The answer is probably that hardware virtualization is simply easier to implement. MS wanted to get the feature out of the door and to customers. They probably expect that a large number of Windows 7 users are on newer hardware likely to have VT. Then later updated the software to support software based virtualization in order to allow it to function for more people.
Adding features (in this case software virtualization support) through updates is hardly newsworthy...
Why compromise and have the installer have a checkbox for "advanced tools?" 99% of people will blindly click next without checking it, they won't get it, the other 1% will actually read what is being asked of them and possibly install it.
Seems like it would be simple to include it without bloating things at all.
Complete BS, PAE isn't a hack, in fact the way paging is done on x86-64 is designed very similarly to 32-bit with PAE, using an extra layer of indirection as PAE does. (Yes your 64-bit CPU actually likely has 48-bit's of **physical** memory).
Also, you are completely ignoring things like disk cache, which can massively improve system performance. Sure no **single** application will be able to use all of that memory, but the system as a whole can easily get that high if it has the RAM to work with.
For example, I have a Linux box with 4GB of RAM using a 32-bit with PAE kernel. Routinely after a few hours my disk cache is upwards of 3GB. The system is noticeably faster once the disk cache is populated vs immediately after startup.
Take a look at the Intel docs, PAE isn't a hack in any way.
How about converting the fleet to all electric (or at least hybrids). Having 14,000 cars producing less air pollution would likely significantly improve the air quality. In addition it would likely help with reducing building corrosion.
I remember when in 1986 when I used to get blisters on my hands from playing NES for too long. My family called it "Nintendo thumb." Nothing really noteworthy here, if you tightly grab a piece of plastic with sweaty hands for hours on end while rapidly shifting the pressure around...you get blisters. Not exactly a medical mystery.
It's not quite that simple. It's a matter of trade off between what a few people want and how my time is best utilized. Yes, there is *some* demand for the feature. But it also hasn't received enough votes for me feel the feature is really needed. If enough people voted for the feature, I'd certainly reconsider.
Also, at this point in KDE4 there are several other calculators which are perfect for simple uses (one is the calculator plasmoid which is very nice for quick math).
actually there are two modes of operation (as the grandparent said). There is "standard" which works like an off the shelf cheap calculator. This mode *ignores* order of operations by design, because that's what cheap non-scientific calculators do!.
In scientific mode, it will properly use order of operations.
Funny enough, I do some contributing to kcalc for KDE and having a mode which ignore orders of operators to make it work like a "real calculator" is a relatively frequent request. I'm not a fan of this idea, so I never did it...but there is a demand for it.
Usually slashdot editors do a *decent* job. Sure sometimes they do a sub-par just, but who doesn't. This article on the other hand has a terrible summary. If a reader (such as me) is not familiar with what "long-tail" means, it is impossible to find out without following links to other pages.
At first glance I thought the article was talking about evolution, but that didn't make much sense. Then blockbusters were brought up and I got even more confused. Finally I decided to follow the link to the original article to find out what the heck they were talking about.
A summary should give a reader a basic idea of the article, and this time they failed miserably.
Running Crysis isn't the point of the demo. The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero. THAT's the point.
They are trying to address the main complaint of the "Vista Capable" debacle. Running Crysis was just a way of demonstrating the capability.
Running Crysis isn't the point of the demo. The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero. THAT's the point.
They are trying to address the main complaint of the "Vista Capable" debacle. Running Crysis was just a way of demonstrating the capability.
Who cares? Do you want to go out creating more videophiles? Does this world lack enough audiophiles for you? Side by side, I can tell the difference, but most content on television is not actually improved by increased bitrates or resolutions. Sitcoms and dramas, in particular -- you don't need to see the flaws of the actors' and actress' faces, in fact, they distract. The only time HD matters is sports and special effects laden movies.
It's not a matter of being a videophile, it's a matter of SD TV literally being "blurry" in comparison. It's not like MP3's where the convenience of usage far outweighs the loss in quality. I simply don't want to feel like I need glasses every time I look at the screen.
I would say that I did do my relative a favor because he was able to enjoy the game more. I don't expect him to go out and invest in a new TV. I doubt he cares that much. But at least when he in my neck of the woods, he'll be able to enjoy his games just a little bit more.
As for general TV not being enhanced much by HD. That's a matter of opinion and I disagree 100%. It once again is an issue of quality. I simply don't enjoy watching something that makes me feel like I am not seeing clearly.
There is something that they aren't accounting for. People (especially less tech savvy people) not realizing that they aren't watching HD, they just assume if it's on a newer plasma/lcd, then it's HD.
For example, I have a relative who was watching football today on my cousin's plasma. He of course tuned to the channel he gets at home (CBS), the non-HD version. Simply because he had no idea that verizon offers HD versions of pretty much all basic cable just by going to channels above 500 in my area.
