you have a link to any instructions on how to debrand it? And will this definately restore the SIP client functionality?