Strange... my Pentium-M 1.4GHz has no such problems as you describe. Of course, a P-M@1.4 is faster than a P4 based Celeron at 2.3GHz. (Mine compares equal to slightly better than a P-4M 2.2GHz laptop).
Re:x86 architecture still alive thanks to AMD.
on
Crossroads for Intel
·
· Score: 2
Actually, the main reason why the Pentium-M is considered a success is because it offers very respectible performance at very low power requirements. It was designed for laptops and blades.
The Pentium-M has a number of very interesting technologies. For example, in lower power states, it can actually turn off parts of its caches to save power (effectively meaning it has smaller caches at lower power).
The only thing the Pentium-M isn't strong (strong being measured by computational power per clock speed) in is FPU performance (again, a power saving compromise). Still... my Pentium-M 1.4GHz laptop can equal a Pentium-4M 2.2GHz (actually, it's just a smidgen faster than it) doing things like mp3 encoding using LAME. At integer work, I think it is even faster.
A French site overclocked a Pentium-M a while back and showed that clock for clock, it is as fast or faster than an Athlon 64 on most things integer intensive but slower at FPU (32-bit software, of course) and that is with a slower bus to memory (they jumped it up to 533MHz QDR - DDR266 memory compared to the A64's DDR400) and no on-die memory controller while consuming less than 1/2 the power.
I'd love to see Pentium-M EM64T CPUs out for the desktop (with a beefed up FPU subsystem).
Microsoft didn't say they would "never fix it". They said that a patch isn't yet available and here is a workaround (like that's never happened in F/OSS before...) until a patch is ready. In any case, it isn't rewriting your whole application and the fix is pretty easy and even after a patch is provided, the "work around code" will still work fine and have correct behavior.
Geesh... some folks will jump onto any bandwagon that comes down the street.
This works to a point, but what do you say when they ask about playing Halo, or The Sims, or something like that? The #1 use of computers at home is for entertainment (which includes surfing the web) and email. Linux has a good http and email story but severely lacks in games. So, most home users who aren't techies see Linux as something that lets them do email, lets them surf the web, but doesn't let them play their games. So, for them, migrating to Linux actually cuts down on the things that they can do with their computer. That is not very attractive.
Yup... I saw one (well, at least the case of it... there was speculation if there was anything inside it) at SuperComputing. IIRC, it looked kind of like a giant piece of cake that a giant sat down on one side of it.
Re:right.. but what happened to Tera?!
on
Cray XD1 Now Available
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Tera's MTA isn't exactly like HyperThreading. HyperThreading looks at (currently two) threads and sees which instructions from each stream it can schedule each clock. MTA was more like round-robin scheduling of threads on a per-clock basis. At each clock N, it scheduled an instruction from thread N, on clock N+1, it scheduled an instruction from thread N+1. In other words, if your process had only one thread, and the MTA processor ran at 1GHz and had 128 "threads", then your process ran as if it were on a single threaded 8MHz CPU.
I agree with you, but I also like to add that while they *do* have a right to free speech, I also have the right to not listen (or not want to listen) and not place myself somewhere where their "free speech" is going on. This is even before we get into the topic of a telemarketer calling me on *my* phone to interrupt whatever I'm doing.
Subjective. If OO.o doesn't have a feature that MSOffice has, but that feature is required to complete some task, then OO.o isn't superior to anything.
I use OO.o on my home machines because my wife's and my document creation needs aren't that complicated and it's free. We also use it at work for the same reasons.
Being "superior" depends on a lot. If I graded on startup times, OO.o would get a failing grade, for instance. On my Athlon 64 3000+, for example, I can sometimes forget that I actually started OO.o to write something because it takes so long to come up.
Last time I checked, the need to use shells were the biggest fear of your typical user..bashrc is out.
Doesn't.bashrc get loaded when you log in, even if logging in through xdm or something? If not, there *is* some way of loading up stuff depending on your GUI. Just figure out if you're in KDE or Gnome and put yourself in the session restore script (like when you log in, the windows you had open before are opened for you again automatically). If not there, then there is *some* way to do it. All you have to do is get them to run the trojan one time. Anyway, it *is* possible, even if a little work. The main reasons why these things are written for Linux are: 1) Not enough of an impact even if you did write one. (Too small of a percentage of the computers out there) 2) Unless you really spend a lot of time writing it, it's easily diagnosed and fixed because the user base of Linux right now are mostly tech-savvy. The majority of the Windows user base is not tech-savvy. 3) People aren't going to write these things for Linux because I think most of the virii writers are pro-Linux and they don't want to create bad PR for Linux, they want to create bad PR for Windows.