At some point, it occurred to me that the picture didn't quite look up to snuff, so I asked him what channel he was on (since often SD os broadcast on HD channels because the original signal was SD), he said 7. I said "a-ha! you should switch to the HD version of this channel!".
He was confused, but told me to go for it. He was *amazed* at the difference in clarity. He said claimed it looked like he was down on the field.
Not being able to tell the difference is very difference from not knowing there is a difference available.
I would wager that if you put the 2 screen side by side, one showing the signal in true HD and the other in SD. Anyone without vision problems can tell the difference.
"Known methods of producing antimatter from energy also produce an equal amount of normal matter, so the theoretical limit is that half of the input energy is converted to antimatter. Counterbalancing this, when antimatter annihilates with ordinary matter, energy equal to twice the mass of the antimatter is liberatedâ"so energy storage in the form of antimatter could (in theory) be 100% efficient."
So it seems that since creating anti-matter also creates matter, you are only getting half of what you "paid" for in anti-matter back. Thus when you use it to annihilate regular matter, there is nothing to gain since you put in 2x the energy for the mass of anti-matter you got.
You are probably right, so I'm not asking this out of disagreement, but more curiosity.
Isn't the energy emitted going to be from the annihilation of *both* the matter and anti-matter?
So since the reaction only requires that you expend energy in creating the anti-matter. (I know there is overhead and inefficiencies but i'm simplifying for discussion sake).
In the end, we've gotten the energy from 2 * MC^2, but only payed for MC^2. Since ordinary matter is abundant and a natural resource (your requirement for it being a first energy source).
So, my question really boils down to can't the *regular* matter be first source and the anti-matter simply be what releases this energy?
you say: "The amount of energy released in this annihilation is equal to the amount used to create the positrons in the first place." Why isn't it equal to 2x the mass (both matter and anti-matter)?
I don't necessarily think you are wrong here, but I have a doubt. The reason why is that you wouldn't necessarily be "gaining" energy if you got more out than you put in, because you are simply releasing the energy of the destroyed mass.
As long as the energy required to create the positrons is less than MC^2 (and I would imagine it would be) since anti-matter/matter has a approximate 100% mass to energy conversion, then there should be a net "gain".
Once again, I don't there energy is being "created" here, but more that the energy of the destroy matter is being released.
Similar to how nuclear bombs can produce many many megatons of explosive power from a small catalyst. That too is just releasing the energy in the mass.
Now, making anywhere near efficient use of this energy in anything besides an explosion (bomb/rockets) is another and very important issue.
Though I do agree that P2P can't replace broadcast television especially in HD, you are missing a key point.
The thing about things like BT, is that the minimum amount of time you need to spend uploading a copy is the time it takes to upload *one* copy. Here's why.
Suppose there are 3 people (A, B, and C). A is the source of the material.
A wants to upload a movie which has 16 segments, and for clarity, A will upload serially.
A uploads portion 1 to B A uploads portion 2 to C etc.. A uploads portion 15 to B A uploads portion 16 to C
B and C can get the pieces they are missing from *each other*. A need not be involved. It gets way better with more peers too. This is because protocols like BT exploit that fact that the vast majority of users can have download bandwidth significantly larger than their upload bandwidth.
Like I said, I agree that P2P can't replace broadcast, but unfortunately, your argument isn't sound.
cnnsi works perfect for me (firefox 3.0.3 in gentoo linux) and at5.nl didn't have any flash content which overlapped with anything (the menus were nowhere near the flash content).
I dunno why i doesn't work for you guys' configurations.
So did they fix the *really* annoying problem where on linux firefox configurations that flash objects appear ontop of *everything* else in the page? This annoyance has made many pages very much un-usable (especially ones with drop down menus where the menu gets hidden behind the flash object:(...adobe's own site fits into this catagory).
Not true, with PAE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) the hard limit is 64GB of physical memory (though it is still 4GB of virtual address space).
Unfortunately, Windows XP/Vista 32-bit Desktop Editions only use PAE to access features like DEP and ignore RAM found above the 4GB mark for compatibility with poorly written drives that assume all RAM is suitable for 32-bit DMA.
Fail! The desktop editions of Windows XP and Vista will ignore any RAM found above 4GB (that's the RAM displaced by your video card and other memory mapped devices) even with PAE enabled for compatibility reasons.
PAE from a hardware point of view allows up to 64GB of physical RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is probably that hardware virtualization is simply easier to implement. MS wanted to get the feature out of the door and to customers. They probably expect that a large number of Windows 7 users are on newer hardware likely to have VT. Then later updated the software to support software based virtualization in order to allow it to function for more people.
Adding features (in this case software virtualization support) through updates is hardly newsworthy...
Why compromise and have the installer have a checkbox for "advanced tools?" 99% of people will blindly click next without checking it, they won't get it, the other 1% will actually read what is being asked of them and possibly install it.