Another place where we've played tricks on folks is to make a directory in their home called... and then put what you want in there. When we played tricks on folks, we'd move all of their home directory contents into there, so when they 'ls' nothing shows up, but nothing is lost because it was just moved.
Well... do it the way that happens most of the time on a Windows box. Have a non-tech savvy user run some application from the web or from an email. That application is a trojan or an "installer" that copies the spyware to a file named something not readily noticable at first glance, like something called..bashrc. Modify the user's.bashrc so that the first thing it does is run the ~/..bashrc, but you can do it in such a way that it looks like it's supposed to be there (throw a couple ENV vars into the invocation to confuse the non-tech savvy, for example). Now you have a program that will run every time a shell is started.
a) should read: Windows should fix the problems that allow such programs to be necessary.
Maybe this is the fix that you mention? In any case, spyware isn't limited to only Windows. It'd be easy to write one for just about anything if it were worth the time. Windows has them because everybody has Windows. There's no point in writing one for, say, the C64 because so few people use them on a daily basis.
Well... here is something else that people say: a) Windows should provide it because it's their responsibility to be secure b) Windows bundling anti-spyware software puts anti-spyware folks out of business because no one will buy it because the bundled is too easy to just use it.
So... yet another case where Microsoft will be damned if they do it and damned if they don't. I'm sure it will be feed for all the "M$" bashers no matter which way it goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange... my Pentium-M 1.4GHz has no such problems as you describe. Of course, a P-M@1.4 is faster than a P4 based Celeron at 2.3GHz. (Mine compares equal to slightly better than a P-4M 2.2GHz laptop).
I've always had my taskbar on the right hand vertical side of the screen. I can put a ton of windows/apps over there and not be cramped.
However, I usually don't have more than 20 or so apps open at a time.
0 ????
-1 Profit!!!
Actually, the main reason why the Pentium-M is considered a success is because it offers very respectible performance at very low power requirements. It was designed for laptops and blades.
The Pentium-M has a number of very interesting technologies. For example, in lower power states, it can actually turn off parts of its caches to save power (effectively meaning it has smaller caches at lower power).
The only thing the Pentium-M isn't strong (strong being measured by computational power per clock speed) in is FPU performance (again, a power saving compromise). Still... my Pentium-M 1.4GHz laptop can equal a Pentium-4M 2.2GHz (actually, it's just a smidgen faster than it) doing things like mp3 encoding using LAME. At integer work, I think it is even faster.
A French site overclocked a Pentium-M a while back and showed that clock for clock, it is as fast or faster than an Athlon 64 on most things integer intensive but slower at FPU (32-bit software, of course) and that is with a slower bus to memory (they jumped it up to 533MHz QDR - DDR266 memory compared to the A64's DDR400) and no on-die memory controller while consuming less than 1/2 the power.
I'd love to see Pentium-M EM64T CPUs out for the desktop (with a beefed up FPU subsystem).
I do this a bit as well and have found it to be a good approach.
Yeah but we all know the FBI isn't going to be stopped by small things like jurisdictional issues.
Yeah... whoever heard of things like cooperation among multi-national police agencies or any of them newfangledy legal words like extradition.
Hi...
Microsoft didn't say they would "never fix it". They said that a patch isn't yet available and here is a workaround (like that's never happened in F/OSS before...) until a patch is ready. In any case, it isn't rewriting your whole application and the fix is pretty easy and even after a patch is provided, the "work around code" will still work fine and have correct behavior.
Geesh... some folks will jump onto any bandwagon that comes down the street.
Do we look alike? ;)
I am not. I run it on an Athlon 64 3000+ sitting on an MSI Neo FSR K8T800 board.
Just another ++ for SuSE 9.1 Professional AMD64. I run it as well.
This works to a point, but what do you say when they ask about playing Halo, or The Sims, or something like that? The #1 use of computers at home is for entertainment (which includes surfing the web) and email. Linux has a good http and email story but severely lacks in games. So, most home users who aren't techies see Linux as something that lets them do email, lets them surf the web, but doesn't let them play their games. So, for them, migrating to Linux actually cuts down on the things that they can do with their computer. That is not very attractive.