Seems like it would be simple to include it without bloating things at all.
Any word on it being available on the other platforms MM9 was available for? I love MM9, but I'm not exactly gonna go and buy a Wii just to play MM10
Complete BS, PAE isn't a hack, in fact the way paging is done on x86-64 is designed very similarly to 32-bit with PAE, using an extra layer of indirection as PAE does. (Yes your 64-bit CPU actually likely has 48-bit's of **physical** memory).
Also, you are completely ignoring things like disk cache, which can massively improve system performance. Sure no **single** application will be able to use all of that memory, but the system as a whole can easily get that high if it has the RAM to work with.
For example, I have a Linux box with 4GB of RAM using a 32-bit with PAE kernel. Routinely after a few hours my disk cache is upwards of 3GB. The system is noticeably faster once the disk cache is populated vs immediately after startup.
Take a look at the Intel docs, PAE isn't a hack in any way.
How about converting the fleet to all electric (or at least hybrids). Having 14,000 cars producing less air pollution would likely significantly improve the air quality. In addition it would likely help with reducing building corrosion.
you do realize that the -moz-* ARE allowed given the spec and that webkit has similar (i think they do -webkit-* and khtml does -html-*).
Basically part of that standard says that the browser may provide extentions with the format --*.
I remember when in 1986 when I used to get blisters on my hands from playing NES for too long. My family called it "Nintendo thumb." Nothing really noteworthy here, if you tightly grab a piece of plastic with sweaty hands for hours on end while rapidly shifting the pressure around...you get blisters. Not exactly a medical mystery.
It's not quite that simple. It's a matter of trade off between what a few people want and how my time is best utilized. Yes, there is *some* demand for the feature. But it also hasn't received enough votes for me feel the feature is really needed. If enough people voted for the feature, I'd certainly reconsider.
Also, at this point in KDE4 there are several other calculators which are perfect for simple uses (one is the calculator plasmoid which is very nice for quick math).
actually there are two modes of operation (as the grandparent said). There is "standard" which works like an off the shelf cheap calculator. This mode *ignores* order of operations by design, because that's what cheap non-scientific calculators do!.
In scientific mode, it will properly use order of operations.
Funny enough, I do some contributing to kcalc for KDE and having a mode which ignore orders of operators to make it work like a "real calculator" is a relatively frequent request. I'm not a fan of this idea, so I never did it...but there is a demand for it.
Usually slashdot editors do a *decent* job. Sure sometimes they do a sub-par just, but who doesn't.
This article on the other hand has a terrible summary. If a reader (such as me) is not familiar with what "long-tail" means, it is impossible to find out without following links to other pages.
At first glance I thought the article was talking about evolution, but that didn't make much sense. Then blockbusters were brought up and I got even more confused. Finally I decided to follow the link to the original article to find out what the heck they were talking about.
A summary should give a reader a basic idea of the article, and this time they failed miserably.
Like I said, you can do better.
As I said in another post:
Running Crysis isn't the point of the demo. The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero. THAT's the point.
They are trying to address the main complaint of the "Vista Capable" debacle. Running Crysis was just a way of demonstrating the capability.
Running Crysis isn't the point of the demo. The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero. THAT's the point.
They are trying to address the main complaint of the "Vista Capable" debacle. Running Crysis was just a way of demonstrating the capability.
Who cares? Do you want to go out creating more videophiles? Does this world lack enough audiophiles for you? Side by side, I can tell the difference, but most content on television is not actually improved by increased bitrates or resolutions. Sitcoms and dramas, in particular -- you don't need to see the flaws of the actors' and actress' faces, in fact, they distract. The only time HD matters is sports and special effects laden movies.
It's not a matter of being a videophile, it's a matter of SD TV literally being "blurry" in comparison. It's not like MP3's where the convenience of usage far outweighs the loss in quality. I simply don't want to feel like I need glasses every time I look at the screen.
I would say that I did do my relative a favor because he was able to enjoy the game more. I don't expect him to go out and invest in a new TV. I doubt he cares that much. But at least when he in my neck of the woods, he'll be able to enjoy his games just a little bit more.
As for general TV not being enhanced much by HD. That's a matter of opinion and I disagree 100%. It once again is an issue of quality. I simply don't enjoy watching something that makes me feel like I am not seeing clearly.
There is something that they aren't accounting for. People (especially less tech savvy people) not realizing that they aren't watching HD, they just assume if it's on a newer plasma/lcd, then it's HD.
For example, I have a relative who was watching football today on my cousin's plasma. He of course tuned to the channel he gets at home (CBS), the non-HD version. Simply because he had no idea that verizon offers HD versions of pretty much all basic cable just by going to channels above 500 in my area.