I know Intel have x86_64 compatibility planned.
It's more than planned. You can buy one from Dell right now if you want. Dell's been selling them for a month or more.
Yup... I saw one (well, at least the case of it... there was speculation if there was anything inside it) at SuperComputing. IIRC, it looked kind of like a giant piece of cake that a giant sat down on one side of it.
Tera's MTA isn't exactly like HyperThreading. HyperThreading looks at (currently two) threads and sees which instructions from each stream it can schedule each clock. MTA was more like round-robin scheduling of threads on a per-clock basis. At each clock N, it scheduled an instruction from thread N, on clock N+1, it scheduled an instruction from thread N+1. In other words, if your process had only one thread, and the MTA processor ran at 1GHz and had 128 "threads", then your process ran as if it were on a single threaded 8MHz CPU.
... I think the goal is to do it with as few vehicles as possible...
I agree with you, but I also like to add that while they *do* have a right to free speech, I also have the right to not listen (or not want to listen) and not place myself somewhere where their "free speech" is going on. This is even before we get into the topic of a telemarketer calling me on *my* phone to interrupt whatever I'm doing.
is FAR superior to MS Office,
Subjective. If OO.o doesn't have a feature that MSOffice has, but that feature is required to complete some task, then OO.o isn't superior to anything.
I use OO.o on my home machines because my wife's and my document creation needs aren't that complicated and it's free. We also use it at work for the same reasons.
Being "superior" depends on a lot. If I graded on startup times, OO.o would get a failing grade, for instance. On my Athlon 64 3000+, for example, I can sometimes forget that I actually started OO.o to write something because it takes so long to come up.
Sounds like it's time to start voting for the Monster Raving Loonies!
Last time I checked, the need to use shells were the biggest fear of your typical user. .bashrc is out.
.bashrc get loaded when you log in, even if logging in through xdm or something? If not, there *is* some way of loading up stuff depending on your GUI. Just figure out if you're in KDE or Gnome and put yourself in the session restore script (like when you log in, the windows you had open before are opened for you again automatically). If not there, then there is *some* way to do it. All you have to do is get them to run the trojan one time. Anyway, it *is* possible, even if a little work. The main reasons why these things are written for Linux are:
Doesn't
1) Not enough of an impact even if you did write one. (Too small of a percentage of the computers out there)
2) Unless you really spend a lot of time writing it, it's easily diagnosed and fixed because the user base of Linux right now are mostly tech-savvy. The majority of the Windows user base is not tech-savvy.
3) People aren't going to write these things for Linux because I think most of the virii writers are pro-Linux and they don't want to create bad PR for Linux, they want to create bad PR for Windows.
Another place where we've played tricks on folks is to make a directory in their home called ... and then put what you want in there. When we played tricks on folks, we'd move all of their home directory contents into there, so when they 'ls' nothing shows up, but nothing is lost because it was just moved.
Well... do it the way that happens most of the time on a Windows box. Have a non-tech savvy user run some application from the web or from an email. That application is a trojan or an "installer" that copies the spyware to a file named something not readily noticable at first glance, like something called ..bashrc. Modify the user's .bashrc so that the first thing it does is run the ~/..bashrc, but you can do it in such a way that it looks like it's supposed to be there (throw a couple ENV vars into the invocation to confuse the non-tech savvy, for example). Now you have a program that will run every time a shell is started.
a) should read: Windows should fix the problems that allow such programs to be necessary.
Maybe this is the fix that you mention? In any case, spyware isn't limited to only Windows. It'd be easy to write one for just about anything if it were worth the time. Windows has them because everybody has Windows. There's no point in writing one for, say, the C64 because so few people use them on a daily basis.
Well... here is something else that people say:
a) Windows should provide it because it's their responsibility to be secure
b) Windows bundling anti-spyware software puts anti-spyware folks out of business because no one will buy it because the bundled is too easy to just use it.
So... yet another case where Microsoft will be damned if they do it and damned if they don't. I'm sure it will be feed for all the "M$" bashers no matter which way it goes.
decide to enter an erms race with you.
Gotta fear them erms... They have big pointy teeth and an 9-cylinder 6.28318L engine with a 4.5 speed tranny.
Makes me want to jump on a space ship and emigrate to another planet.
Like these guys?