At some point, it occurred to me that the picture didn't quite look up to snuff, so I asked him what channel he was on (since often SD os broadcast on HD channels because the original signal was SD), he said 7. I said "a-ha! you should switch to the HD version of this channel!".
He was confused, but told me to go for it. He was *amazed* at the difference in clarity. He said claimed it looked like he was down on the field.
Not being able to tell the difference is very difference from not knowing there is a difference available.
I would wager that if you put the 2 screen side by side, one showing the signal in true HD and the other in SD. Anyone without vision problems can tell the difference.
Ah wikipedia clarified it for me:
"Known methods of producing antimatter from energy also produce an equal amount of normal matter, so the theoretical limit is that half of the input energy is converted to antimatter. Counterbalancing this, when antimatter annihilates with ordinary matter, energy equal to twice the mass of the antimatter is liberatedâ"so energy storage in the form of antimatter could (in theory) be 100% efficient."
So it seems that since creating anti-matter also creates matter, you are only getting half of what you "paid" for in anti-matter back. Thus when you use it to annihilate regular matter, there is nothing to gain since you put in 2x the energy for the mass of anti-matter you got.
You are probably right, so I'm not asking this out of disagreement, but more curiosity.
Isn't the energy emitted going to be from the annihilation of *both* the matter and anti-matter?
So since the reaction only requires that you expend energy in creating the anti-matter. (I know there is overhead and inefficiencies but i'm simplifying for discussion sake).
In the end, we've gotten the energy from 2 * MC^2, but only payed for MC^2. Since ordinary matter is abundant and a natural resource (your requirement for it being a first energy source).
So, my question really boils down to can't the *regular* matter be first source and the anti-matter simply be what releases this energy?
you say: "The amount of energy released in this annihilation is equal to the amount used to create the positrons in the first place." Why isn't it equal to 2x the mass (both matter and anti-matter)?
Maybe I'm missing something.
except that anti-matter/matter collisions have a FAR more efficient conversion to energy so you need much less of it.
I believe you are mistaken. Everything I've hear suggests that a teaspoon of the stuff could level a city.
I don't necessarily think you are wrong here, but I have a doubt. The reason why is that you wouldn't necessarily be "gaining" energy if you got more out than you put in, because you are simply releasing the energy of the destroyed mass.
As long as the energy required to create the positrons is less than MC^2 (and I would imagine it would be) since anti-matter/matter has a approximate 100% mass to energy conversion, then there should be a net "gain".
Once again, I don't there energy is being "created" here, but more that the energy of the destroy matter is being released.
Similar to how nuclear bombs can produce many many megatons of explosive power from a small catalyst. That too is just releasing the energy in the mass.
Now, making anywhere near efficient use of this energy in anything besides an explosion (bomb/rockets) is another and very important issue.
Though I do agree that P2P can't replace broadcast television especially in HD, you are missing a key point.
The thing about things like BT, is that the minimum amount of time you need to spend uploading a copy is the time it takes to upload *one* copy. Here's why.
Suppose there are 3 people (A, B, and C). A is the source of the material.
A wants to upload a movie which has 16 segments, and for clarity, A will upload serially.
A uploads portion 1 to B
A uploads portion 2 to C
etc..
A uploads portion 15 to B
A uploads portion 16 to C
B and C can get the pieces they are missing from *each other*. A need not be involved. It gets way better with more peers too. This is because protocols like BT exploit that fact that the vast majority of users can have download bandwidth significantly larger than their upload bandwidth.
Like I said, I agree that P2P can't replace broadcast, but unfortunately, your argument isn't sound.
cnnsi works perfect for me (firefox 3.0.3 in gentoo linux) and at5.nl didn't have any flash content which overlapped with anything (the menus were nowhere near the flash content).
I dunno why i doesn't work for you guys' configurations.
OK, Just in case anyone was about to answer...the answer is *YES*. Finally flash is useable on all sites it was intended to be!
So did they fix the *really* annoying problem where on linux firefox configurations that flash objects appear ontop of *everything* else in the page? This annoyance has made many pages very much un-usable (especially ones with drop down menus where the menu gets hidden behind the flash object :( ...adobe's own site fits into this catagory).
Not true, with PAE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) the hard limit is 64GB of physical memory (though it is still 4GB of virtual address space).
Unfortunately, Windows XP/Vista 32-bit Desktop Editions only use PAE to access features like DEP and ignore RAM found above the 4GB mark for compatibility with poorly written drives that assume all RAM is suitable for 32-bit DMA.
Fail! The desktop editions of Windows XP and Vista will ignore any RAM found above 4GB (that's the RAM displaced by your video card and other memory mapped devices) even with PAE enabled for compatibility reasons.
PAE from a hardware point of view allows up to 64GB of physical RAM.
check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista.
Notice how only the server editions have numbers > 4GB and guess what, that "physical memory" is both RAM and memory mapped devices.